M. ABDUL KAREEM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioners applications filed under the Innocent Buyer Scheme, in G.O.Ms.No.565 dated 26.09.2008.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the land in Survey No.218/4A1, Thirumullaivoyal Village, Avadi taluk, Thiruvallur District, originally belonged to one Srinivasan and others, and they have sold the property to one Mr.A.Mohamed Hanifa. Subsequently, the petitioners' mother Mrs.T.M.Hawaa Beevi, purchased the same on 23.04.1998, through a registered sale deed. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother divided the land into two plots and executed two settlement deeds in respect of 634 sq.ft. and 653 sq.ft. respectively in favour of petitioners, who are her sons. Thereafter, they came to know that the land was subject to urban land ceiling proceedings, and the land was acquired under Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act. Hence, the petitioners have made representations to the 3rd respondent seeking to regularise the said property as per G.O.Ms. No.565, dated 26.09.2008, and representations came to be rejected by the 3rd respondent on the ground that, the above said G.O. only applicable for the property sold by sale and it would not be applicable to the cases, where the title was transferred by way of settlement, gift, partition or Will. Since the petitioners have obtained the property by way of settlement deed, it would not come under the purview of the above said G.O. and the cannot sought for regularisation. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that originally, the petitioners' mother purchased the property innocently without knowing the fact that the land was subject to urban land ceiling proceedings. Subsequently, she had settled the property in favour of petitioners measuring an extent of 634 sq.ft. and 653 sq.ft. respectively and applied for regularisation under the said G.O., which does not prohibit transfer of title by way of settlement deed, and the 3rd respondent ought not to have rejected the petitioners request for regularisation of their lands. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.25319 of 2018, and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows :-