Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Elumalai on 27 January, 2020
Bench: A.P.Sahi, Subramonium Prasad
WA.No.3998 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.01.2020
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.A.P.SAHI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.No.3998 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.25045 of 2019
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Dept.,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The Assistant Commissioner/
Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling,
No.3, Pakkam Street, Ambattur,
Chennai-53, Now at 5, Sannathi Street,
Poonamallee, Chennai-56. .. Appellants
-vs-
R.Elumalai .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 23.01.2009 passed in W.P.No.27689 of 2003 on the file of
this Court.
Page 1 of 7
http://www.judis.nic.in
WA.No.3998 of 2019
For Appellants : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal
Addl. Adv. General
Assisted by Mr.V.Jayaprakash
Narayanan, State G.P.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants State.
2.The Government has come up in appeal contesting that the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) and Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, have been clearly observed in this case and the learned Single Judge, without looking into the pleadings contained in the counter-affidavit erroneously proceeded to allow the writ petition by recording that no counter- affidavit has been filed. It is urged that the possession having been taken from the original owner, namely, Murugappa Reddiar, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to have come to a contrary conclusion.
Page 2 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.3998 of 2019
3.Learned Additional Advocate General has also produced the original records and we have seen the delivery of possession memo dated 10.10.1998. The same records the name of the original land owner, Murugappa Reddiar.
4.What is surprising in this case is that the notices are stated to have been sent to the recorded tenure holder and then, it is also contended that his grand daughter, after having received the notice, had contested the proceedings.
5.We are surprised at this stand having been taken when the writ petition was filed stating entirely different facts, namely, that the respondent-petitioner, R.Elulmalai, had purchased the property to the extent of 12 cents from the original owner through a registered sale deed dated 10.11.1959. The property has been expressly acquired from Murugappa Reddiar, who is the original recorded tenure holder. The respondent-petitioner clearly and categorically asserted in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that ever since from the date of the registered sale deed in his favour and purchase of the property, he has Page 3 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.3998 of 2019 been in continuous and uninterrupted possession. This fact unfortunately has nowhere been replied either in the counter-affidavit which was filed before the learned Single Judge nor this has been denied even in the grounds of appeal taken before us.
6.It is correct that the learned Single Judge has erroneously recorded that no counter affidavit has been filed, but, that does not improve the situation inasmuch as the fact that the original owner, Murugappa Reddiar, had sold the property to the respondent petitioner, has nowhere been denied. Thus, ownership having passed on to the respondent-petitioner wayback in the year 1959, a non- mutation of the said property or non-mentioning of the name of the respondent petitioner in the revenue records will not improve the position inasmuch as sub-section (5) of section 11 of the 1978 Act categorically requires that the competent authority has to serve a notice in writing to the person who may be in possession of the holding.
7.The fact remains that the original owner never remained in possession of the 12 cents of land that were sold through registered sale deed to the respondent petitioner.
Page 4 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.3998 of 2019
8.Learned Additional Advocate General contended that the original owner never came denying this fact nor his grand daughter stated these facts. The said argument cannot be accepted inasmuch the original owner did not anywhere indicate that this property had not been sold to the respondent-petitioner. Even otherwise, if the original owner omitted to make any such statement, the said omission cannot divest the respondent petitioner of his rights which he had acquired through the registered sale deed and was in possession, the fact whereof which was categorically stated in the writ petition and was not even denied by the appellants. In this view of the matter and on the facts of the present case, we find that the appellants have made out no case for interference by us.
9.This is a case where the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, squarely comes to the benefit of the respondent-petitioner and for which, we can rely on our own judgment in the case of The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Reforms and Anr. vs. B.Booshanam and Anr., (W.A.No.3632 of 2019) rendered on 20.01.2020. Page 5 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.3998 of 2019 The Writ Appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.25045 of 2019 is also dismissed.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.P., J.)
27.01.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sra
To
1.The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Dept., Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.The Assistant Commissioner/
Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, No.3, Pakkam Street, Ambattur, Chennai-53, Now at 5, Sannathi Street, Poonamallee, Chennai-56.
Page 6 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in WA.No.3998 of 2019 The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Subramonium Prasad, J.
(sra) W.A.No.3998 of 2019 27.01.2020 Page 7 of 7 http://www.judis.nic.in