MRS. J. JAYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the third respondent in Na.Ka.S.R. 800/95, dated 15.11.1995 under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and quash the same.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 came into effect with effect from 03.08.1976. The petitioner has purchased the property in question from one D.Sarojini Ammal in the year 1982 and she has purchased the property in 1963. Since the owner (Lakshmana Reddy) of the land did not file return as per Section 7(1) of the said Act, notice under Section 7(2) of the said Act was issued to the land owner Lakshmana Reddy on 04.09.1992 after ten years from the date of purchase of the property by the petitioner. The said notice was not issued to the petitioner and it has been issued in the name of one Lakshmana Reddy. Even though various proceedings have been initiated and proceeded under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the said Act from 1995 till the Notification under Section 11(1) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 30.04.1997 and Notification under Section 11(3) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 14.01.1998, vesting the property with the Government under the provisions of the said Act, the possession was not taken and there was fixture of notice under Section 11(5) on 27.02.1998 and no steps have been taken under Section 11(6) of the Act after the said date. Finally, possession was handed over to the Revenue Authorities on 06.10.1998. Mere vesting of possession on the alleged date, namely 06.10.1998, is not suffice and even though the respondents stated that they have complied with the mandatory provisions of the said Act including Sections 11 and 12, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the physical possession was not taken earlier, the property vested with the petitioner and the entire proceedings impugned in this Writ Petition are liable to be quashed.

(3.) The contention of the respondents is that as per the records, the said Lakshmana Reddy is the owner of the entire property and based on the Revenue Records, initially, the proceedings for not filing the return under Section 7(1) of the Act, have been initiated in 1976 against the original land owner and there was no mutation of records by the petitioner after his purchase and based on the Revenue Records available, the original owner has been issued with the notice(s) under the said Act. When the fixture of notice was made, the petitioner is aware of the above facts, and he has not objected to the same and when once the property had been vested with the Government in terms of Section 11, more particularly, in terms of Section 11(5) of the said Act, the petitioner cannot contend that no proceedings can be continued on the ground that the Act has been repealed on 16.06.1999. As the acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the said Act and the Rules made thereunder, and that there was no objection by one one much less the petitioner, and that notice has been given to the original owner as per the records, and the petitioner cannot have any grievance.