A. CHAMMUNDESWARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra-Court Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful Writ Petitioners.

(2.) The Writ Petitioners, contending that they are entitled to the benefits of Sec. 3(2) of The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 sought for issuance of a Writ of Declaration in that regard and to consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to effect mutation of Revenue records pertaining to the property that was subject matter of excess Urban land.

(3.) The case of the Writ Petitioners was that originally the property belonged to the husband of the 1st Writ Petitioner, father-in-law of the 2nd Writ Petitioner and Grandfather of the 3rd & 4th Writ Petitioners, one Arumugam, who had become entitled to the same way back in the year 1960 in a Family Partition. The Respondents initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, alleging excess vacant land being available at the hands of the Writ Petitioners. Proceedings culminated in issuance of Sec. 11(5)-Notice under the Act of 1978. It is the specific contention of the Writ Petitioners that pursuant to the Sec. 11(5)-Notice, no steps were taken by the Respondents to take physical possession from the Petitioners. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners also did not hand over or deliver possession as required by the Respondents vide the Sec. 11(5)-Notice issued to them. Though no Counter was filed by the Respondents, the Writ Court proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground that the Petitioners had not produced any Order passed by the Ceiling Authorities, determining the excess vacant land and further the Petitioners had approached the Writ Court belatedly, despite the Repeal act coming into force in the year 1999 itself.