Purchasing land post-notification under the Urban Land Ceiling Act renders the sale void without proper notice.

(Judgement of the Court was made by C.Kumarappan J.)

The present Writ Appeal is filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.12.202015. The appellant and the respondents are the petitioner and respondents respectively before the Writ Court.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the learned Single Judge.

3.(a).The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Appeal is that, the property bearing SF.Nos.242, 246, 248 and 254 of Thiruneermalai Village comes within the purview of “The Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act” [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. Hence, based upon the proceedings under Section 9(5) of the Act, a draft statement was served upon the owners of the vacant land in excess of their ceiling limit. In pursuance thereof, authority took initiative to take possession of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit as per Section 11(5) of the Act. Thereafter, excess land was taken possession by the Tahsildar vide order dated 30.06.1993.

(b).Aggrieved with the same, an appeal under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the owners of the vacant land. In the above appeal, the proceedings under Section 11(5) was set aside, and remitted back to the competent authorities to again proceed from the stage of Section 9(5) of the Act.

(c).In pursuance thereof, notice was given and called upon the owners of vacant land to give their objections. After that, the impugned order dated

30.11.1994 was passed and was served upon them.

(d).It appears that when the matter was pending consideration by the competent authority under Section 13(5) of the Act, the petitioner purchased the subject land on 18.02.1993. However, before passing the order impugned in the writ petition, no notice was given to the petitioner. Challenging the same, he preferred the impugned writ proceedings. But, the Writ Court rejected the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved with the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

4.Heard Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/respondent.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on and from

18.02.1993, the petitioner became the owner of the subject land, therefore, he ought to have been given notice, when de novo proceedings started from the stage of Section 9(5) of the Act. It was contended that, since no notice was issued, the action of taking possession of excess vacant land under Section 11(5) of the Act is not binding upon him. It is also the further submission of the petitioner that no final order has been served upon the petitioner. Hence, prayed to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

6.The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader and would contend that after the matter was remanded in the year 1993, again Section 9(5) proceedings started and notice was issued to the owner of the vacant land and that such notice was received by one Thiru.Rudhramoorthy, the authorised power agent of Thiru.Koorathalwar on 06.02.1995 and that a fresh Section 11(5) proceedings were issued on 30.09.1997, and the possession of the vacant land was also acknowledged by the power agent of the owner. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that any sale of excess land after the Act came into force become null and void. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader that, the petitioner being the subsequent purchaser and has purchased the property after the Act came into force, his sale become null and void. Therefore, he has no locus standi to chal