L KANNAPPAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:-The writ petition has been filed by P. Lingan, father of the petitioners, on behalf of the minor sons. It is stated that the petitioners had purchased agricultural lands in Survey No. 43/2a of Pulikorudu Village, Tambaram Taluk, by two sale deeds, dated 30. 06. 1999 and 01. 02. 2001, vide Document Nos. 3225/99 and 428/2001, respectively. The total extent covered under these documents is about 92 cents. The land was purchased as agricultural land from one B. Jothi. The properties were originally held by A. R. Devasagayam. The said A. R. Devasagayam, had sold the property to P. Maniammal and P. Ravichandran, by a sale deed, dated 03. 09. 1980. P. Maniammal and P. Ravichandran had sold the property to B. Jothi and K. Saraswathi, by a sale deed, dated 27. 04. 1983. By the above said sale deeds, B. Jothi and K. Saraswathi became entitled to the property. K. Saraswathi had sold her 1/2 share to B. Jothi, by a sale deed, dated 24. 06. 1999. In all the said sale deeds, the property in question is referred to as agricultural property. P. Maniammal and P. Ravichandran had put up a shed in the property after the purchase of the land. Except the portion in which the shed was put up, the remaining extent was used for agricultural purposes by the petitioners and their predecessor-in-title.

(3.) IT is further stated that during the month of October, 2002, the petitioners had approached the revenue officials for obtaining patta in their name. The application for patta was refused to be entertained by the Village Administrative Officer on the ground that the land had been acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, in the name of A. R. Devasagayam. The petitioner had applied for certified copies of the orders passed under Sections 9 to 11 of the Act and the certified copies of orders passed under Section 9 (5) and 11 (5) were furnished to the petitioners, recently. The orders of acquisition are challenged under the present writ petition.