IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
T.Rukmani - Petitioner
Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009 - Respondent
W.P.No.18340 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 - Section 9 (5) 24 , (3) 12 (6) 7, 11,(5) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Petition has been filed seeking to quash proceedings -D under Section 9 (5) of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and consequential issuance of notice under Section 11 (5) in Form in seeking delivery of possession duly passed by Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Street third respondent herein in respect of lands in all measuring 1 acre 30 cents comprised in Survey Nos.49/1 and 2, situated at Village bearing patta within Limits then and within Distrist within Sub Registration of Tambaram and within Registration District of South Madras and direct respondents to treat land as falling outside provisions of Act 24 of 1978 by virtue of Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999 - Held, That apart mere possession claimed to have been taken by respondents by issuance of Notification under Section 7 (5) of Act cannot be accepted - All Notifications under Section (3) of Act and 11 (5) were issued in name of said Isaac Samuel and subsequently notice under Sections 12 (7) and 12 (6) of Act also were served on said Isaac Samuel -Thereafter, his wife Ragini Issac received same - Acquisition proceedings against person who is not owner are not sustainable as mandatory conditions of Act have not been followed - Impugned proceedings under provisions of Act are vitiated and they are liable to be quashed and same are quashed - writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the orders duly issued in proceedings No.R.C.1657/81-D under Section 9 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 dated 04.03.1983 and the consequent issue of notice under Section 11 (5) in Form No.7, dated 29.04.1987 in seeking delivery of possession duly passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, (Tambaram), Karuneekar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088, the third respondent herein in respect of the lands in all measuring 1 acre 30 cents comprised in Survey No.49/1 and 2, situated at Village No.164, Pulikoradu Village bearing patta No.134, within the Tambaram Panchayat Limits, then Saidapet Taluk and within Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram Distrist within the Sub Registration of Tambaram and within the Registration District of South Madras and quash the same and direct the respondents to treat the land as falling outside the provisions of the Act 24 of 1978 by virtue of Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999.
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings No.R.C.1657/81-D under Section 9 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) dated 04.03.1983 and the consequential issuance of notice under Section 11 (5) in Form No.7, dated 29.04.1987 in seeking delivery of possession duly passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, (Tambaram), Karuneekar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088, the third respondent herein in respect of the lands in all measuring 1 acre 30 cents comprised in Survey Nos.49/1 and 2, situated at Village No.164, Pulikoradu Village bearing patta No.134, within the Tambaram Panchayat Limits, then Saidapet Taluk and within Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram Distrist within the Sub Registration of Tambaram and within the Registration District of South Madras and direct the respondents to treat the land as falling outside the provisions of the Act 24 of 1978 by virtue of Section 4 of Act 20 of 1999.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she owned the property ad-measuring 1.30 acres comprised in S.Nos.49/1 and 2, situated at Village No.164, Pulikoradu Village bearing Patta No.134, now within the limits of Tambaram Panchayat. She purchased the said properties by two registered sale deeds dated 05.02.1987 and 27.02.1987, vide Document Nos.443 and 881 of 1987, purchased by one S.Lakshmipathy. The petitioner's vendor purchased the said properties from one A.R.Devasahayam by the registered sale deed dated 03.09.1980, vide Document No.4213 of 1980. When she applied for issuance of patta in her name before the Revenue Authorities, she came to know about the fact that the land had been acquired under the Act and the properties stood in the name of the said A.R.Devasahayam. Thereafter, she applied for certified copies and the orders were passed under Sections 9(5) and 11(5) of the Act and the same were furnished to her on 09.01.2008. Both the orders are challenged in the present Writ Petition.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the subject properties and has no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings, that too, after a lapse of 19 years. Originally, the land owner, the said late A.R.Devasahayam, had expired on 31.12.2981 and all subsequent orders and notices were issued in the name of his son viz., Issac Samuel who is only the legal heir of the land owner. On receipt of the notice, he has neither appeared for enquiry, nor given any details of the sales as stated by the petitioner. The sale made after the introduction of the Act, is hit by Section 6 of the Act and hence, it is not valid and the subsequent purchasers are not entitled for any notice in the acquisition proceedings as per the provisions of the Act. The sa
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.