Madras High Court
Mrs.Sumathi Satheeshkumar vs The Principal Commissioner And on 16 July, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16 / 07 /2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.10954 of 2008
Mrs.Sumathi Satheeshkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land
Tax and Ceiling, Arcot Road,
Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.
3.The Tahsildar,
Mylapore Triplicane Taluk,
Chennai-4. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents, their subordinates from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land to an extent of 1 ground and 1425 sq.ft comprised in T.S.No.20/2, Block 8 New T.S.No.20/6, at Pallipattu Village, Venkatrathinanagar Extension, Chennai Mylapore Triplicane Taluk in the light of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.B.Thirupathikumar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Shanmugasundar
Government Advocate
- - -
CAV on 03/07/2014 and pronounced on 16 /07/2014
O R D E R
The petitioner submits that she is the absolute owner and in absolute possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring an extent of 1425 sq.ft. comprised in R.S.No.26/1D and 24/3A4 T.S.No.20/2 Block No.8 and New T.S.No.20/6 at Pallipattu Village, Venkatarathinam Nagar Extension Chennai-20 under the registered Deed of sale dated 25.11.1998 registered as document No.413 of 1999 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Adyar bought from one Krishnan represented by his power agent Mr.PL.Palaniappan. The petitioner further submits that she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the land by putting up structures thereon in the said premises without any interruption or whatsoever from any corners. In fact, the said land originally belonged to one Babyammal who got the said land from one R.Venkataramulu Chettiar under the registered sale deed of settlement dated 29.12.1952 registered as document No.8 of 1953, S.R.O., Saidapet. Subsequently, the said Babyammal, who was holding 24 1/2 grounds in T.S.No.20/2 Block 8 of Pallipattu Village, had submitted the statement before the second respondent and authorities concerned on 13.07.1977. Subsequently, the said Babyammal died on 27.10.1978. Since the said Babyammal had no issues and her husband predeceased her, her husband's brothers viz., Munusamy and others have become the absolute owners of the said land. The petitioner further submits that the said Munuswamy and others, through their power of attorney agent, sold the said property to one Mr.R.Natesan under the registered Deed of sale dated 05.05.1980 registered as document No.1339 of 1980 at the office of S.R.O., Saidapet. Subsequently, the said R.Munusamy Chettiar and others sold the property purchased by the petitioner herein to and in favour of Mr.Krishnan under the registered Deed of sale dated 10.12.1979 and registered as document No.3139 of 1979 at the office of Joint Registrar II, Saidapet, through their power of attorney agent Mrs.S.Indirani. The petitioner subsequently in the year 1998 purchased the property in question from the said Krishnan under the registered deed of sale dated 25.11.1998 and registered as document No.413 of 1999 and from the date of purchase, the petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same by putting up structures thereon and exercising all rights of ownership over the said property by paying taxes to the public authorities concerned.
2. The petitioner further submits that while so, the respondents came to the premises and measured the extent of land and also instructed to hand over possession of the land immediately and the petitioner contacted her counsel and thereafter made an enquiry and found that the lands were acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978. Neither the third respondent nor any authority approached her and issued notice directing her to surrender possession and there was no disturbance at all from the respondents so far. The petitioner further submits that the acquisition of the land under 1978 Act cannot affect the rights of the petitioner to own or possess the property in as much as the physical possession of land is still with her. Moreover, the petitioner has not received any compensation so far. The petitioner further submits that the respondents 1 and 2, by an order dated 22.01.1979 in his proceeding K.Dis/A2-21/FFT/79 has specifically stated that Sri R.Munusamy Chettiar, E.Sundarababu Chettiar and Smt.V.Jayalakshmi wife of Ganesa Chettiar, succeeded the estate of Late Babyammal and her husband R.Venkataramulu Chettiar. Both deceased and all are joint family members entitled in the share of the property and the members of the three families do not own any other vacant land in the urban agglomeration of Tamil Nadu. According to the share held by each of the three members Sl.Nos.1 to 3 above, the total extent owned by each of three co joint owners of the said land bearing T.S.No.20/2 Block 8 of Pallipattu Village comes to 1475 sq.mtrs which is well within the ceiling limit prescribed and all the persons are entitled to hold the above vacant land under the purview of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act), 1978.
