V RETHINAKUMARI Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this writ petition is in respect of the lands comprised in Town Survey No.19, Block No.19 and Ward No.B at Chinthamani, Tiruchirapalli Town. The first respondent by his proceedings in RC A1/2751/91 dated 18.10.1996, under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had declared the said lands as excess, as per the provisions of the said Act. In this regard, a Notification was issued against one Mr.Kunju Pillai. Subsequently, as per Rule 10(1) of the Rules, Form V, was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 30.07.1997 thereby acquiring the said lands comprised in T.S.No.19 measuring an extent of 4,160 square meters in favour of the Government. Challenging these two proceedings, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition.

(2.) The facts leading to this writ petition are as follows:-

(3.) In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the purchasers of the lands from the sons and daughters of the deceased Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal. They have purchased the lands in New T.S.No.19. The Old Survey Numbers for the said lands were S.Nos.3943, 3946 (part) and 4009/1. In other words, the above three Old Survey Numbers were clubbed together and a New Survey Number was assigned to the same as T.S.No.19. The land comprised in new T.S.No.19 was used for laying plots and accordingly, the petitioners have purchased such plots from their original owners. It is further contended by the petitioners that instead of issuing Notification in respect of New Survey Numbers 6 and 11 relatable to Old S.Nos.3942/1 and 3942/2, the first respondent has issued Notification in respect of T.S.No.19 which has got nothing to do with Mr.Kunju Pillai and Mrs.Sampooranathammal, after the partition. Thus, according to the petitioners, by mistake, in the impugned proceedings, the Survey Number of the lands taken over as excess has been mentioned as T.S.No.19. It is the further contention of the petitioners that no notice was served on them and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.