B.S.SARAVANAN Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings viz., (1) Order issued under Sec. 9(5) in No.C1/2261/85 dtd. 27/9/1986 and (2) order issued under Sec. 11 in No.B1/2261/85 dtd. 11/3/1991 passed by the third respondent and quash the same as null and void and stands abated in view of Sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 (namely T.N.Act 20 of 1999) and consequently direct the fourth respondent to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of his property viz., the vacant plot of land bearing plot No.6, Block No.3, comprised in Old Survey No.2, Town Survey No.12/part, sub-divided survey No.12/1C and 1D measuring 2686 sq.ft. situated at Sembiam Village, Telephone Colony, Chennai.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's land comprised in Old Survey No.2, Sembiam Village to an extent of 23 grounds and 1760 sq.ft originally belong to one M.Subramaniam, having purchased by way of two sale deeds dtd. 7/11/1968 and 25/11/1968 registered vide document Nos.4103 of 1968 and 4342 of 1968 at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Sembium. He laid out the same into house plots. One of the house plots was No.6 purchased by one, Gandhamani by the registered sale deed dtd. 15/6/1981 registered vide document No.2807 of 1981. She died intestate on 13/11/1988 leaving behind her husband, sons, daughter as her legal heirs to succeed her estate. The husband and one daughter have relinquished their right in favour of other two brothers by the release deed dtd. 19/12/2011 registered vide document No.5261 of 2011. In turn, the petitioner purchased the said property from them by the registered sale deed dtd. 13/12/2012 registered vide document No.3656 of 2012. In pursuant to the said sale, the petitioner applied for patta for the subject property and he was refused to issue patta for the reason that the said subject property was under the proceedings of the Land Ceiling Act. In fact, other persons who purchased the remaining plots, constructed house and obtained electricity, water and drainage connections and also assessed the property tax by the Corporation of Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner filed his application seeking information under the Right to Information Act.

(3.) The respondents filed counter and stated that the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the subject property and as such he has no locus to question the acquisition proceedings. The present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2014. The original owner of the property i.e. vendor of the subject property did not file any objection to the acquisition proceedings and as such it had attained finality in the year 1991. The petitioner without even perusing the revenue documents, mechanically purchased the subject property with intention to usurp the Government land. On the date of commencement of the Act, the subject property stood in the name of M.Subramaniam. On receipt of the said Form XIII, revealed that original owner sold a portion of the land in favour of one, Sanislaw. He did not file any return as contemplated under Sec. 7 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the notice under Sec. 7(2) of the Act was issued and the same was acknowledged by him on 25/8/1981. Even then, no objections were received from him. Thereafter, other subsequent sales in respect of subject property to one, Kannabiran and Venkatesan were also reported in Form XIII by the concerned Sub Registrar. Therefore, other notice dtd. 24/9/1982 was issued to the land owner to appear for enquiry, and the same was received by him on 1/10/1982 and on receipt of the same, he did not respond and remained silent.