The requirement of serving notice under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act is mandatory, and failure to comply invalidates the acquisition proceedings.

ORDER :

CHECK PETITIONER/S

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent under sections 9 (5) and 10 (1) dated 13.12.1990 and 28.11.1991 respectively in Ref.S.R.479/85/Nanmangalam and notice under section 11 (5) dated 27.07.1992 in Ref.No.3335/90-A in respect of land measuring an extent of 61 cents comprised in Survey No.188/4B of Nanmanagalam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk Chennai- 600 119 and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to incorporate the name of the 2nd petitioner as owner of the land referred to above in all the revenue records wherever required.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband – late M.Santhanakrishnan became entitled to the property comprised in S.No.188/4B situated at Nanmanagalam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk. After the demise of her husband, she (1st petitioner) had become entitled to succeed the property in S.No.188/4B stated supra.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that on the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner, she became entitled to the estates of her husband including the property in S.No.188/4B and that she had settled a portion of that property in favour of her brother, the 2nd petitioner herein on 11.02.2017 by way of settlement deed dated 09.02.2009. After such settlement, when the 2nd petitioner took steps to mutate his name in the revenue records, she and the 2nd petitioner came to know that the land in S.No.188/4B had been acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short “the ULC Act”]. When certified copies were applied, they came to know that none of the provisions of the ULC Act before the acquisition of land were followed. Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), 1978 was also not complied with.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the adjacent land of the petitioner comprised in S.Nos.188/1A, 1882A, 1883A1 & 188/4A belonging to one Mrs.Varalakshmi were originally acquired, pursuant to the orders of this court in W.P.No.15501 of 1993, Mrs.Varalakshmi, had preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the ULC Act and the the 1st respondent by his order dated 12.09.1996 excluded the lands belonged to the said Varalakshmi under Section 3(o)(2) of the ULC Act as it was agricultural land. The possession of subject matter of land was never taken by the 2nd respondent from the petitioners.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that there was no record available with the respondents to show that an inspection was conducted by the authority concerned before the acquisition. No notice whatsoever was issued before the acquisition. Selective acquisition of land comprised in one sub-division in S.N.188 would show the lack of application of mind on the part of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the present writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated under the ULC Act and rules thereunder.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent inter-alia contending that notice under Section 7(2) of the ULC Act was issued on 20.05.1988 to S.Santhanakrishnan directing to return the excess land held by him in S.NO.188/4B (part). Such notice was served by affixture as it was refused to be received by the urban land owner. Thereafter, a notice under Section 9(4) along with statement under Section 9(1) of the ULC Act was issued on 30.09.1989 proposing for the acquisition of an extent of 1950 square meters in the said Survey Number. Since the land owner was out of station, the said notice was also served by affixture by the Village Assistant. As, thereafter, no objections were received from the urban land owners, orders under Section 9(5) of the ULC Act were passed by the competent authority by his proceedings dated 13.12.1990 in SR.479/85 declaring an extent of 1950 square meters of land as excess vacant land after allowing 500 square meters of land for family entitlement. Since the urban land owner was not residing in the village, the orders issued unde