High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. MANIKUMAR
C. Govindaraj & Others
Versus
The Govt. of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others
W.P. NO. 4102 OF 2003
Decided on : 20-07-2012
1. Initially, the petitioners have sought for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from proceeding further regarding the acquisition of petitioners' lands under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and to drop all further proceedings if any initiated under the said Act in respect of the petitioners' properties in Survey No.135/11 and its Sub-Divisions of No.54, Alagapuram Pudhur Village in Salem Taluk and District. Later, by way of an amendment in WPMP No.1602 of 2007, in W.P.No.4102 of 2003, the prayer in the writ petition has been amended as follows:
"forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from proceeding further regarding the acquisition of petitioners' lands under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and to drop all further proceedings if any initiated under the said Act in respect of the petitioners' properties in Survey No.135/11 and its Sub-Divisions of No.54, Alagapuram Pudhur Village in Salem Taluk and District and thereby restore the petitioners ownership in respect of their respective lands, by necessary mutation in the concerned village revenue records enabling the petitioners to get individual patta for their respective lands."
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the property comprised in S.No.135/11 (now Subdivided as 135/11C and 135/11F) of No.54, Alagapuram Pudhur Village, within the Sub Registration District of Suramangalam and within the Taluk and Registration District of Salem, to an extent of 7035 sq.ft., is owned by the 1st petitioner and his two sons. According to the deponent of the supporting affidavit, land was purchased from the 5th respondent and her sons by way of a registered Sale Deed on 26.02.2001, registered as Document No.713 of 2001 on the file of S.R.O., Suramangalam, for valuable consideration.
3. The deponent of the supporting affidavit has further stated that the 2nd petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 41.5 cents in Survey No.135/11 (now sub-divided as 135/11C, 135/11E and 135/11G) in the above said village and that the same has been purchased by the 2nd petitioner from M/s.Seerangan, K.Muniappan and Vaiyapuri for valuable sale consideration vide valid registered sale deeds dated 25.05.1979 and that the same has been registered as Document Nos.2651 and 2653 respectively on the file of S.R.O. Salem.
4. According to the deponent, the 3rd petitioner is the original owner of the land, measuring an extent of 1860 sq.ft comprised in Survey No.135/11 (now sub-divided as 135/11D) in the above said village. The same has been purchased vide sale deed dated 21.01.1996, registered as Document No.196 on the file of S.R.O., Suramangalam from one Mrs.Selvi for valuable sale consideration. According to the petitioners from the date of purchase, they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property without any hindrance. When the 1st petitioner obtained encumbrance certificate from the Sub Registration Office, Suramangalam in respect of the above said properties for the period from 01.01.1984 to 31.10.2000 (17 years), vide Certificate No.5109 of 2000 dated 01.11.2000, there was no encumbrance at all to the said properties.
5. The 1st petitioner has further submitted that two houses have been constructed in the above said property, for which land, revenue taxes and Corporation tax, are being paid regularly. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners have put up small huts in the said lands for their residence and they are cultivating the remaining small portion of the land. Family cards have been issued by Civil Supplies Corporation. Electricity and telephone connection have been obtained for the property owned by the 1st petitioner.
6. While that be so, on 30.08.2002, the Special Tahsildar attached to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling (Salem), along with Surveyor and staff inspected the properties and measured the same. When their action was questioned, no proper
T.Audikesavan & ors. V Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department
Muthusamy v The State of Tamil Nadu 1993 (1) MLJ 217
M.J.Saravanaperumal v State of Tamil Nadu 1997 (III) CTC 605
Devaraj v State of Tamil Nadu (2003 (4) CTC 134)
Asiya Mariyan v The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu (2000 (4) CTC 125)
Leelavathi v The State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (3) CTC 490
Ayisha Beevi v Sheik Mydeen 2012 (2) CTC 509
S.Subramaniam V State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department
Saraswathi & anr. V Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms
SupremeToday
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.