3. The petitioner further submits that pattas were already issued in favour of her predecessors in the title pertaining to the said land and the said order passed by the respondents shall be binding on them and as such, the respondents are estopped from making any claim over the petitioner's land under the guise of Urban Land Ceiling Act that too which was repealed with effect from 16.06.1999 publishing the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The petitioner further submits that as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, it is provided that if any land is deemed to have been vested in the State Government under Sub Section (3) of Section 11 of the Principal Act, viz., Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act), 1978, but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority and any amount has not been paid as compensation, all the proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act, before any Court, Tribunal, or any authority shall abate. In the case of the petitioner, it is seen from the orders under Section 9(5) of the Act issued by the first respondent in proceeding 02/6216/82, dated 30.12.1991 declaring an excess of land of an extent of 3926 sq.mtrs after allowing 500 sq.mtrs as family entitlement land of the total extent of 4426 sq.mtrs, owned by land owner in Survey No.20/2/Block No.8 at Pallipattu Village, for which necessary publication was said to have been effected in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Section 11(3) of the said Act notifying that the said land was vested with the State Government and notice issued under Section 11(5) of the said Act, requiring the person in occupation of the said land said to have been served on him and directing her to surrender vacant possession to the Tahsildar Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk intimating her that the said land had been vested with the State Government as per Section 11(3) of the said Act in exparte are vitiated on the following among particularly when the letter J.2/25445/90, dated 21.09.1990 received from Collector of Chennai addressed to Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chennai-5, which would categorically prove that the purchasers are well within the legal bounds for transfer of registry based on proper title deeds. In the instant case, the appellants have purchased the lands comprised in Survey No.20/2 owned by Babyammal on the strength of clearance certificate from competent authority ULT and therefore, the title is not disputable and despite the said communication the action on the part of the respondents herein are highly ultravires and illegal. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to forbear the respondents, their subordinates from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land to an extent of 1 ground and 1425 sq.ft comprised in T.S.No.20/2, Block 8 New T.S.No.20/6, at Pallipattu Village, Venkatrathinanagar Extension, Chennai Mylapore Triplicane Taluk in the light of the provisions contained in Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999.
4. The second respondent has filed a counter statement for himself and on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 stating that one Tmt.Babyammal W/o.Thiru.R.Venkataramulu Chettiar had filed the return under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976 on 13.07.1977 for the following lands.
Name of Village S.No. Extent Pallipattu Present 20/2 Bk.8 Old.S.No. 24/3A4 26/1D Total 24 grounds 1200 sq.ft A.C. 0.58 0.78 1.36 The petitioner has also mentioned that the above land was proposed to be surrendered. The land owner was called on for enquiry several times but she didn't turn up. The case land was inspected by the then Competent Authority (ULC/Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Saidapet on 23.02.1978 and found the land is vacant on ground and no structure was made on the land. Being an individual, she was entitled for 500 sq.mtrs as entitlement area under the Ceiling Act. Therefore, out of the total extent of 4426 sq.mtrs, an extent of 3926 sq.mts was treated as excess vacant land and acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the excess vacant land under Section 9-11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978. A notice under Section 9(4) along with statement under Section 9(1) was issued on 22.11.1978 in favour of Tmt.Babyammal, W/o.Venkataramulu Chettiar, Jawahar Nagar Post, Chennai-82. (Late) Thiru. Munusamy Chettiar and two others and sons of Raju Chettiar sent a letter on 03.01.1979 to the second respondent stating that their elder brother Thiru.R.Venkataramulu Chettiar and his wife had expired and the land was partitioned and they are the legal-heirs of the said properties. The second respondent had addressed Thiru.Munusamy Chettiar in his letter dated 06.01.1979 and requested him to produce the legal-heirship certificate etc. Accordingly, Thiru.R.Munusamy chettiar and two others have sent a petition to the second respondent stating that they have applied to the Tahsildar and requested one month time to file the same. Later, the second respondent recorded a statement from Thiru.R.Sundarababu Chettiar, son of Chettiar on 17.03.1979 which relates to the properties of Tmt.Babyammal. Later, the Tahsildar Mylapore-Triplicane who was requested to inform the legal-heir of Tmt.Babyammal has reported to the Assistant Commissioner, Saidapet that the following are the legal-heir to the estate of deceased Tmt.Babyammal.
1.Thiru.R.Munusamy Chettiar
2.Thiru.R.Sundarababu Chettiar
3.Tmt.V.Jayalakshmi The original owner Tmt.Babyammal expired on 27.10.1978. Subsequently, after enquiry the then Competent Authority, Saidapet had passed an order in K.Dis.A3/21/Ppt/79/dated 22.11.1979 stating that the property belongs to Tvl.R.Munusamy Chettiar, R.Sundarababu Chettiar and Tmt.V.Jayalakshmi, declaring that the lands in question were within the Ceiling Limit. After getting the clearance certificate from the Competent Authority, the legal-heirs laid out the land in question along with the lands held by them into plots and sold it out to various persons. On receipt of a petition from one Thiru.Vadivel based on the records and reports, the Government in their order Vide Lr.No.122228/T2/80-8 Revenue dated 25.06.1982 had cancelled the above clearance certificate issued by the Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling / Saidapet on 22.11.1979 and ordered to proceed for the acquisition of excess vacant land measuring 3926 sq.mts in S.No.20/2 (Block-8) of Pallipattu Village. Accordingly, the notice under Section 9(4) along with a draft statement under Section 9(1) of the Act were issued on 11.04.1984 for the acquisition of the excess vacant land of 3926 sq.mts. in S.No.20/2 (Block-8) of Pallipattu Village in the name of Tmt.Babyammal. It was received by the legal-heirs through registered post and they raised no objection. So, the Competent Authority (ULC) the second respondent herein had proceeded and passed orders under Section 9(5) of the Act on 23.07.1985 declaring the excess vacant land on 3926 sq.mts after allowing 500 sq.mts as entitlement. The order was sent by RPAD and was received by the legal-heirs of the deceased. The final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 07.09.1988 and the same was served on the legal-heir by RPAD. The Notification undr Section 11(1) of the Act was issued on 25.02.1991 and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.35 as Notification No.VI(1)/1193/91, dated 25.02.1991 at page No.699 on 11.09.1991. Further, the Notification under Section 11(3) of the Act was issued on 10.10.1991 vesting the excess vacant land with Government with effect from 25.10.1991 and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette as Notification No.45 at Page 939, dated 27.11.1991. Later, the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued to the Urban Land Owner on 30.12.1991 directing to deliver the possession of the excess vacant land to the Government. The same was served by affixture on 06.04.1992. The possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk on 23.03.1994. The Notice under Section 12(7) of the Act was issued on 13.05.1994 with regard to payment of compensation. The legal-heirs had appeared in the second respondent office and stated that the excess vacant land under acquisition was sold to various persons through a Power Agent. Further action is being taken to pay the compensation for the excess vacant land acquired to the urban land owner. While so, Tmt.Sumathi Satheesh Kumar filed W.P.No.10954 of 2008, on the file of this Court seeking directions for forbearing the Government in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Old T.S.No.20/2, New T.S.No.20/5 and 20/7 in Block 8 bearing plot No.17, measuring an extent of 1 ground 1425 sq.ft purchased during 1999. This Court, by an order dated 29.04.2008 had granted interim injunction for the above said land which was made absolute by this Court in its order dated 23.06.2009.
5. The respondent further submits that the petitioner has filed another W.P.No.29535 of 2008 in respect of the land in Old T.S.No.20/2 New T.S.No.20/5 and 20/7 Block 8 bearing Plots Nos.17 and 19 measuring an extent of 3 grounds 450 sq.ft at Pallipattu Village at Chennai. This Court, in its order in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.29535 of 2008 ordered for notice.
6. The respondent further submits that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 came into force with effect from 03.08.1976. The acquisition proceedings were initiated against the urban land owner by name Tmt.Baby Ammal, as on 03.08.1976 as per the Ceiling Act. The writ petitioner had purchased a piece of land measuring 1G.1425 sq.ft vide document No.413/99 dated 25.11.1999, from out of the excess vacant land acquired and also another plot in the case land. The purchase of the acquired land after introduction of the Act (i.e.,) 03.08.1976 is null and void as per Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (C&R) Act, 1978. The two writ petitions filed by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10954 of 2008 and 29535 of 2008 in respect of plot Nos.17, 19 purchased in the case land has been filed as an afterthought.
7. The respondent further submits that Tmt.Babyammal, the land owner as on 03.08.1976 had filed the return under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, before the Competent Authority (ULC) Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Saidapet in respect of her lands in S.No.24/3A (T.S.No.20/2 Block 8) and 26/1D of Pallipattu Village measuring an extent of 0.58 cents of 0.78 cents respectively (4426 m2). In the return, she had proposed to surrender the above entire lands. Then, the urban land owner died on 27.10.1978. Thiru.R.Munusamy, V.Jayalakshmi & R.Sundarababu have become legal-heirs of the deceased. Based on the records, the acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the excess vacant land of 3926 sq.mts under Section 9-11 of the Act, against Tmt.Babyammal. The writ petitioner had purchased an extent of 1 Gr. 1425 Sq.ft out of the excess vacant land proposed for acquisition as per document No.413/99 dated 25.11.1999 and also purchased another piece of land in the case land. The lands purchased after introduction of the Act i.e., 03.08.1976 is null and void as per Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner has become the owner of the acquired excess vacant land (Plot No.17, 19) only during 1999 and she is not an original owner as on 03.08.1976 as per records. Hence, the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the writ petition. The possession of a portion of the acquired land has to be treated only as an encroachment in the Government land. As the purchase of land made by the petitioner itself is null and void as per Section 6 of the Act 24/78, since the petitioner purchased the lands during 1999, the question of issuance of notices to her does not arise. The respondent further submits that an extent of 4426 sq.mts. was held by Tmt.Babyammal. Out of this an extent of 3926 sq.mts was treated as excess vacant land and acquisition proceedings were initiated to acquire the excess vacant land under Section 9-11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The original owner Tmt.Babyammal expired on 27.10.1978. Subsequently, the legal-heirs of the deceased were granted a certificate on 22.11.1979 under the Ceiling Act by the then Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling), and Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Saidapet declaring that the lands in question were within the Ceiling Limit. Later, after scrutiny of records, the Government in their order, Vide Lr.No.122228/T2/80-8 Revenue dated 25.06.1982 had cancelled the clearance certificate issued by the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) and Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Saidapet on 22.11.1979 and ordered to proceed for the acquisition of excess vacant land held by the landowner. Therefore, acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 9-11 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978. The writ petitioner had purchased a portions of the case land (Plot No.17 and 19) after the introduction of the Act. The transaction is null and void as per Section 6 of the Act 24/78. The acquisition process was over and the excess vacant land acquired was handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 23.03.1994. Since the purchase has been made by the petitioner during 1999, no notice was issued to the petitioner. As the purchase is not valid, the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the writ petition and question the acquisition proceedings taken in the name of urban land owner under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 as it is not acceptable.
8. The respondent further submits that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 was repealed with effect from 16.06.1999. The Repeal Act, shall not affect the excess vacant land, if any acquired under Section 9-11 of the Act for which, acquisition proceedings were initiated upto 11(5) stage and possession of the land has been taken over by the Government. With regard to the writ petitioner's land, acquisition proceedings were initiated upto 11(5) stage and possession of the land was also taken over by the second respondent and handed over to the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk on 23.03.1994 well before the repeal of the Act. But, the writ petitioner has contended that the acquisition proceedings initiated are vitiative of the fundamental fact of the Repeal Act. The Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act does not apply in respect of excess vacant land for which possession has already been taken over by the Government. Hence, the contentions are not acceptable. Further, the writ petitioner has contended that the title of the land held by her is not disputable in view of the clearance certificate issued by the then Competent Authority (ULC), Saidapet in his letter dated 22.11.1979, which is also not correct since the clearance certificate issued by the Competent Authority was subsequently cancelled by the Government on 25.06.1982, under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, since it was found erroneous. Therefore, the Collector of Chennai was also addressed to cancel the pattas issued on the basis of the clearance issued by the then Competent Authority (ULC) Saidapet. Moreover, the petitioner has become the owner of for plots (17 and 19) only during 1999 after the excess vacant land was handed over to Government during 1994 and she is not a owner of the case land at the time of acquisition action taken under the Act. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner deserves no consideration and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. The respondent further submits that the original land owner Tmt.Babyammal had filed the return under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, and therefore, serving of notice under Section 7(2) of the Act does not arise as contended by the writ petitioner. The notice under Section 9(4) of the Act was served through RPAD to the legal-heirs of the landowner who expired on 27.10.1978. The orders passed under Section 9(5) of the Act was also served to the legal-heirs of the deceased landowner. Further, it is also submitted that the contention of the writ petitioner is not correct since the clearance certificate issued by the Competent Authority was subsequently cancelled by the Government on 25.06.1982 under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, since it was found erroneous. The respondent further submits that all mandatory notices were served on the original owner as on 03.08.1976 and the writ petitioner is only a subsequent purchaser in the year 1999 and as such, the purchase and sale is null and void and hence, the contentions are not acceptable. The respondent further submits that the contention of the petitioner is not acceptable since, the then Collector of Chennai had addressed the then Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk appraising some guide lines with regard to issue of pattas in respect of lands covered under the Ceiling Act prior to the purchase of the portion of the land by the petitioner which is not valid as per Section 6 of the Act 24/78. The respondent further submits that the contention of the petitioner deserves to be rejected since the notice under Section 12(7) of the Act was issued to the land owner on 13.05.1994 for payment of the compensation. The writ petitioner has purchased the land in question on 25.11.1999. Based on the ownership as on 03.08.1976, acquisition proceeding s were taken in the name of Tmt.Babyammal as per the provisions of the Act 24/78. The possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 23.03.1994 prior to 03.08.1976. The present possession of the petitioner has to be treated only as on encroachment in a Government land. Since the petitioner has purchased the land after introduction of the Act i.e, 03.08.1976, the sale deed effected in favour of the petitioner is null and void as per Section 6 of the Act 24/78. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner stating that the excess vacant land was in possession of the petitioner is not acceptable.
10. The respondent further submits that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 was repealed with effect from 16.06.1999. Section 3(1)(a) the Repeal Act, shall not affect the validity of the excess vacant land if any acquired under Section 9-11 of the Act for which acquisition proceedings were initiated upto 11(5) stage and possession of the land has been taken over by the Government. With regard to the writ petitioner's land, the acquisition proceedings were over upto 11(5) stage and possession of the land was also taken over by the Competent Authority and handed over to the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk on 23.03.1994. The writ petitioner has contended that the acquisition proceedings initiated are vitiative of the fundamental fact of the Repeal Act which is not acceptable. The respondent further submits that all the notices and action under Section 9-11 of the Act were taken in the name of the original owner represented by her legal-heirs. The possession was taken over by the Government on 23.03.1994. Therefore, in this case, acquisition was over in the year 1994 itself and as such, the action taken is saved as per Section 3(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
11. The second respondent further submits that total excess vacant land acquired in this case is 3926 sq.mts whereas the petitioner has purchased only a meagre portion of 1 ground 1425 sq.ft and another extent of about 1 ground and odd as stated above (i.e. plot Nos.17, 19) totally about 3 grounds 450 sq.fts., after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu URban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978. The possession of the excess vacant land was handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 23.03.1994 and hence, the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the writ petition. The petitioner may seek remedy under the innocent buyer category ordered by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 26.09.2008. Hence, the respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
12. The highly competent counsel Mr.V.B.Thirupathikumar appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the subject matter of the property on 25.11.1998 under a registered sale deed. After purchase, she raised a superstructure over the said premises and enjoying the same without any interference. The said property originally belonged to one Babyammal, who got the property under a registered settlement deed executed by one R.Venkataramulu Chettiar on 29.12.1952. The said Baby Ammal was holding 24 1/2 grounds in T.S.No.20/2 at Pallipattu Village. She had submitted a statement before the second respondent herein, viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax and Ceiling, Kodambakkam on 13.07.1977. Thereafter, the said Babyammal expired on 27.10.1978. Since she had no issues her husband's brothers have become owners of the said property and they had sold the property to and in favour of one Natesan under the registered sale deed dated 05.05.1980. Subsequently, the said Munusamy Chettiar and others have sold the property to and in favour of one Krishnan on 10.12.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner had purchased the said property and enjoying the same and as such, she is the absolute owner of the property. While so, the respondent came to the petitioner's premises and measured the extent of land and also directed the petitioner to handover the possession of the land, which is improper.
13. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made an enquiry and came to know that the said property had been acquired by the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978. Further, the respondents had not issued any prior notice and are claiming possession directly from the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had not received any compensation from the respondents and the erstwhile owner had also not received any compensation from the respondents and the said land was belonging to the joint family members. The Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed with effect from 16.06.1999. Therefore, the respondent cannot claim the said property from the petitioner under the said Act since she is the absolute owner of the said property since the year 1998.
14. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have not served any of the mandatory notice prescribed under Section 7(2) and 9(4) on the land owner as per the provision of Rule 8 of the Rules prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978 and the land owner have not been given reasonable opportunity of being heard in person before passing orders under Section 9(5) of the said Act. Without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioner, the respondents proceedings cannot be operated any further against the petitioner's land. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition.
