R MURALI KRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The competent authority under the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 after following the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder notified the surplus land held by Thiru.P.C.Purushothama Reddiar, predecessor in interest of the appellant in W.A.No.1363 of 2017 and 1404 of 2017 on 7 August 2008. Subsequently, notice was issued to identify the land held by them and to hand over such land in lieu of the notified lands, taking into account the transfer of land to the predecessor in interest of the appellants in W.A.No.501 of 2016 and 502 of 2016, which is void under Section 22(2) of the Act. When further action was taken to take possession, writ petitions were filed by the appellants in W.A.No.501 and 502 of 2016 challenging the statutory proceeding, and to exclude the land purchased by them. Since the assignment through an unregistered document was in violation of Section 22 of the Act, the writ petitions were dismissed. The appellants are therefore before this Court by filing the intra court appeals.

(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioners that their father viz., T.Ramakrishnan had purchased agricultural lands from the father of the 3rd respondent/appellant in W.A.Nos.1363 and 1404 of 2017 as per Sale Agreement dated 19.03.1965. (For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the writ petitions.) As per the sale agreement, the father of the petitioners had paid the entire sale consideration. The possession of the lands were also taken over by the father of the petitioners. As per the French Civil Code, once the sale agreement is executed and the possession has been handed over, the sale is said to be completed and the registration of the document is not mandatory. Subsequently, the sale agreement has been registered as sale deeds dated 05.08.1975 and 07.08.1975. In the meanwhile, the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Surplus Land) Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on 14.10.1974. The appointed date under Section 2(4) of the Act is 24.01.1971. Due to the said Act, the 2nd respondent issued a proclamation dated 03.11.2008, including the land owned by the petitioners for public purpose. The petitioners came to know about the same only on 25.09.2008, when a notice under Section 68 of the Land Reforms Act was issued by the 2nd respondent for demarcation of land for public purpose. Immediately, the petitioners sent their representation explaining the fact that their father entered into a sale agreement and subsequently the possession was taken and as per the French Civil Code, the title and possession remains with them from the date of agreement dated 19.03.1965. However, the same was not considered by the 2nd respondent. After the enquiry, it was found that the land of the petitioners were still considered as the land of the third respondent and it was notified as surplus land. The 3rd respondent had also challenged the same by way of two petitions and the same are pending. Notices were not served on the petitioners, except the notice under Section 68 of the Act. Without considering the contention of the petitioners, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners have filed the present writ appeals in W.A.Nos.501 & 502 of 2016. The 3rd respondent has filed W.A.Nos.1363 and 1404 of 2017.

(3.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Additional Government Pleader(Puducherry) appearing on behalf of the Union Territory of Puducherry.