Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

Mr. K. Kannan vs The Special Commissioner

Madras High Court|02 December, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This writ petition is filed to declare that the particulars of the land comprised in Survey No. 356/4 to an extent of 0.32 acres in all totaling to 0.78 acres situated at Girugambakkam Village, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District as petitioners' absolute land in view of the Repealed Act 20 of 1999 stating that all proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act as abated.
2. The subject matter of the writ petition is a land in S.No. 356/3 and 356/4 to an extent of 0.78 acres situated at Gerugambakkam Village, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The petitioners got the property by way of Will dated 19.2.1974 registered as Document No. 4 of 1974 before the Sub Registrar Office, at Pallavaram from one Subbarayalu Naidu and her wife Gengammal. The petitioners claimed to be in possession of the property eversince the death of Gangammal on 3.10.1997. It is stated by the petitioners that there was a claim by one Varadan, S/o Narayanasami Naidu in respect of the same property and the petitioners filed O.S.No. 707 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, which was decreed on 18.1.1989. Execution Petition No. 36 of 1999 was filed and the property was delivered on 30.9.2000. The petitioners are in possession eversince.
3. It appears that in the meanwhile, the respondents have initiated action under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act stating that the land is held in excess by Gangammal and her husband Subbarayalu Naidu. The respondents also contend that they have taken possession of the excess land on 30.4.1999. In response to the representation of the petitioners through their counsel, the respondents authority stated that consequent to the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act, the possession of the property was taken over from Gangammal on 30.4.1999 as per the records and therefore, the authorities refused to grant patta inspite of the order of the Civil Court. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed to declare that the proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Principal Act 24 of 1978 is bad for the reason that the said Gangammal died on 3.10.1987 and therefore, the authorities could not have taken possession from dead person on 30.4.1999. Since the possession has not been taken in the manner known to law, in view of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999, the proceedings would abate. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in WP No. 26920 of 2004, dated 2.9.2005.
4. The respondents have been noticed and the records were produced. In the records, it is stated that the possession was taken from the said Gangammal on 30.4.1999, but she died long before. This is supported by the death certificate dated 8.5.1996 showing that the date of death of Gangammal as 3.10.1987 issued in Form-10. In such view of the matter, the entire proceedings of the respondents is to be treated as null and void. It is borne out by records that the earlier proceedings and the notices issued by the respondents are said to have been served on the said Gangammal by way of affixure after her death.
5. In such view of the matter, since the proceedings are initiated against a dead person and since the possession of the property has not been taken over in the manner known law and also in view of the Civil Court proceedings where the delivery of possession was ordered in the execution proceedings which fact is not disputed by the respondents in the reply dated 21.11.2003, the actual possession of the property would be with the petitioners and therefore, in view of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999, the entire proceedings abates.
6. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in the writ petition with all consequential benefits. Conseqently, MP No. 2 of 2006 is closed. No costs.
02.12.2009 ra Index: Yes/No Internet: yes/No To
1. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Chepauk, Chennai.5.
2. The Assistant Commissioner/ Competent Authority, Urban Land Tax, Kundrathur Zone, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai.16.
R. SUDHAKAR,J., WP No. 46174 of 2006 Date: 02.12.2009
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mr. K. Kannan vs The Special Commissioner

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 December, 2009