P. SARASWATHY (DIED) Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (since deceased) claims to be the owner of Plot No. 108, Door No. 13, North Avenue, Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai-15 - T.S. No. 12/12, Block No. 4, Venkatarapuram, Adyar Village in pursuance to the registered sale deeds dated 29.11.1998 and 15.04.1999 read with the enjoyment Certificate dated 13.02.2001. Sale deeds have been executed by one Mr. K. Kannappan. The deceased first petitioner obtained planning permission on 15.12.2000 and carried out the construction thereon.

(2.) A show cause notice dated 01.10.2003 was issued to the deceased first petitioner seeking to cancel the planning permission and the building permit in respect of the property in question predicated on the prima facie view that the vendor of the deceased first petitioner, Mr. K. Kannappan did not have title or enjoyment over the property and thus, the documents produced for obtaining the planning permission lack legal sanctity, as no title was conveyed to the deceased first petitioner. It is alleged in the show cause notice that the land originally belonged to one Dr. N. Ramamurty, who made a settlement in the name of his sons, Thiru. R. Balakrishnan and Thiru. R. Ravi vide settlement deeds dated 29.01.1976 and 001976. It is alleged that the land was covered under the Urban Land Ceiling Act as per the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms dated 30.04.1981. The land is alleged to have been taken over and handed over to the Tahsildar on 15.1198 It is further alleged that the deceased first petitioner had not produced any layout plan or approved sub-division, nor did she produce the parent documents to prove the history of the plot and its existence prior to 05.08.1975. The only two documents produced were the sale deeds and the enjoyment Certificate dated 13.02001, and the said Certificate was also found not signed by the then Tahsildar concerned and was thus alleged to be a false Certificate.

(3.) The deceased first petitioner responded to this show cause notice vide letters dated 05.10.2003 and 21.10.2003 respectively. However, an adverse order was passed on 15.10.2003 predicated on the non-furnishing of reply, which order was set aside in W.P.No.29992 of 2003 vide order dated 28.10.200