15. The highly competent Government Advocate Mr.V.Shanmugasundar submits that one Mrs.Babyammal has submitted return under Section 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1976, which reveals that the said Babyammal had owned an extent of 24 1/2 grounds at Pallipattu Village. She also mentioned that the said land was proposed to be surrendered. Thereafter, she was called for enquiry several times, but she did not appear. Finally, the second respondent had inspected the said land on 23.02.1978 and found that the land is vacant and no structure has been made on the land. The said Babyammal being an individual is entitled for an extent of 500 sq.mts under the Ceiling Act. As such, the excess vacant land had been acquired by the respondents. Further, one Mr.Munusamy Chettiar and others had sent a letter to the second respondent stating that the legal-heirs of the deceased Babyammal had partitioned the said land and communicated the same by his letter dated 03.01.1979. Therefore, the alienation of the property as alleged by the petitioner is not sustainable under law. The second respondent had sent a reply to Munuswamy Chettiar and asked him to submit legal-heir certificate. The highly competent counsel further submits that the second respondent had collected particulars from the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk Officer and came to know that Munuswamy Chettiar, Sundarababu Chettiar and Jayalakshmi are the sole legal-heirs of the deceased Babyammal. The said Babyammal had expired on 27.10.1978. Thereafter, the competent authority had passed final order on 22.11.1979 stating that the property belongs to the legal-heir of Babyammal, declaring that the lands in question were within the ceiling limit. Further, the said legal-heirs had obtained clearance certificate from the competent authority and sold out the said lands to various persons. Thereafter, the competent authority had cancelled the clearance certificate on 22.11.1979. The petitioner's contention is that she had purchased the property on 25.11.1998. During the relevant period, the property had been acquired by the respondents after observing necessary legal formalities. Thereafter, no objection has been made by the legal-heirs of the said Baby Ammal. After acquiring the said land, the same was published in the Government Gazette. Subsequently, the said land was sold to various persons through their power agent. Under these circumstances, the petitioner had filed the above writ petition and obtained interim injunction. Therefore, the petitioner's sale deed is not valid and as such, the petitioner has no locus-standi to file the above writ petition. The possession of a portion of the acquired land has to be treated only as an encroachment in the Government land, as the purchase of the land made by the petitioner itself is null and void as per Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act. Further, the acquisition process was over and the excess vacant land acquired was handed over to the Revenue authorities on 23.03.1994. The petitioner had purchased the said property in the year 1999, which is not valid under law since the executor had not possessed marketable title deeds over the said property. At the time of alienating the said property in favour of the petitioner i.e., on 25.11.1998, the Government is having rights over the said property. He further submits that Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act was repealed with effect from 16.06.1999, but the acquisition proceeding was over in the year 1994 itself and as such, the petitioner cannot seek any remedy under the said Act. Hence, the highly competent Government Advocate entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
16. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that:-
(i) the petitioner had purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1998 from one Krishnan, but the second respondent had acquired the said property from the owner of the land after observing necessary formalities and handed over the same property on 23.03.1994 to the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the sale deed bearing registration No.413 of 1999 is not valid under law since the executor did not possess marketable title deeds.
(ii) The petitioner is claiming ownership over the said property as per the registered sale deed and she had stated that she put up a superstructure over the said property. Therefore, the respondents have to issue prior notice to the petitioner for a comprehensive enquiry and only then, the respondents would be at liberty to carry out their proceedings further, if found necessary.
(iii) The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, has been repealed since 16.06.1999 but, as per the Government records, the excess land had been acquired and declaration was published in the Government Gazette. Subsequently, the acquired land was handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 23.03.1994. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any relief under the said Act.
17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed-set of papers and the view listed above as (i) to (iii), this Court is constrained to allow the above writ petition since prior notice had not been issued to the petitioner, who is in possession of the property on the strength of the sale deed dated 25.11.1998. However, the respondents are at liberty to execute their acquisition proceedings after initiating necessary legal formalities since the acquisition proceedings is found to be suitable for execution.
18. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
16 / 07 / 2014
(1/2)
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
r n s
To
1.The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land
Tax and Ceiling, Arcot Road,
Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.
3.The Tahsildar,
Mylapore Triplicane Taluk,
Chennai-4.
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
Order made in
W.P.No.10954 of 2008
16 /07 /2014
(1/2)