COMPETENT AUTHORITY Vs. S.ANANDALAKSHMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the order made in W.P.No.12103 of 2007 dated 6.8.2009, wherein the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) The writ petition was filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent/first appellant herein from in any manner interfering with the right, possession and enjoyment of the land of an extent of 6996.60 sq.ft., in S.No.183, 184 Block No.62, at No.12, 3rd Sea Ward Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalput District, Chennai-600 041, in the light of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 20 of 1999 and consequently direct the second respondent/second appellant herein to issue patta for the said land in the name of the writ petitioner/respondent herein.

(3.) The case of the writ petitioner as narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the writ petitioner was gifted possession and enjoyment of the land of an extent of 5.05 grounds in Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai, by her sister under registered Document No.2637 of 1969. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 came into force from 3.8.1976, pursuant to which, the writ petitioner made a declaration of her ownership and possession of the lands and requested to grant exemption to hold small extent of excess lands. Proceedings were initiated and after allowing her entitlement, balance lands were declared as excess lands, for which the writ petitioner submitted her objections. According to the writ petitioner, before considering the objections, a notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 28.3.1990 stating that the land to an extent of 6,996.60 sq.ft is excess land and the same is vested with the State Government. The said area is in actual physical possession of the writ petitioner continuously and no compensation was paid to the writ petitioner till date. The writ petitioner had put up a compound wall around the entire land and there is no access to the so called excess land. The writ petitioner, due to her employment was residing outside Chennai. The writ petitioner also submitted a representation seeking exemption, which was rejected by order dated 25.7.1991. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 16.6.1999 and as per Section 3, the vesting of any vacant land, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or by any person duly authorised by the State Government, the Repeal Act will not have any effect and as per Section 4, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act, pending immediately before commencement of the Repeal Act, shall abate. According to the writ petitioner as she is in physical possession of the land, the Repeal Act is applicable to her as the initiation of proceedings has lapsed. When the writ petitioner applied seeking patta in her name, the second appellant rejected her request. Thereafter the writ petitioner filed the writ petition with the above prayer, mainly contending that possession of the land is continuously with her and she having erected the compound wall around the same, no one can take possession and even if any possession has been taken as per records, the same is only possession taken on paper and not actual and physical possession. The Repeal Act provides for restoration of land if possession continues with the owner even if compensation was paid subject to condition that the compensation paid should be refunded. The appellants have not paid compensation to the writ petitioner. Therefore the writ petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the Repeal Act, 1999.