Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Ms.Prathiba Venkataraman vs The Assistant Commissioner on 27 January, 2009
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 Vs. 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 of the person
in whose name land stands in the records, then the
proceedings are invalid. Even otherwise, the issue raied
in these writ petitions viz., that no proper notice was
5/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.18209, 18214, 18377 of 2017
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.
Section 4 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
R.P.Sarathy vs The Assistant Commissioner Ult on 28 January, 2011
In this regard, a reference may be made to the
judgment of this Court in G.P.Sarawath and Ors. Vs.
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
of the Supreme Court. It was held that if possession is
not taken, the repealing Act will enure to the benefit of
the land owners.
1