T.RUKMANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings No.R.C.1657/81-D under Sec. 9 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) dtd. 4/3/1983 and the consequential issuance of notice under Sec. 11 (5) in Form No.7, dtd. 29/4/1987 in seeking delivery of possession duly passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, (Tambaram), Karuneekar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088, the third respondent herein in respect of the lands in all measuring 1 acre 30 cents comprised in Survey Nos.49/1 and 2, situated at Village No.164, Pulikoradu Village bearing patta No.134, within the Tambaram Panchayat Limits, then Saidapet Taluk and within Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram Distrist within the Sub Registration of Tambaram and within the Registration District of South Madras and direct the respondents to treat the land as falling outside the provisions of the Act 24 of 1978 by virtue of Sec. 4 of Act 20 of 1999.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she owned the property ad-measuring 1.30 acres comprised in S.Nos.49/1 and 2, situated at Village No.164, Pulikoradu Village bearing Patta No.134, now within the limits of Tambaram Panchayat. She purchased the said properties by two registered sale deeds dtd. 5/2/1987 and 27/2/1987, vide Document Nos.443 and 881 of 1987, purchased by one S.Lakshmipathy. The petitioner's vendor purchased the said properties from one A.R.Devasahayam by the registered sale deed dtd. 3/9/1980, vide Document No.4213 of 1980. When she applied for issuance of patta in her name before the Revenue Authorities, she came to know about the fact that the land had been acquired under the Act and the properties stood in the name of the said A.R.Devasahayam. Thereafter, she applied for certified copies and the orders were passed under Ss. 9(5) and 11(5) of the Act and the same were furnished to her on 9/1/2008. Both the orders are challenged in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The respondents have filed counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the subject properties and has no locus standi to question the acquisition proceedings, that too, after a lapse of 19 years. Originally, the land owner, the said late A.R.Devasahayam, had expired on 31/12/2981 and all subsequent orders and notices were issued in the name of his son viz., Issac Samuel who is only the legal heir of the land owner. On receipt of the notice, he has neither appeared for enquiry, nor given any details of the sales as stated by the petitioner. The sale made after the introduction of the Act, is hit by Sec. 6 of the Act and hence, it is not valid and the subsequent purchasers were not entitled for any notice in the acquisition proceedings as per the provisions of the Act. The said A.R.Devasahayam filed his Return under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act for the lands owned by him, which is after commencement of the Act. Accordingly, the draft statement under Sec. 9(1) with notice under Sec. 9 (4) of the Act, was issued to the said A.R.Devasahayam dtd. 30/12/1981. It was returned as 'party died'. Therefore, the draft statement under Sec. 9(4) of the Act was sent through Special Messenger and it was received by his son, the said Issac Samuel on 25/2/1982. He filed a letter on 13/4/1982 stating that his father sold the properties and details and documents would be submitted during the enquiry. Thereafter, he neither appeared for enquiry, after due notices and opportunities, nor submitted any details, nor produced any documents. Thereafter, the final statement under Sec. 10 (1) of the Act was issued on 4/3/1983 and the Notification under Sec. 11(1) of the Act was issued on 20/3/1983. After due notice to the said Issac Samuel, he failed to handover possession and it was taken over and handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 16/6/1989, viz., 10 years before the Repeal Act. Then the notice under Sec. 12 (7) of the Act was issued on 9/3/1990 for determining the amount payable under Sec. 12 (6) of the Act and the amount was also received by his wife viz., Ragini Issac on behalf of the the said Issac Samuel on 26/3/1990. Therefore, there are no procedural lapses in acquiring the land. The said land was acquired from the original owner and proceedings continued only with the legal heir, after the death of the original owner. The possession of the subject properties was taken and handed over to the Revenue Department, as early as in 1989, following due process of law. The petitioner being the subsequent purchaser, the subsequent sales are not valid under Sec. 6 of the Act and the petitioner has no locus-standi to question the proceedings.