V. LAKSHMI VEERARAGHAVAN Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge, who while declining to allow the writ petition nonetheless held that it is not known as to how the landlord can alienated the property which has been declared as excess under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

(2.) As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim itself is based upon the Government Order. The question as to whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit is a matter to be considered by the second respondent on the representation dated 19.03.2018. Whether the landlord has got prior notice and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Government Order coupled with the further fact that the said Government Order is applicable to the case of the appellant, on the premise that he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration are the matters to be considered by the second respondent. What the appellant requests is mere consideration of his pending representation.

(3.) In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge stands set aside and consequently,the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the appellant dated 19.03.2018 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant is further directed to give a copy of the said representation along with the copy of the judgment in this appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.