JUDGMENT :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 02.12.2019 in W.P.No.27778 of 2017.)

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the authorities of the Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax Department, challenging the order passed in W.P. No.27778 of 2017 dated 02.12.2019. When the writ petitioner approached the third appellant/Tahsildar for issuance of patta in respect of his landed property on which he has already put up constructions, the same was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the land was already acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Urban Land Act).

2. The property in question, situate in an approved lay out No.LPDM/D/TC&P No.25/1975 in Brindavan Nagar, Kodungaiyur village, Tondiarpet, measuring an extent of 3486 and 3080 sq.fts. which originally belonged to one Pankajakshiamma. She had purchased the same from one Ethirajulu by way of a sale deed dated 16.10.1980. The said Pankajakshiamma sold the above plots 1 and 2 in favour of one Maya Devi, who is the daughter of the writ petitioner vide sale deeds dated 06.03.2003 and she has been in possession from the date of her purchase and has been paying all the taxes in her name. She had also put up construction in the above subject land after obtaining due sanction from the Corporation of Chennai and the said construction was assessed to property tax, M.M.W.S.S.B. Tax and charges and electricity charges. The said Mayadevi, also had borrowed money by way of loan from bank on 01.03.2010 by showing the above said properties as collateral security and it was subsequently discharged.

3. She had also sold a portion of the property to an extent of 1800 sq.ft. in favour of one Mrs.Thulasi on 26.12.2011. Again on 23.01.2014 she had settled the remaining property, which is having an extent of 4766 sq.ft. with construction by way of a settlement deed in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has been in sole, exclusive and in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of settlement deed and has been paying all the taxes in his name. Subsequent to the settlement deed, the writ petitioner had approached the third appellant Tahsildar for transfer of patta. The Tahsildar has refused to transfer the patta on the ground that the vacant land was covered under the Urban Land Act. The said notice was under challenge in the writ petition, which did not even contain any particulars regarding the exact date on which the proceedings were initiated, possession was taken and compensation paid, etc.

4. As the order impugned in the writ petition was bereft of any details, the petitioner attempted to get particulars by applying under RTI Act in the name of his wife. However, his request was declined and an application was made once again before the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax Department seeking the details. Again the same was rejected and hence an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax was made. As per the reply given by the Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, land measuring an extent of 9250 sq.ft. out of 2 Acres and 53 cents, was acquired on 12.11.1996 from one Ethirajulu and also stated that no compensation was paid.

5. It is curious to note that on the above said date, namely 12.11.1996, the said Ethirajulu was not the owner as he had laid out the entire extent of land as residential plots, as early as in the year 1979 as per the approved lay out No.25/1975, during which time, the said Pankajakshiamma purchased the same from Ethirajulu and the petitioner’s daughter having purchased from her, had become the absolute owner of the petition mentioned properties. Again when a request was made for changing the name in the patta, a reply was received from the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax stating