Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.08 seconds)The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mr.Aalim Muhammed Salegh Trust on 3 December, 2014
8. Perusal of the file produced before this Court would show
that a Land Delivery Receipt dated 01.06.1999 made available
therein, only indicates that a symbolic possession of the land was
taken over by the Revenue Officer, Pallikaranai and handed over to
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
the Deputy Tahsildar, (Urban Land Ceiling). In the very same
Certificate, a column shown as "urban land owner" is left blank
without having his signature. Therefore, it is evident that the urban
land owner has not signed the delivery receipt to indicate that he
has handed over possession of land to the Revenue Official. On the
other hand, the Delivery Receipt produced before this Court would
show that it is only a record of symbolic possession taken by of the
Revenue Officials, as if the possession was taken over by the
Revenue Inspector and handed over to the Deputy Thasildar.
Hence, the said Certificate at the best can be treated only as a proof
of symbolic possession and not that of physical possession,
especially, when, admittedly, the land owner has not signed the
delivery receipt to establish that either he has handed over
possession or that the revenue officials have taken possession in his
presence and knowledge. The very same issue was considered by
two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in 2015(2) CWC
20 (Mad), R.Siddiah vs. State of Tamilnadu and 2015(1) CWC
388, The Government of Tamilnadu vs. Aalim Muhammed
Salegh Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, (wherein I am a
party) in which this Court found that paper possession cannot be
construed as that of possession as required under the Act, since
symbolic possession is different from physical possession. It is also
found therein that there should be a proof of voluntary surrender of
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
vacant land or forceful dispossession under Section 10(6) of the said
Act and in the absence of such proof, it cannot be construed that
physical possession has been taken from the land owner. It is not
the case of the respondents that the petitioner has voluntarily
handed over possession or that they have dispossessed him
forcefully by resorting to procedure contemplated under Section
10(6) of the said Act. Hence, it is evident that the physical
posession continues with the petitioner.
Section 4 in The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Hari Ram on 11 March, 2013
"8. The issue as to whether taking over of the
land by symbolic possession can be construed as
possession taken and based on such act, whether
the authorities can claim right over the land after the
Repeal Act, has already been considered and
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of U.P. vs., Hari Ram reported in 2013-3-MLJ-
408(SC) at para 38 and 39, which reads as follows:-
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs M/S. Mecca Prime Tannery on 23 July, 2012
9. Likewise in a decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Government of Tamil Nadu vs., Mecca Prime Tannery
reported in 2012-6-MLJ-273, it has been held at para
33 to 35 as follows:-