ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER URBAN LAND CEILING Vs. K.VANNIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is filed by the authorities of the Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax Department, challenging the order passed in W.P. No.27778 of 2017 dtd. 2/12/2019. When the writ petitioner approached the third appellant/Tahsildar for issuance of patta in respect of his landed property on which he has already put up constructions, the same was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the land was already acquired under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Urban Land Act).

(2.) The property in question, situate in an approved lay out No.LPDM/D/TC&P No.25/1975 in Brindavan Nagar, Kodungaiyur village, Tondiarpet, measuring an extent of 3486 and 3080 sq.fts. which originally belonged to one Pankajakshiamma. She had purchased the same from one Ethirajulu by way of a sale deed dtd. 16/10/1980. The said Pankajakshiamma sold the above plots 1 and 2 in favour of one Maya Devi, who is the daughter of the writ petitioner vide sale deeds dtd. 6/3/2003 and she has been in possession from the date of her purchase and has been paying all the taxes in her name. She had also put up construction in the above subject land after obtaining due sanction from the Corporation of Chennai and the said construction was assessed to property tax, M.M.W.S.S.B. Tax and charges and electricity charges. The said Mayadevi, also had borrowed money by way of loan from bank on 1/3/2010 by showing the above said properties as collateral security and it was subsequently discharged.

(3.) She had also sold a portion of the property to an extent of 1800 sq.ft. in favour of one Mrs.Thulasi on 26/12/2011. Again on 23/1/2014 she had settled the remaining property, which is having an extent of 4766 sq.ft. with construction by way of a settlement deed in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has been in sole, exclusive and in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of settlement deed and has been paying all the taxes in his name. Subsequent to the settlement deed, the writ petitioner had approached the third appellant Tahsildar for transfer of patta. The Tahsildar has refused to transfer the patta on the ground that the vacant land was covered under the Urban Land Act. The said notice was under challenge in the writ petition, which did not even contain any particulars regarding the exact date on which the proceedings were initiated, possession was taken and compensation paid, etc.