Proper service of notice and establishment of possession under the Land Ceiling Act are crucial for the government's entitlement to the land, and failure to comply can lead to the extension of benefits to the owners under the Repeal Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in SR N.65/90/A dated 11.01.1991 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from taking any action under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners comprised in Survey No.557/2 of Pallikaranai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in SR N.65/90/A dated 11.01.1991 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from taking any action under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners comprised in Survey No.557/2 of Pallikaranai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District.

2. The petitioners state that they are the owners of the land measuring about 20 cents comprised in S.No.557/2 situated at Pallikaranai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District, which is the subject property. The property forms part of a larger extent of property originally belonged to one Mr.Gopal Naidu, who sold the same to one Mr.Parasuram Naidu under two Sale Deeds dated 27.11.1967 and 27.11.1968, registered as document Nos.4427 of 1967 and 3621 of 1968 both in the Office of the Sub Registrar at Saidapet. The said Mr.Parasuram Naidu along with his wife Mrs.Yashodhammal executed a Will dated 31.12.1993, registered as document No.1 of 1994 in the office of the Joint II Sub Registrar at Saidapet. Under the said Will, the subject property was bequeathed in favour of the younger son of Mr.Parasuram Naidu and Mrs.Yashodhammal viz., Mr.P.Venkatesan. Mr.Parasuram Naidu died on 20.05.2003 and the said Mrs.Yashodhammal died on 09.01.2007. After the lifetime of the said Mr.Parasuram Naidu, the said Mr.P.Venkatesan became the absolute owner of the said property as per the terms of the Will dated 31.12.1993. The said Mr.P.Venkatesan executed a Settlement Deed dated 30.07.2021 registered as document No.8434 of 2021 in the Office of the Joint-I, Sub Registrar South Chennai in favour of the petitioners and thus they became the joint owners of the subject property.

3. The petitioners further state that they approached the fourth respondent seeking patta for the subject property in their names. They were informed that there is a proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, in respect of the subject property. Therefore, they approached the third respondent and sought for details in respect of the said property. They also issued a letter dated 27.09.2021 to the third respondent seeking copies of the orders relating to acquisition under Sections 9(5), 10(1) and 11(5) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act.

4. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that the subject land was taken over under the Land Ceiling Act by the Government but no notice was served to the writ petitioners as mandated under Section 11 (5) of the Land Ceiling Act. After the Tamil Nadu Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the lands which were not taken over possession by the competent authorities were vest with the original owners. Question arises, whether the possession has been taken by the Government or not? In this context, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hari Ram [(2013) 4 SCC 280], in paragraphs-34 to 36 held as follows:-

“34. Sub-section (5) of Section 10, for the first time, speaks of “possession” which says that where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 10, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person, who may be in possession of it to surrender or transfer possession to the State Government or to any other person, duly authorised b