I RICHARDSON Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has stated that he had purchased the land measuring about 1800 sq.ft, together with the building thereon, in Plot No.25, T.S.No.2 Part, Old Survey no.82, Block No.15, Saidapet Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, from one K.Rajavelkumar, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 15.12.2000, registered as Document No.1136 of 2001, in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Saidapet. THE said K.Rajavelkumar had purchased the said property by way of two sale deeds, dated 27.10.1986, in Document Nos.1093/86 and 1094/86, from (1) Amirthammal, (2) R.Sivanesan, (3) Arokiadas (4) R.Ramachandran and (5) Balammal. Amirthammal had purchased a larger extent of 2.78 hectares of property from Padmavathi Ammal, in the year, 1950.

(2.) IT had also been stated that after the purchase of the property in question the petitioner had applied before the fourth respondent, for the transfer of patta in his name. On receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the fourth respondent had directed him to approach the third respondent, who had informed the petitioner that the land had been handed over to the first respondent, on 27.7.1995, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a representation to the first respondent, on 16.2.2005, stating that his vendor K.Rajavelkumar had obtained a No Objection Certificate from the fourth respondent, by an order, dated 21.1.1993, while applying for planning permission before the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Further, the Corporation of Chennai had also sanctioned the building plan, by an order, dated 22.11.1996. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of its purchase. However, the first respondent had passed an order, dated 27.6.2006, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the transfer of the patta.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also submitted that, on a perusal of the records available with the respondent, it is found that even the Section 11(5) notice had been served only on the son of Amirthammal, after the said notice had been returned stating that she had died. THE respondents had failed to note that, as early as on 8.5.1992, patta had been granted in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the property in question. He had also submitted that K.Rajavelkumar had obtained proper plan sanction from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and had also obtained the necessary No Objection Certificate from the fourth respondent, before constructing the building in the property in question.