MALLIKINISHA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ULT); SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; COMMISSIONER (ULC), LAND REFORMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner additionally submits that the said Mary Thomas died on 04.11.2006. The legal-heirs of said Mary Thomas, viz., Reji Chacko, P.C.Kurien, Robin Chacko and Rosh Chacko have impleaded themselves and filed an appeal and the same was remitted back to the trial Court in O.S.No.6549 of 2010 for further proceedings. Thereafter, the parties to the said suit had entered into a compromise and the suit was decreed based on the compromise memo by its decree dated 18.10.2011 and a registered sale deed was executed by the legal-heirs of the said Mary Thomas in favour of her husband Siddhiq @ Abubaker in Doc.No.7282/2011, dated 19.10.2011, on the file of the second respondent. The petitioner additionally added that even at the time of entering into the sale agreement, the said Mary Thomas handed over the possession of the property to her husband. In the year 2001, her husband has constructed a house and obtained electricity connection for the same. She submits that from the year 2001, her husband has been regularly paying taxes to the Revenue authorities. She further submits that her husband has become the lawful owner of the said property and had been in possession over the property from the date of the purchase of the property. She further submits that her husband has executed a registered Settlement Deed in favour of her and settled the property to her in Doc.No.618/2012, dated 06.02.2012, on the file of SRO, Neelangarai. She submits that after the execution of settlement deed in her favour, she is paying taxes to the Corporation of Chennai as the property comes under the Corporation limit of Greater Chennai.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that the said Mary Thomas handed over the physical possession of the property to her husband on the date of sale agreement and her husband has constructed a small house and paying the taxes which clearly proves that her husband is in possession of the property and after the said settlement deed, she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. She further submits that she wanted to give general power to a portion of her property in favour of one Mr.P.Swaminathan to whom she had already executed sale agreement dated 18.05.2012 in its document No.3105 of 2012, on the file of the second respondent. In this regard, when enquiry was made before the second respondent, in the month of April 2014, she was informed that her property is in land ceiling. Since the sale agreement time has already lapsed, the said P.Swaminathan sent legal notice to execute sale deed in his favour. Hence, she approached the second respondent along with General Power deed dated 30.04.2014. The second respondent refused to register the document saying that the said land has been acquired under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and further informed her that she cannot alienate the property. In this regard, the second respondent has further stated that he has received a communication through a letter dated 27.09.2013 in Na.Ka.A/364/13 from the first respondent stating that the said property has been acquired before 16.06.1999 by the State Government of Tamil Nadu. In this regard, she came to know that an order dated 31.07.1989 under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 has been passed by the competent authority i.e., the first respondent. However, she came to understand that further steps have not been taken by the first respondent in this regard.