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

M.Udaya Kumar vs The Competent Authority

Madras High Court|02 December, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The first petitioner along with his brother have purchased a house-site plot from and out of a larger extent of land of 3274 sq.ft. from the legal heirs of the deceased Padmavathi Ammal, the owner of the property, under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.05.1996 in Document No.1335 of 1996 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar,Vellacherry. The land, which is the subject matter of the present dispute is in S.No.156/1 and 156/2 at Madipakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, kanchipuram District. The brother of the first petitioner has settled his share in the said property in favour of the second petitioner. Thus, the petitioners are joint owners of the property and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners made an application to the fourth respondent to issue joint patta in their name. The fourth respondent after verifying the records informed that the first respondent has passed orders vesting the said property as Government land under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. Therefore, petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order of the first respondent and for consequential relief.
2. The writ Petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent, namely, the competent authority, Urban Land (Ceiling and Assistant Commissioner dated 29.04.1997 in Na.Ka.2289 issued in terms of Section 11(5) , which reads as follows:
"11.(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under Sub Section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice."
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. A responsible officer has been deputed by the Department and he is present before this Court along with records.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent has initiated proceedings in the year 1996 against Mrs.Padmavathi Ammal, who died as early as on 15.02.1994. The notice was sent to the dead person and no notice was issued to the holder of the land or to the persons interested. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside.
5. The stand of the Department is that the proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act against the erstwhile owner, Padmavathi Ammal and a notice under Section 7 (2) d of the Act is said to have been served on the said Padamavathi Ammal on 12.08.1996. According to the respondents, notice was affixed on the door.
6. In view of the notice dated 29.04.1997 issued by the first respondent under 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, it is clear that possession of the property has not been taken over by the respondents. The date on which the notice under Section 11(5) is said to have been issued, the said Padmavathi Ammal was not alive. She died as early as on 15.02.1994. The death Certificate dated 25.03.1997 enclosed in the typed set of papers shows that the said Padmavathi Ammal died on 15.02.1994. In view of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 20 of 1999, and since possession of the property has not been taken over and also in view of the fact that the notice under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was issued on a dead person, the entire proceedings initiated under the Principal Act abates and the impugned proceedings are, therefore, liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding is set aside. The petitioners are entitled to all the consequential relief. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.
Index:no Internet:yes 02.12.2009 PAL Note: The Original Will was produced as directed by this Court and the same has been returned tot he counsel for returning back to the petitioners. To
1. The Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) and Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Alandur,Chennai.88
2. The Principal commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai.5
3. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.
4. The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
Pal W.P. No. 43808 of 2006 DT.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

M.Udaya Kumar vs The Competent Authority

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 December, 2009