Madras High Court
K.M.Vidhya Sagar vs The Secretary To Government on 23 April, 2014
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23/ 04 /2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.2646 of 2008
K.M.Vidhya Sagar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner,
Land Reforms and
Urban Land Tax & Ceiling,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Director,
Urban Land Tax & Ceiling,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Tax & Ceiling,
Kunrathur.
5.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur.
6.The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk,
Chennai - 600 053. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of declaration, against the respondents herein by declaring that acquisition proceedings taken under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 have abated in view of that Tamil Nadu Urban Land Repeal Act, 20 of 1999 and the petitioner is entitled to get transfer of patta in his name.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramadass
For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
Special Government Pleader
- - -
O R D E R
The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The writ petitioner submits that he is the owner of the lands of an extent of 46.5 cents situated in Survey No.48 of 84, Valasaravalkam Village, now in Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. At the time of purchasing the said land, he was a minor aged about 12 years. His parents had purchased the said lands out of their personal savings and earnings. The total extent of land of 1 acre and 21 cents in the said Survey No.48 of 84, Valasaravakkam Village is owned by M/s.Cosmos Industrial Corporation. The said owner had executed three sale deeds in favour of the petitioner in (i) sale deed bearing No.1050 of 1989, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Virugambakkam, dated 10.02.1989, an extent 5025 sq.ft, equivalent to 11.5 cents (2) The sale deed document bearing No.1051 of 1989, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Virugambakkam, dated 10.02.1989, an extent of 7638 sq.ft, equivalent to 17.5 cents and (3) The sale deed document bearing registration No.1052 of 1989, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Virugambakkam, dated 10.02.1989, an extent of 7638 sq ft, equivalent to 17.5 cents.
2. The erstwhile owner, M/s.Cosmos Industrial Corporation had purchased the said properties from one Mr.Kamalakanna Mudaliar by a registered sale deed dated 19.04.1972 bearing registration No.1192 of 1972, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Virugambakkam. The said Kamalakannan had purchased the entire property in the said Survey Number i.e., an extent of 1 acre and 21 cents from one Sajjan Raj Sowcar, by a registered sale deed dated 30.09.1946 through document bearing No.1850 of 1946, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet. As such, at the time of purchasing the said property in the name of the petitioner, no encumbrance was there. The petitioner further submits that the erstwhile owners had been in continuous peaceful possession without any interference. The said land has been classified as agricultural lands and was being cultivated regularly. Due to lack of irrigation facilities, the lands were not cultivated from the year 1977. Therefore, over the said land, factories were constructed after obtaining permission from the Valasaravalkam Town Panchayat in the year 1986. The petitioner is in physical possession continuously as lawful owner and paying land tax to the Valasaravalkam Town Panchayat, as on date. The petitioner has leased out the said land to 10 persons, who have constructed factory sheds, for which electricity service connections had been provided from the year 1990 onwards.
3. The petitioner further submits that his family consists of his father, mother, brother, daughter besides him. Even though the property had been purchased in the name of the petitioner, when he was a minor, it has been treated as a joint family property and he is jointly enjoying the same. Except this property, no immovable property is owned by the family members. Now, the factories cover 40.5 cents of the total land and the remaining 6 cents have been used for common passage. The electricity service connection for the said property is in his name. Under the circumstances, the petitioner had levelled a petition to the fifth respondent herein, viz., the Tahsildar, who is attached to the Ambattur Taluk Office, to transfer the patta in his name. In turn, the Tahsildar, had sent a reply stating that the property situated in Survey No.48/1 has been registered in the name of Tamil Nadu Government, since the property had been acquired under Urban Ceiling Act and as such, the patta could not be transferred in the name of the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by the said impugned order passed by the sixth respondent / Tahsildar, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order.
5. The highly competent counsel, Mr.M.Ramadass submits that the alleged acquisition of petitioner's land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act are illegal and improper and no such proceedings were conducted after giving notice to the earlier owner of the said lands, as well as the writ petitioner. As such, the authorities concerned have not given sufficient opportunity to the erstwhile owners as well as present owners before acquiring the property. Further, the respondents have not verified the encumbrance register pertaining to the said land before acquiring the land. The land acquisition officer has not strictly followed the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The highly competent counsel further submits that the land has been built up after obtaining necessary plan and permission from the Valasaravakkam Town Panchayat. The petitioner had availed a loan from various individuals including Government Organizations to develop the land and build up the superstructure on it. The learned counsel has cited a Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Angoori Devi's case, wherein, it has been stated that all pending proceedings have to be declared as abated in view of continuous possession of the lands by the owner. In the instant case, the writ petitioner is in continuous possession from the date of purchase i.e, 10.02.1989, but the respondent stated in their counter statement that the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated on 30.04.1990 i.e., after the sale deed had been executed in favour of the writ petitioner. From the encumbrance certificate, it is seen that the writ petitioner's name had been mentioned as purchaser. As per the impugned order, the name of the Tamil Nadu Government has not been mentioned as the owner of the property and as such, this clearly proves that the writ petitioner is the owner of the property, as on date and he has been in continuous physical possession and enjoying the same without any interference.
6. The writ petitioner had executed a lease agreement to different persons in the month of November 1989 and leased out the said properties. Further, the writ petitioner has been remitting land tax for the said land to the Town Panchayat, Valasaravakkam. The electricity service connection stands in the name of the writ petitioner and he has remitted consumption charges as on date. This is also a vital Government document which clearly proves that the writ petitioner is in physical possession. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Tax Department, had issued FORM-'B' certificate of registration for the petitioner's factory. The said certificate had been issued on 16.09.2011, after thorough verification. Further, the acquisition proceedings have not been strictly followed for acquiring the said land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the compensation amount had neither been paid to the erstwhile owner nor to the writ petitioner and his family members, who are jointly enjoying the property as of now or for over 25 years.
7. The highly competent counsel for the petitioner has cited the following judgments reported in
(i) 2008 1 LW 15 (1) (C.Ram Mohan & Others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others), Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, Sections 9(5), 10, Repealing Act, (1999), Rule 8 / Mandatory provision as to service of notice by Registered Post, Affixture when can be done - Impugned order as to excess land and proceedings in regard thereto challenged - Petitioners alleged that they are in continuous possession and that the respondents did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the said Act and Rules, and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Held: no valid evidence is produced by the respondents to show that the Draft statement was served on the petitioners, as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit by them - Plea of respondents was that Final Statement was also served on the petitioner by affixture, which is contrary to Rule 8 - Without sending it by Registered Post as contemplated under Section 10 read with Rule 8, it was allegedly affixed, hence, it is not a valid service - Moreover, this Court also verified the affixture procedures followed by the respondents, which is also not satisfactory.
Respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of serving notice, Final Statement and delivery of possession, and failed to give opportunity to the petitioners to file their objections - There is no discussion in the order about the suitability of the lands for construction of houses as the said lands admittedly used only for the purpose of manufacturing bricks as well as agricultural purpose.
Alleged take over of possession is not proved by any valid evidence - As pets are in continuous possession of the lands in dispute all along even prior to the Repeal Act and after the Repeal Act, the petitioners possession is protected by this Court during the pendency of the writ petition by granting interim order, the prayer as sought for in this writ petition is to be granted."
(ii) W.A.Nos.137 and 587 of 2009 and batch matters (dated 23.07.2012) "(XXVII) ....
The State is the appellant in this filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2010 passed in W.P.No.8141 of 2004. The writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that notice was given to the petitioner under Sections 7(2), 9(4) and 11(b) of the Act of 1978, that the notice claimed to have been sent is not in accordance with law and more particularly prescribed under Rule 8(2) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1978, that the lands are classified as agricultural land, and the possession alleged to have been taken was not valid and no notice was ordered as per Section 11(5) of the Act. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that there was no proper service of notice on the petitioner. The initial of the land owner was wrongly mentioned in the notice and there was no attempt to serve either the petitioner, who was the real owner, or his authorized representative, and the service was carried out on a third party. Further, the notice under Section 11(5) was served by way of affixture, for which there was no explanation. Moreover, there was no record to show that there was actual delivery of possession after taking over the land by the respondents. In the absence of adherence to the statutory procedure in taking over the land from the petitioner and in the absence of proper service of notice, the proceedings stood abated.
In this appeal, the initial of the land owner was wrongly mentioned in the notice and there was no attempt to serve either the petitioner, who was the real owner of his authorized representative, and the service was carried out on a third party. The records in this case reveal that the notice under Section 11(5) was served by way of affixture, for which there was no explanation. Moreover, there was no record to show that there was actual delivery of possession after taking over the land by the respondents. In the absence of adherence to the statutory procedure in taking over the land from the petitioner and in the absence of proper service of notice, the proceedings stood abated. The order of the learned Single Judge needs to interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
43. In the result, all the writ appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
8. The very Competent Special Government Pleader for the State, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan submits that the respondents have filed detailed counter statements which clearly reveal the acquisition of the properties under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act. It was submitted in the counter that the notice under Section 9(4) and draft statement under Section 9(1) of the said Act was issued on 26.03.1987 requesting Tmt.Jamunabai to file an objection, if any, against proposed acquisition of excess vacant lands in Survey Nos.37, 47/1A1, 47/2A1, 48/1, 47/2B, of Valasaravakkam Village. The urban land owner has sent objection to the competent authority (Urban Land Ceiling), Kunrathur, on 27.03.1987. The competent authority, viz., the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax and Ceiling, Kunrathur, had inspected the subject lands in the year 1989 and found that the lands were lying vacant and it would attract the provisions of the said Act. He has allowed an extent of 1000 Sq.meters towards owner's entitlement and determined the excess vacant land as 25820 sq metres and passed orders Under Section 9(5) of the said Act in his proceedings Rc.No.4608/87-B, dated 30.04.1990. The said order issued under Section 9(5) of the Act was served to the urban land owner on 23.06.1990. Further, the action was taken and final notice under Section 10(1) of the said Act was issued on 24.07.1990. The urban land owner refused to receive the said order. Hence, it was served by affixture on 01.10.1990. Subsequently, the notification under Section 11(1) of the said Act was issued on 22.07.1991 and it was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette No.36, dated 18.09.1991. The notification declaring the acquisition of excess vacant land under Section 11(3) of the said Act has been issued on 28.04.1992 and published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 05.08.1992.
9. The respondents further stated that the notice under Section 11(5) of the said Act was issued by the fourth respondent herein / the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax and Ceiling in his proceedings in R.C.No.4608/87(B), dated 15.09.1992 and it was also served by affixture. The excess land was handed over to the Revenue Department (Maduravoil Firka Revenue Inspector) on 18.05.1993 i.e., long before the receipt of the said act. Notice under Section 12(7) of the said Act was issued on 02.03.1994 and under Section 12(6) of the said Act and orders were issued by the fourth respondent herein, on 01.05.1994, and the acquired land value was fixed at Rs.51,640/- and it was sent by post on 21.03.1994 to the urban land owner. The notice dated 24.03.1994 was issued to the urban land owner to receive the 25% of the compensation amount and the notice dated 12.04.1994 regarding the first instalment amounting to Rs.17,816/- was served through the Revenue Inspector - IV, but the urban land owner had not turned up to receive the compensation. Hence, the amount of Rs.17,816/-, was kept in revenue deposit under challan No.166, dated 04.08.1994 at Sub Treasury, Poonamalle. The notice dated 21.03.1995 regarding second instalment amounting to Rs.4,949/- was informed through his proceedings in R.C.No.1115/95 (B) to the urban land owner, but the land owner refused to receive the order. Hence, the said amount was remitted in the Sub Treasury, Poonamalle in the credit of revenue deposits in challan No.432, dated 17.10.1995. The third instalment amount of Rs.4,596/- was also remitted in the same Sub Treasury, Poonamalle on 19.09.1996 and the fourth installment of Rs.4,441/- was also remitted under challan No.1411, dated 23.08.1998. At this juncture, the petitioner purchased the said land from M/s.Cosmos Industrial Corporation during the year 1989 and has filed writ petition, which is not maintainable.
10. The respondent further submits that the petitioner was not the owner of the property as on 03.08.1976, since the petitioner has purchased the said land during the year 1989 and contention that the lands are agricultural lands also cannot be admitted. The petitioner himself has stated that the lands are leased out for industrial purposes and he is paying taxes. The fourth respondent, viz., the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax and Ceiling inspected the said lands on 28.10.1989 and found no traces of cultivation and also found that the lands were kept vacant and also laid out in plots. The petitioner's purchase is null and void as per Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Hence, the petitioner's contentions are unacceptable. Further, the sixth respondent / Taluka Tahsildar, Ambattur had informed to the petitioner about the acquisition proceedings by the State Government. As such, the petitioner ought to have approached the fourth respondent / Assistant Commissioner (Land Acquisition Officer), Urban Land Tax and Ceiling, Kunrathur, who is the competent authority to disclose about the entire acquisition proceedings. However, as the acquired lands have been vested with Government, the issuance of patta to the petitioner does not arise. Further, the records show that only after due notice to the urban land owner and after due inspection by the fourth respondent herein, the action has been taken to acquire the excess vacant land held by the urban land owner. As per revenue records, the said land should be registered in the name of Kamalakannan, husband of Jamunabai. Since, Kamalakannan expired, action was taken by the fourth respondent in the name of Tmt.Jamunabai, wife of Late Kamalakannan. The contention of the petitioner was that that he has purchased the said land from M/s.Cosmos Industrial Corporation, during 1989, but this company has also not taken steps to change the name of ownership in the revenue records. As such, it is evident that the petitioner had not purchased the petitioner land property directly from the land owner, i.e., Mrs.Jamuna Bai. As such, the said sale deed is not valid as per Section 6 of the said Act and hence, the issuance of land acquisition notice also does not arise. Further, the fourth respondent, who is the competent authority for acquiring the said land, was not informed of the fact of purchase of lands by the petitioner. After inspection by the fourth respondent of the said acquired lands, it was seen that the lands were covered as urban lands. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were initiated and the lands were vested with the Government as early as 18.05.1993, well before the repeal of the said Act on 16.06.1999. Now, the petitioner can only be considered as an encroacher upon Government land as this case falls under Section 3(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. As such, the contentions of the petitioner is untenable.
11. The respondents further stated that the writ petitioner and his earlier vendor have failed to produce any relevant revenue records and encumbrance certificate before the fourth respondent. The authorities have strictly followed all the procedures contemplated under the said Act. It is further submitted that the payment of property taxes, electricity charges and licence fees to the factories standing in the lands, will not give any entitlement to the petitioner and the petitioner has to be treated only as an encroacher of Government lands as these lands have already been taken possession of by the Government in the year 1993 itself. The acquisition proceedings were initiated on the urban land owner on 03.08.1976 as per the provision of the said act. Therefore, the said writ petition does not have any merits and has to be dismissed.
12. The very competent Special Government Pleader further submits that the fourth respondent, viz., the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax and Ceiling, Kunrathur had initiated acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 to acquire the excess vacant land, to an extent of 25820 sq. meters from the original owner, Mrs.Jamuna Bai, who succeeded the property from her husband, Kamalakannan as sole legal-heir. The said acquisition proceedings were initiated on 03.08.1976. The writ petitioner had stated that he had purchased the property in the year 1989 to an extent of 46.5 cents. The said properties were purchased under three registered sale deeds in the name of the writ petitioner, who was a minor at the time of purchase, by his father and natural guardian. These sale deeds are not sustainable under law since the land had been acquired by the Government before alienation. Now, the excess land is being occupied by the Government i.e, revenue authorities. The actual owner of the lands had refused to receive the compensation amount and hence, the said amount had been remitted into the Sub Treasury, Poonamallee and the same was informed to the original owner of the property. The petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the said acquisition proceedings at this belated stage. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the sixth respondent / Tahsildar is found to be fit to be proceeded with. Further, the fourth respondent had strictly adhered to the land acquisition proceedings and acquired the said excess land and as such, there is no irregularity or illegality or lapse in the said acquisition. The fourth respondent had inspected the acquired land and at that point of time, he had noticed that neither a factory nor a superstructure had been constructed over the said land. Actually, the land has been plotted out as house sites and were vacant.
13. Further, the Special Government Pleader submits that as per the revenue records, the lands stood in the name of Kamalakannan, who had expired. Therefore, all the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the name of the wife of the said Kamalakannan. Further, as per revenue records, the acquired lands were standing in the name of State Government. The mode of payment had also been disclosed to the owner of the said land. The compensation references have been communicated to the land owners by affixture. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
14. Per contra, the highly competent counsel, Mr.M.Ramadass submits that as per counter statement of the respondents, it was stated that the acquisition proceedings had been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under various Section of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, dated 30.04.1990, onwards and the compensation amount had been deposited on various dates on installment basis from 04.08.1994 to 28.03.1998. The mode of payment made by the respondent is not proper. The assessment of compensation was not done in an appropriate manner and it was done in an unilateral manner. The petitioner had purchased the property in the year 1989 and at that point of time, he was a minor aged about 12 years. Therefore, the sale consideration had been paid by his father as his natural guardian, and he had purchased the same in the name of the petitioner. As such, the entire property belongs to his entire family members consisting of 5 members, who are all married and settled separately. As such, the acquired land is not an excess land. Further, the registered sale deed is still in force and on the strength of these sale deeds, the petitioner and his family members are occupying the same and also enjoying the same, without any interference, as on date. Acquisition proceedings of the land has been carried out by the fourth respondent in an arbitrary manner, without following necessary procedures as per law. Further, the respondent stated that the value assessed by the fourth respondent i.e., a sum of Rs.51,640/- had not been deposited by the fourth respondent on a one time basis, but it was deposited in 4 installments, which is also irregular. Further, the total amount of the 4 installments made comes to a sum of Rs.31,792/- only, which is much lower than the amount of Rs.51,640/- assessed as compensation, which is also highly irregular. This kind of assessment and mode of payment is not sustainable under law.
