A sale of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit is null and void under S. 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.

1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is one for issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No. A3/4878/79 culminating in the Notification No. VI (1)/743/82 dated 2.7.1982 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Part VI Section 1) on 14.7.1982 and the consequent notification No. VI(1)/844/2 dated 29.7.1982 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Part VI Section 1) on 11.8.1982 and to quash the same and consequently release the lands in question belonging to the petitioner from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978. The first respondent is the Government of Tamil Nadu, the second respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Egmore, Madras and the third respondent is one Shanmugam. The petitioner died later and his legal representatives have been impleaded as petitioners 2 to 6. The fourth respondent got impleaded as a party to the writ petition on a petition of his own in W.M.P. No. 22505 of 1992 by order dated 16.10.1992.

2. The property, which is the subject matter of the impugned proceedings forming part of the larger extent of property belonged to one Thirunavukkarasu, who died on 29.3.1967. He left his wife Rajagopalammal, his only son Shanmugasundaram, who is described as Shanmugam in the writ petition (third respondent) and a daughter Kamakshi. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased had urban lands of an extent of 64 grounds. It is also the case of the petitioner that the property belonged to the joint family and on the death of Thirunavukkarasu the property came to be owned by his wife, son and daughter. It is the further case that the son the third respondent herein, was entitled to 42 grounds whereas the ladies were entitled to 11 grounds each. Of course, there is no record Before me to decide whether the property belonged to the joint family and whether the third respondent was entitled to 42 grounds. When that is the case of the petitioner, it is not necessary to probe on that matter further, as the petitioner has to fail even on that footing. The only other case is that the property devolved on all the three of them equally and each of them got 21 grounds each. Even on that footing, the case will have to fail. Hence it is not necessary to consider any further as to whether the property is joint family property or the individual property of the deceased Thirunavukkarasu.

3. It is stated that in 1971 and 1975, the third respondent sold about seven grounds of land under two sale deeds, which were specific plots forming part of a layout. Though it is claimed that the layout was approved by the authorities concerned, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that there was an approved layout. Hence, I have to proceed on the footing that there was no approved layout. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not sustain his contention that there was an all approved layout.

4. The third respondent entered into an agreement on 10.1.74 with the petitioner herein for selling an extent of 3 grounds and 20 Sq. ft., in R.S. No. 143/1 for consideration of Rs. 48,133/-. The recital in the agreement is that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- had been paid by the petitioner towards certain debts owned by the third respondent to State Bank of India and the balance payable was Rs. 8,133/-. Clause 8 of the agreement is relevant. It reads that without prejudice to the right of the purchaser to recover the advances paid, it was open to the purchaser at his option to sue for specific performance of the agreement.

5. The petitioner filed C.S. No. 202 of 1974 on the original side of this Court in October 1974 praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 60,427/- with interest at 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 43,000/- from the date of plaint till date of decree. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, he had stated clearly that he exercised his option to recover the amounts advanced by him to the defendant. He did not,