R. SHARMILA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are siblings. Their mother, Susila Rajaram, purchased 2017 sq.ft. of land in old S.Nos.209/2 and 209/2B corresponding to new S.Nos.209/2A2, 209/2B1 & 209/2B2 in Plot no.22, Annai nagar Annexe, Korattur village. Such purchase was under sale deed dtd. 7/2/2013 executed by one Mrs.V.Gayathri. The petitioners assert that they inherited the property on her death on 15/6/2021 as her only class I legal heirs, and that their family is in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of purchase. It is also stated that it was discovered that the property is the subject matter of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (the TN Urban Land Ceiling Act) when the petitioners' mother had applied for mutation of patta. By further asserting that proceedings under the TN Urban Land Ceiling Act have abated and that the savings clause does not come to the aid of the State, the present writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to treat the land ceiling proceedings as having abated.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the TN Urban Land Ceiling Act provides for the issuance of notice under Sec. 11(5) to the persons in possession of the land calling upon such persons to surrender or deliver possession thereof. In case such persons refuse to comply with the notice under Sec. 11(5), she submits that the competent authority is empowered to take possession and that force may be used for such purpose. In this case, she submits that forcible possession under Sec. 11(6) was not taken, and that the petitioners remain in possession.

(3.) In the factual context of the petitioners remaining in physical possession, she submits that the savings clause in the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (the Repeal Act) will not come to the aid of the State. She relies upon the order issued by this Court in K.Senthamarai Kannan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, . She also relies on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. The Tahsildar and others, 2025 INSC 274 (AP Electrical). With specific reference to pages 117 to 119 of the typed set of papers, she points out that the Supreme Court held categorically that physical possession is contemplated in Sec. 10 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, which is in pari materia with the corresponding provision of the TN Urban Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, she submits that the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed.