Madras High Court
Sithan @ Madhu vs The Director on 8 January, 2016
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.Nos.8307 of 2014; 8367 to 8369 of 2014;
25860 of 2014 & 4668 of 2015 and
connected Miscellaneous Petitions.
***
W.P.No. 8307 of 2014
1.Sithan @ Madhu
2.Alamelu .. Petitioners in WP.8307/2014
V.
1.The Director,
Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner cum
Competent Authority,
Urban Land Ceiling, Salem.
3.The Assistant Commissioner cum
Competent Authority,
Urban Land Ceiling, Erode.
4.The Tahsildar, Salem (West),
Salem .. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in S.R. NO.A1/ 20/93 dated 28.2.1994 from the file of the 2nd respondent quash the same so far as the petitioners are concerned and forbear the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands measuring an extent of 3104 sq.ft. in Survey No.157/1, Sivadhapuram Village, Salem Taluk and District belonging to the petitioners.
For Petitioners (in all WPs) .. Mr.D.Shivakumaran
For Respondents (in all WPs) .. Mr.R.Vijayakumar
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
In an identical matter, this Court disposed of the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.17759, 18402 & 24139 of 2014 dated 21.12.2015. For better appreciation, the said order is quoted:-
"The petitioners in all these writ petitions have approached this Court for the second time. Firstly all of them filed W.P.Nos.8610, 8611 & 8612 of 2004. The 4th petitioner in W.P.No.18402 of 2014 is the son of V.K.Muniappa Chettiar, who was the 4th petitioner in W.P.No.8611 of 2004. In fact, the earlier writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.8610, 8611 & 8612 of 2004 where cases which were converted as writ petitions arising out of proceedings which were pending before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal in S.R.P.Nos.16/2001, 17/2001 and 18/2001. In fact, after the abolition of the Tribunals, the Revision Petitions were transferred to this Court and renumbered as C.R.P.Nos.1923, 1924 and 1925 of 2003. Subsequently, the Civil Revision Petitions were converted as Writ Petitions and renumbered as W.P.Nos.8610, 8611 & 8612 of 2004. In all those writ petitions, the challenge was to the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner cum Competent Authority, (Urban Land Ceiling), Salem in S.R.No.A1/20/93 dated 28.02.1994. The said writ petitions were heard by this Court and by common order dated 07.06.2011, all the writ petitions were allowed. In fact, the Court allowed the Writ Petitions after perusing the original files which were circulated for the consideration of the Court. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
"10. Mr.D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Prathiba Venkataraman v. The Assistant Commissioner and another reported in CDJ 2009 MHC 468 (W.P.No.6931 of 2000) dated 27.01.2009. This is for the purpose of relying upon the finding that if no notice is given to the original land owner or the person in whose name land stands in the records, then the proceedings are invalid. Even otherwise, the issue raised in these writ petitions viz., that no proper notice was given under Section 9(5) of the Act and the lands were agricultural land and hence not covered by the provisions of the ULC Act and that after the repealing Act, if possession continues to vest with the land owner and not taken by the Government, then the land owners are entitled for benefit under Section 4 of T.N.Act 20 of 1999. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in G.P.Saraswathi and others v. Assistant Commissioner cum Competent Authority reported in (2010) 8 MLJ 449. In that case, this court dealt with the scope of the peaceful possession being taken and referred to the judgment of various decisions o the Supreme Court. It was held that if possession is not taken, then repealing Act will enure to the benefit of the land owners.
11. In view of the above, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions will stand allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. No costs."
2.The present writ petitions are filed by the same petitioners, except Nagarajan, whose father was the petitioner in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.8611 of 2004, wherein they seek for a direction upon the Tahsildar, Salem (West), the 4th respondent to grant patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question. These applications were submitted to the Tahsildar 2011 for which a reply was received by the petitioners from the Director of Urban Land Ceiling dated 03.02.2012 stating that they propose to file a Writ Appeal against the order in W.P.Nos.8610, 8611 & 8612 of 2004 dated 07.06.2011. Therefore, the petitioners waited patiently and submitted representations in 2014 i.e., on 05.02.2014 & 15.06.2014. Since the representations were not considered, the petitioners are before this Court.
3.The 1st respondent has not placed any material before this Court to show that an appeal was filed against the order which were passed on 07.06.2011. Thus, this Court safely presume that the said order has attained a finality.
4.In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the Tahsildar, Salem (West) to consider the petitioners' application for grant of patta after verification of all the records and pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.With the above direction, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
2.Following the aforesaid order, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions stand allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
08.01.2016 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rpa To
1.The Director, Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner cum Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Salem.
3.The Assistant Commissioner cum Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Erode.
4.The Tahsildar, Salem (West), Salem T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
rpa W.P.Nos.8307 of 2014; 8367 to 8369 of 2014;
25860 of 2014 & 4668 of 2015 08.01.2016