K.CHANDRU
Tessy John – Appellant
Versus
The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai & Others – Respondent
I have heard the arguments of Mr. V. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the respondents, and have perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the owner of the property in Survey No. 56/1A part of Perungudi Village measuring an extent of 44 cents. She had purchased the same as agricultural land by means of a registered sale deed dated 05. 1981 from one Smt. U. Lakshmi. The petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. She also obtained patta in her name for the land in question and the Survey Number was re-numbered as 56/16C. Out of the total extent purchased by her, she sold an extent of 4 grounds to a third party and the remaining lands were in her possession. When she applied for a computerised copy of the patta, she was informed by the Village Administrative Officer that the land in Survey No. 56/1A Part had been acquired by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978. Thereafter, she approached the second respondent for certified copy of the order and accordingly, she got the same. She found that the entire extent of land in Survey Nos.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.