Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
C.N.Govindaraj and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Reforms, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai and Ors - Respondent
W.P.Nos.11627 and 15563 of 2004
Decided on : 21-01-2019
Tamil Nadu Act, 24 of 1978 - Section 9(5) - Section 11(5) - Section 10(1) - Section 9(1) – Section 7(2) - Section 11(6) - Section 7(1) - Repealing Act 20/1999 - Urban land Ceiling Act – Land – Possession Of Land - According to petitioner, among four brothers, there had been oral partition in respect of joint family properties and subsequently there had been a registered partition deed, which was registered at concerned Registration Office - As per said partition, land in question consisting of 1.07 acres had been divided into four, therefore each brother will have 27 cents of said property - Accordingly, petitioner also had inherited through said partition, an extent of 27 cents of property - Petitioner on enquiry, came to understand that, second respondent claimed to have issued a notice to one of his brother, one Punniyakodi and pursuant to which, it seemed that second respondent had proceeded to issue statement, demanding objection from other brothers and thereafter, orders were passed, as if that, holding of entire extent of 2150 sq.mts, i.e., 54 cents, out of 1.07 acres belonging to said brother, after allegedly determining that said Punniyakodi was entitled to retain only 500 sq.mts by virtue of provision of Act and thereby it seems that, second respondent had erroneously found that, remaining land, i.e., 1650 sq.mt. or 40.77 cents were excess - remaining land, i.e., 1650 sq.mt. or 40.77 cents were excess - It is the further case of petitioner herein that, second respondent seems to have issued statement, where first time, name of petitioner had been included - However, no notice, final statement whatsoever was served upon petitioner nor his family members - It is further understood by petitioner that, second respondent also issued notification – Held, Possession of acquired land was handed over - If possession was handed over by land owner or holder of land voluntarily and if there is enough proof shown that such voluntary possession has been given by owner or holder of land, then it is very well be concluded that, possession has been surrendered voluntarily by owner or holder of land - There is no proof to show that volunteer surrender of possession has been taken place in case in hand, certainly as per law declared by Honble Apex Court, followed in number of decisions of Division Benches should have been invoked and forcible possession should have been taken and it should have been registered - In absence of any such proof or contemplation under Section 11(6) of Act, it cannot be construed that, possession has been either voluntarily given by owner of land or had been taken forcibly by respondents - Petitioners are entitled to get benefit of provisions of Repealing Act as has been held in number of cases of similar nature - Petitioners shall be entitled to get benefit under provisions of Repealing Act – Petition
1. The prayer sought for in W.P.No.11627 of 2004 is for a writ of certioraified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) and Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax), Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 056 and issued in S.R.No.545/94/D, dated 23.05.1995 under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 24 of 1978 and the Final Statement issued in Form III under Section 10(1) of the said Act in Rc.1879/95/dated 05.08.1995 and culminating in issue of notice under Section 11(5) of the said Act and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents herein or anybody claiming or acting through them from in any manner proceeding with or in and enjoyment of the lands by the petitioner herein and comprised in S.No.503/2, Paruthipattu village, Sriperumbutur Taluk in an extent of 27 cents as the proceedings initiated by the second respondent has abated in view of the Repealing Act 20/1999.
2. The prayer sought for in W.P.No.15563 of 2004 is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) and Assistant Commissioner (Urban Land Tax), Poonamallee, Chennai - 600 056 and issued in S.R.No.545/94/D, dated 23.05.1995 under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Act, 24 of 1978 and the Final Statement issued in Form III under Section 10(1) of the said Act in Rc.1879/95/dated 05.08.1995 and culminating in issue of notice under Section 11(5) of the said Act and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents herein or anybody claiming or acting through them from in any manner proceeding with or in and enjoyment of the lands by the petitioner herein and comprised in S.No.503/2, Paruthipattu village, Sriperumbutur Taluk in an extent of 27 cents as the proceedings initiated by the second respondent has abated in view of the Repealing Act 20/1999.
3. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions is one and the same, as it arises out of same cause of action, i.e., proceedings initiated and concluded by the respondents under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the prayer sought for herein also in both the writ petitions is one and the same, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
4. W.P.No.11627 of 2004 :
The necessary facts which are to be noticed, in so far as this writ petition, for the disposal of the same are as follows :
(i) That the landed property in S.No.503/2 at Paruthipattu village, Sriperumbutur Taluk, to an extent of 1.07 acres was purchased by the petitioner's father, one Natesa Naicker sometime in 1942. The said Natesa Naicker was having 4 sons by name, (1) Punniyakodi (2) Krishnan (3) Srinivasan and (4) Govindaraj, the petitioner in this writ petition.
(ii) According to the petitioner, among the four brothers, there had been oral partition in respect of joint family properties and subsequently there had been a registered partition deed, dated 04.07.1979, which was registered as Doc.No.2249/79 at the concerned Registration Office.
(iii) As per the said partition, the land in question consisting of 1.07 acres had been divided into four, therefore each brother will have 27 cents of the said property. Accordingly, the petitioner also had inherited through the said partition, an extent of 27 cents of the property in question, at least right from 04.07.1979.
(iv) While that being so, in December 2003, when the petitioner ploughing at the lands in question, the revenue authorities came and objected stating that, the subject land already been vested with the State Government by virtue of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 (In short, "The Act").
(v) It is the further case of the petitioner that, in so far as the petitioner's portion of 27 cents of the subject land, not only th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
