Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.