Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner submits that she is the owner of the land situated at Old Survey No.51/1-A and New Survey No.51/1-A-2 and 51/1-A-3 (present Survey Nos.51/1A1A & 51/1A1C) to an extent of 3000 sq.mtrs situated at Seevaram, Perungudi Village, Chennai-96. She submits that originally the property belonged to one P.C.Thomas, who obtained the property by way of registered sale deed dated 10.12.2013 from (1) Mrs.S.Vijayalakshmi Ammal and (2) Kasthuri Rangam. She submits that the said P.C.Thomas died on 07.08.1993 and the property devolved on his wife Mary Thomas. The petitioner further submits that her husband siddhiq @ Abubaker had entered into a sale agreement dated 09.03.2004 with Mary Thomas and the said Mary Thomas had delivered possession of the property to her husband on 09.03.2004. Thereafter, he has filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement in O.S.No.764 of 2004 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu and the same was decreed on 30.08.2006 in favour of her husband, the plaintiff therein. The said Mary Thomas remained exparte in the suit and the Court has passed a well reasoned exparte decree based on merits.

8. The respondents further submit that subsequently orders under Section 9(5) of the Act were issued in Rc.No.4129/87, dated 31.07.1989 to acquire 3000 sq.mts of excess vacant land after allowing the family entitlement of 1000 sq.mts. It was sent by RPAD and received by Tmt.Mary Thomas W/o.P.C.Thomas, the Urban Land Owner on 29.08.1989. Final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued on 30.08.1989 and sent by RPAD. It was also received by Tmt.Mary Thomas on 01.11.1989. Notifications under Section 11(1) and 11(3) of the Act were issued on 30.12.1989 and 26.03.1990 respectively and sent for publication in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The notification under Section 11(3) of the Act was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 25.04.1990. Notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 31.05.1990 requesting the Urban Land Owner to surrender the excess vacant land. It was received by the Urban Land Owner on 09.07.1990. The respondents further submit that the possession of the excess vacant land of 3000 sq.mts was handed over to the Revenue Department on 17.08.1990. The respondents further submit that Thiru.P.C.Thomas, the urban land owner in his letter dated 28.06.1989 stated that he could not go ahead with his scheme of industry due to his ill health and old age and requested to take over the excess vacant land and to release the compensation amount in one lumpsum. Hence, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2485, Revenue dated 13.12.1990 withdrew the exemption granted in G.O.No.565, Revenue, dated 28.04.1986 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and accorded permission for the payment of the total amount of Rs.9,000/- as compensation on 03.08.1976, in one lumpsum, to Thiru.P.C.Thomas being the amount payable under Section 12(6) of the Act for the excess vacant land acquired under the Act comprised in S.No. 51/1A1A & 51/1A1C of Seevaram Village.

31. The highly competent Additional Government Pleader Mr.S.Diwakar submits that the first respondent had initiated acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, against one Mr.P.C.Thomas, who was the owner of the property as he had excess land of 3000 sq. meters. Subsequently, the said land had been acquired and compensation of a sum of Rs.9,000/- also has been paid to the land owner. Subsequently, the property had been delivered on 17.08.1990 and the owner of the property, viz., P.C.Thomas had also signed in the land delivery chit. As such, the land acquisition proceedings has become final and the entire acquired property is under the control of the revenue authorities, who had taken over the property on 17.08.1990. Further, the husband of the writ petitioner herein had also filed two writ petitions and both were dismissed. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the said Act in the year 1989, as per G.O.Ms.No.565, Revenue, dated 28.04.1986, as the said land falls under ceiling. Therefore, the said contentions that the husband of the writ petitioner had purchased the said land on 19.10.2011 is not sustainable under law. Further, the said sale deed had been executed on the strength of the exparte decree obtained by the husband of the writ petitioner in O.S.No.6549 of 2010, wherein the first respondent and other respondents, viz., the respondents 3, 4 and 5 have not been impleaded as necessary parties, which is erroneous, since the said acquired land is under the custody of respondents since 17.08.1990. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner and legal-heir of the original owner have colluded with each other and obtained decree on a compromise memo, which had been created for their convenience. As such, the said decree is not found to be suitable for execution or to be operated against the respondents herein. The writ petitioner has made wrong entry into the respondents properties and raised a small house and also obtained electricity service connection in an unlawful manner. Further, the house has been constructed recently without sanction plan. As the electricity supply is a basic amenity, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was constrained to provide electricity to the petitioner. However, the possession of the petitioner is not a lawful one and his occupation is an unauthorized one. The first respondent's impugned order is only a common direction to the second respondent not to register any documents over the said acquired property and also some other properties, which were also acquired under the said Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the said impugned order in an individual capacity. The question of larger delay does not arise in this case since the compensation of a sum of Rs.9,000/- has been paid to the original owner on 21.03.1991 by way of demand draft. Further, the acquired property had been taken over by the first respondent and the same has been handed over to the revenue authorities. In the possession delivery letter, the original owner Mr.P.C.Thomas had duly signed and as such, the acquisition proceedings had been completed without committing any irregularities or illegalities. The husband of the writ petitioner created documents since 2004 onwards, after trespassing into the properties and created self serving documents in his favour with the help of the legal-heir of the Late P.C.Thomas, who was the original owner of the property. The said P.C.Thomas had given his consent for acquiring the said surplus land. Now, the writ petitioner had attempted to grab the property by filing the writ petition. The very competent Additional Government Pleader, in support of his arguments had produced the entire connected files pertaining to the acquisition of the said property. Hence, the highly competent Additional Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition as it has been filed as an afterthought , after a delay of 25 years.

(iii) The first respondent herein had initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Urban Ceiling Act for acquiring petitioner's land to an extent of 3000 sq.mtrs as surplus land. For acquiring the said land, G.O.Ms.No.565, Revenue, dated 28.04.1986, had been issued. The respondents' contention was that they had acquired the said land from the erstwhile owner viz., P.C.Thomas and the said P.C.Thomas had been paid compensation of Rs.9,000/-, by way of demand draft dated 21.03.1991. Further, the respondents stated that the possession has been taken over by the respondents on 17.08.1990, but there is no authenticated document to show that the respondents are in physical possession and they are maintaining the property under their control. As such, the respondents acquisition proceedings have not been completed effectively, i.e. they have not acceded to the property.