PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER Vs. B.BOOSHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms and the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Chennai, by way of the instant writ appeal challenges the order, dated 3/1/2013, made in W.P.No.21070 of 2003. A learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment has quashed the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, (hereinafter called as "the Ceiling Act" for short) by holding that the writ petitioners were in actual physical possession of the land, on the date when the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20 of 1999) (hereinafter called as "the Repeal Act" for short) was passed.

(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioners that the land measuring an extent of 2800 Sq.mts, in S.No.11/2A1B of Ayapakkam Village, in Chennai Urban Agglomeration were originally held by one Thiru.A.G.Parthasarathy and others. There was a family partition on 21/8/1985. The lands involved in the writ appeal came to the share of Bhooshanam, first respondent herein and Mahendran, husband of the second writ petitioner/respondent No.2 herein. On the death of Mr.B.Mahendran, his wife, second respondent herein, succeeded to the property. It is the contention of the respondents/writ petitioners that they have been in occupation and enjoyment of the property. The Assistant Commissioner/competent authority, second appellant herein, under the Ceiling Act, issued a notice under Section 7 (2) of the Ceiling Act and the same was served on Mahendran on 14/7/1993, which was followed by preparation of draft statements, as regards vacant land held in excess of ceiling limit, under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act. Order of Section 9 (5) came to be issued on 12/3/1996, declaring an extent of 2800 sq.m excess vacant land. The writ petitioners contend that these proceedings took place without any notice or opportunity to the petitioners. Pursuant to the orders under Section 9 (5) of the Ceiling Act, a final Notification was issued, under Section 10 (1) of the Ceiling Act, on 25/11/1996 followed by a Notification under Section 11 (3) of the Ceiling Act and thereafter, a Notice under Section 11 (5) of the Ceiling Act, on 27/2/1998 was issued. Writ petitioners state that they are in actual physical possession of the land. It is submission of the respondents that since they are in actual physical possession of the land, the proceedings under the Ceiling Act have abated, when the Repeal Act came into force.

(3.) On notice, respondents have filed a counter. In the counter, the respondents have stated that the where abouts of the land owner was not known when notices under Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act was issued and so the notice was serviced by affixture. According to the respondents, since there was no objection to the proceedings or any resistance after the notice under Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act was issued and served, no order under Section 11 (6) is necessary and the possession of the excess vacant land was taken over and handed over by the revenue authorities, on 24/10/1998. It is also stated that the writ petitioner had sold major portion of the land to third parties.