VITTAL SAMPATH KUMARAN Vs. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has submitted that on 25.11.2011, he has purchased the vacant house site comprised in S.No.211/7A (Part) of Sea Ward 2nd Lane, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041, measuring to an extent of 3.158 grounds i.e., 7579.429 sq.ft. or thereabout out of 3.52 grounds at Thiruvanmiyur Village, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District in and by a valuable sale consideration from one Mrs.Prabakannan, w/o. Kannan. The said sale has been registered as document No.10055 of 2011 in the District Registrar, Madras South. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. The petitioner has further submitted that originally the larger extent of the land comprised in S.No.211/7A was owned and possessed by one Mrs.Kuppammal. The said Kuppammal sold the property of the larger extent of land including the above said land herein to and in favour of one Mr.T.V.Ramanujam under a deed of sale dated 06.05.1955 registered as document No.1183 of 1955 in the Sub-Registrar of Saidapet. After the purchase of the said land by T.V.Ramanujam, he was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the brother of T.V.Ramanujam one Mr.T.V.Purushothaman filed a suit in O.S.No.129 of 1965, on the file of Sub-ordinate Judge at Chengalpattu seeking partition over the above said property. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the above suit, the said T.V.Ramanujam filed first appeal in A.S.No.114 of 1969 before the District Judge, Chengalpattu. Before it was reached to finality on 11.06.1973, the said T.V.Ramanujam was died, leaving behind his two sons viz., (i) T.R.Seshachalam and (2) T.R.Boopalan. They were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and by necessity to meet the urgent commitments they were forced to sell the larger property including the vacant house site belonging to them to one Mrs.Prabakannan and Mrs.Thirupurasundari in which the heirs of Mr.R.Seshachalam viz., (1) R.S.Parthiban (2) R.S.Kumar (3) R.S.Mohan and (4) Ms.Kanchana was included as vendors for abundant caution. While so, the heirs of R.Seshachalam filed a suit before this Court in C.S.No.58 of 1989 thereby claiming 1/4th share over the entire land in which a Memo of Compromise was entered between the parties and the same was recorded and decreed the suit as prayed for. Therefore, the above said sale effected between T.R.Seshachalam, T.R.Boopalan and Mrs.Prabakannan and Mrs.Thirupurasundari, sale deed has perfected their title as per the Memo of Compromise.

(2.) The petitioner has further submitted that after selling out the land in Survey No.211/7A on 01.06.1987 by T.R.Seshachalam and T.R.Boopalan and other heirs of T.R.Seshachalam to the petitioner's Vendor and Mrs.Thirupurasundari the sale deed was registered as document No.1717/1987, 1718/1987 and 1719/1987 registered in the Sub-Registrar of Saidapet. Without knowing the facts and ascertaining the original records, the second respondent herein passed the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1303/85A, dated 29.08.1991 in the name of erstwhile vendor and thereby determining the excess vacant land of 1450 sq.mt after allowing 500 sq.mt as entitlement area. Moreover, the impugned order itself reflect that the land in Survey No.211/7 to an extent of 48 cents i.e., 1950 sq.mts stands in the name of T.R.Seshachalam. T.R.Boopalan had also given the family members details of T.R.Seshachalam while at the time of enquiry on 15.11.1998. The second respondent neither considered the family entitlement of T.R.Seshachalam nor about the fact that he already sold out the land to the petitioner's vendor. After purchase of the land by the petitioner's vendor, the petitioner's vendor was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the land after effecting mutation entries in her favour in patta No.2355 duly issued by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar Mylapore Triplicane Taluk.

(3.) The petitioner has further submitted that the second respondent without application of mind, has passed the impugned order in the name of erstwhile vendor's who have no right, title or interest in whatsoever manner over the above said property. The vendor of the petitioner has purchased the property on 01.06.1987 and the impugned notice of determination of excess vacant land was on 29.08.1991 without considering the petitioner's vendor's possession or the revenue records, which stands in the name of the petitioner's vendor and no notice has been served to the petitioner's vendor before passing the impugned order. The petitioner has further submitted that as per the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein, a notice under Section 7(2) was served on 30.06.1986. No return was filed by the landowner and as no family entitlement details were furnished and therefore, the second respondent declared as excess vacant land of 7100 sq.mts after allowing 500 sq.mt as entitlement area on various survey numbers including the sold out portions in Survey No.211/7. Notice under Section 9(1) and 9(4) of the Act was issued on 29.08.1986 and 11.09.1986 by affixture in the field by pasting the stick.