15. The highly competent counsel further submits that the petitioner has been remitting land tax to the Kunrathur Town Panchayat, and also paying electricity service consumer charges regularly. It clearly proves that he is in physical possession and enjoying the said property without any interference. Further, the petitioner had leased out some portions to the lessee for running a factory situated over the property whichi is functioning regularly. The Commercial Department of the State Department and the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Department of the State have issued certificates and authorized the writ petitioner to run the factory. Therefore, as per the vital government documents, it has been clearly proved that the possession had not been taken by the respondents, as on date. The compensation also has neither been paid to the present owners, i.e, the writ petitioner herein nor to the erstwhile owner. Hence, the highly competent counsel, requests this Court to allow the writ petition and consequently give suitable direction to the sixth respondent for issuance of patta in the name of the petitioner.
16. From the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that:-
(i) The writ petitioner has purchased the said land i.e., an extent of 46.5 cents from M/s.Cosmos Industrial Corporation, on 10.02.1989. As per the counter statement of the respondents, it is seen that the fourth respondent / Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax & Ceiling, Kunrathur had issued orders under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act in his proceedings Rc.No.4608/87-B, dated 30.04.1990. In the relevant period, the writ petitioner was the owner of the property and his name has been mentioned in the encumbrance certificate as the purchaser of property. As on date, the ownership of the said land, remains in the name of the petitioner.
(ii) The electricity service connection stands in the name of the petitioner and he is consuming electricity power and as such, he is remitting electricity consumer charges as on date. Besides, the writ petitioner has been remitting land tax to the Kunrathur Town Panchayat. To establish the same, the writ petitioner had annexed xerox copy of the relevant documents. In view of the writ petitioner maintaining all the requisite elements, it is logical to assume that he is the rightful owner of the property. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is occupying the property and enjoying the same, without any interference, from the date of purchase. In order to prove the physical possession of land by the petitioner, the petitioner had produced photocopies of the schedule property.
(iii) The properties have been purchased on 10.02.1989 under three sale deeds in the name of the writ petitioner and these have been registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Poonamallee. At the time of alienation, the writ petitioner was aged about 12 years and the entire sale consideration had been paid for by the father of the writ petitioner, from his earnings. Now, all the family members, consisting of the five members are claiming rights over the property. As such, the acquisition proceedings of the respondents has not been done as per the laws laid down in the said act.
(iv) As per counter statement of respondents, it is seen that the compensation amount had been assessed at a sum of Rs.51,640/-. But, the respondents have remitted the said amount in installments on four different occasions and the total of the installments remitted amounts to only Rs.31,792/-. The said compensation had been assessed in the year 1994 and the fourth installment amount had been remitted in the year 1998. Therefore, there is an inordinate delay for remitting the said compensation amount. It is also seen that the full amount had not been remitted in the Sub Treasury, as on date. Further, the land owner had not utilized the said amount and the remitted lesser compensation amount is lying in the respondents / State Government accounts.
(v) Therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is in physical possession and no one had received the compensation from the said acquired land. Therefore the acquisition procedures had not been strictly followed and therefore, the fourth respondent's acquisition procedures is not found to be in order and it is not suitable for execution. As such, the sixth respondent's Tahsildar, Ambattur order in his proceedings No.RPT.No15262 of 2007, dated 31.12.2007 is not maintainable under law and has to be set-aside.
(vi) The previous owners had neither claimed any patta from the Tahsildar nor raised any objections for grant of patta in favour of the writ petitioner. Likewise, the erstwhile owners never challenged the acquisition proceedings which have been initiated by the fourth respondent / The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Kunrathur. As such, it is clearly evident that the writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the properties.
17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the sixth respondent and this Court's view listed as (i) to (vi), this Court is inclined to allow the above writ petition and accordingly, this Court declares that the acquisition proceedings taken under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 have abated in view of the repeal of the said Act through Tamil Nadu Urban Land Repeal Act, 20 of 1999 and as such, the petitioner is entitled to get transfer of patta in his name. As such, the order of the sixth respondent in his proceedings No. No.RPT.No15262 of 2007, dated 31.12.2007 is set-aside. Hence, this Court directs the sixth respondent / Tahsildar, Ambattur to issue patta in the name of the writ petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
23 / 04 / 2014
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
r n s
C.S.KARNAN, J.
r n s
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Special Commissioner,
Land Reforms and
Urban Land Tax & Ceiling,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Director,
Urban Land Tax & Ceiling,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
Pre Delivery Order made in
W.P.No.2646 of 2008
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Tax & Ceiling,
Kunrathur.
5.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur.
6.The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk,
Chennai - 600 053.
23 /04 /2014