Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first Respondent from in any manner interfering with the petitioner's right, possession and enjoyment of the land of an extent of 6996.60 sq.ft., in S.No.183, 184, Block No.62, at No.12, 3rd Sea Ward Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalput District, Chennai-600 041, in the light of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 and consequentially direct the second respondent to issue patta for the said land in the petitioner's name.
2. Under a deed of settlement dated 21.11.1969 registered as document No.2637 of 1969, the sister of the petitioner gifted the land to an extent of 5.05 grounds in Thiruvanmiyur Village to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of entire extent of land. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1978 (herein after referred to as "The Act") came into force with effect from 3.8.1976. The petitioner filed a statement in terms of
Section 7 of the Act giving details of excess land held by her. However, the petitioner sought exemption to hold the same. Thereafter, the respondents' authorities took further steps and prepared a draft statement with regard to the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limits as provided under Section 9(1) of the Act and notice under
Section 9(4) of the Act was issued. The petitioner submitted her objection to the same and the final statement was prepared as per
Section 10(1) of the Act. The notification as required under Section 11(1) of the Act giving the particulars of the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit was also issued. Thereafter, the land vested with the Government in accordance with Section 11(3) of the Act. The petitioner has been repeatedly seeking exemption from the provisions of the Act and correspondence ensured between the petitioner and the Government. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the possession of the property in this case has not been taken by following the procedure prescribed under
Section 11(5) of the Act. No compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the major portion of the property, she has built a house with a compound wall around entire extent of the property. Unfortunately, based on an authorisation given to the petitioner's sister in the year 1984, the authorities have proceeded to take over the possession of the land by taking a signature from the sister of the petitioner, whose name is Tmt.Kalyanalakshmi Banumurthy, residing in the neighbouring plot.
4. According to the petitioner, after coming into force the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999, since the possession of the land has not been taken over by the respondents in the manner prescribed, the proceedings under the Act 24 of 1978 abates.
5. The respondents have disputed certain facts and stated that draft statement under Section 9(1) of the Act and notice under
Section 9(4) of the Act were prepared and sent and the petitioner acknowledged the same. In paragraph 12 of the counter, it is stated that the lands were handed over to the Revenue department on 20.6.1990 by getting signature of Tmt. Kalyanalakshmi Bhanumurthy on behalf of Dr.Ananthalakshmi, on the delivery receipt to show that the excess land was handed over to the respondents. According to the Department, the compensation for the land acquired was kept as revenue deposit on 9.11.2006. The counter affidavit also refers to the various representation given by the petitioner to the Government seeking exemption from the provisions of the Act in respect of the land for a public and charitable purposes. The Government has also considered the same and on one occasion in proceedings dated 29.7.1991, such plea was rejected. The respondents now claimed that since the possession was taken over on 20.6.1990, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of theTamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999.
6. On going through the files and also the statement made by the petitioner and the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to accept the stand of the respondents that the possession of the property has been taken over for the following reasons.
(i) The preparation of draft statement under Section 9(1) of the Act, notice under
Section 9(4) of the Act, and the final statement under
Section 10(1) of the Act are all not in dispute.
(ii) The fact that the petitioner has sought for exemption and the Government denied the same is also not in dispute. During the period of 1984, the petitioner was working as a Director in Lady Irwin College, Delhi, and at that point of time, she authorised her sister to attend the enquiry before the respondents and that proceedings was concluded and the authorisation was not extended thereafter. The petitioner has been corresponding with the authorities.
(iii) On 30.5.1990, the petitioner, in response to the notice under
Section 11(5) of the Act to hand over possession of the property has written a letter to the authorities stating that her residential address is No.A204, Manasaraovar, 19 III Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.41. The excess vacant land is also situated with the said property. She has sought for exemption in the letter dated 30.5.1990 for this property from the above address. This letter seeking exemption was considered and rejected by the Government on 25.7.1991. It is stated that on 20.6.1990, the land was handed over by the sister of the petitioner. It is not clear as to why Mrs. Kalyanalakshmi Banumurthy should sign the delivery receipt. The address of the petitioner was clearly indicated to the authorities and the Government's reply dated 25.7.1991 has been sent to the same address. Therefore, the authorities should have taken possession from the petitioner.
(iv) A document is furnished by the petitioner to show that the mother of the petitioner was residing at the above said address. The legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar on the death of Tmt.Jayalakshmi Subramanian, mother of the petitioner, who died on 30.8.1999, shows the address as above. Therefore, it is apparent that the property was in possession and occupation of the petitioner and her mother.
(v) The petitioner produced a document issued by the Corporation of Chennai granting demolition order for the old building for the purpose of reconstruction of the very same property. The sketch, which has already been furnished, also shows the excess land is included within the premises of the petitioner's property and it is compounded. Except with the permission of the land owner, the access to the property is not feasible. In such an event, possession if at all could have been taken only on notice to the owner or any person living in the property viz., the petitioner or her mother. In this case, possession is not taken from the petitioner or her mother but from the neighbour.
(vi) In this case, the delivery receipt states that the sister of the petitioner handed over the possession of the property. When the address of the petitioner is known to the department and when it is occupied by the petitioner and her mother, there was no justification for the respondents to take delivery of the property from another person residing in the neighbouring place. It is not the stand of the respondents that Tmt. Kalyana Lakshmi Bhanumurthi, who is said to have signed the receipt, is the person, who is in possession of the property at that time. Unless, there is a specific mention that the said person is in possession of the property, the possession of property cannot be taken from that person. Obtaining signature from a relative cannot justify taking over possession of the property without the knowledge of the owner. It is an untenable plea. The subsequent records viz., the legal heirs certificate and the demolition certificate clearly show that the property continued to be in possession of the petitioner. Hence, the plea that the possession was taken over on 20.6.1990 cannot be accepted as valid in law. The possession therefore continues to be with the petitioner.
7. In view of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999, since the possession of the property has not been taken in the manner known to law, proceedings initiated under the Act 24/1978 abates. The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to get the wrong entry in the revenue records corrected to read as free hold land. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2007 is closed. If any application is filed for correction of the entries in the revenue records, the same shall be considered by the authorities in terms of the order of this Court. No costs.
ra To
1.The Competent Authority (ULC) and Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Alandur, Chennai-600 088.
2.The Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, Chennai 600 028