STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. T V ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order dated 23. 01. 2009 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 1863 of 2003.

(2.) Originally, larger extent of agricultural land was purchased by the vendor of the respondent by name A. Heera vide sale deed dated 17. 01. 1962 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram vide Document No. 92 of 196 The respondent purchased 1acre and 2 cents of land from a larger extent of agricultural lands belonged to A. Heera, by registered sale deed dated 13. 1 1980 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram vide Document No. 6010 of 1980.

(3.) The case of the appellants is that, A. Heera, residing at 20/2, Nellan Ponnappa Mudali Street, Chennai, had filed return in Form-I, under Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, [herein after referred to as "Principal Act"] on 21. 01. 1977, with a request for exemption of the land mentioned in the return, from the operation of the Principal Act. During the enquiry by the competent authority, it was found that the land sought to be exempted was the subject matter of a civil litigation. Therefore, a report had been sent to the Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, on 14. 0 1980, suggesting that the petitioner therein may be advised to renew her request after the disposal of the civil litigation. Accordingly, the erstwhile Board of Revenue (Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax), in Ref. C3/3987/77, dated 30. 0 1980, had recommended to the Government that the request for exemption be rejected and instructions were issued to the competent authority to determine the ownership, as on 0 08. 1976, and to proceed with the acquisition proceedings, under Sections 9 to 11 of the Principal Act. While so, A. Heera, by her letter, dated 06. 01. 1981, had reported that she had sold the property to one T. V. Antony (the present respondent herein) on 1 12. 1980. The competent authority had informed the purchaser that the sale, having been done in violation of the provisions of the Principal Act, would be treated as null and void. Despite the issue of another notice, dated 30. 06. 1981, received by her, on 02. 07. 1981, she had not attended the enquiry. The competent authority had declared an extent of 3900 Sq. Mts. , in S. No. 42/2B-1, of Pulikoradu Village, as surplus vacant land held by A. Heera. After due service of the statement, under Section 9(1) of the Principal Act, dated 2 05. 1981, on the Urban Land owner, on 01. 06. 1981, an order, under Section 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been passed, on 12. 10. 1981. The order, dated 12. 10. 81, had been served on T. V. Antony, on 20. 10. 1981. The urban land owner, A. Heera, had appealed against the said order to the Commissioner of Land Reforms, by letter dated 16. 2. 198 The said appeal had been dismissed by the Commissioner of Land Reforms, in reference D. Dis. J2/6745/83, dated 11. 7. 8 Thereafter, a notification, under Section 11(1) of the Act, had been approved by the Commissioner of Land Reforms, in D. Dis. 31442/83, dated 10. 1. 83, and it had been published in the Tamilnadu Gazette, dated 25. 11. 8 The final notification, under Section 11(3) of the Act, had been published, on 10. 10. 84. Thereafter, the excess vacant land stood vested with the Government, with effect from 8. 10. 84. The notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act, had been acknowledged by the urban land owner, on 08. 02. 85. The possession of the acquired excess vacant land, measuring 3900 Sq. Mts. in S. No. 43/2B-1 of Pulikoradu Village, had been handed over, on 28. 05. 87. The notice, under Section 12(7) of the Act, had been issued and it had been acknowledged by the land owner, on 9. 6. 87. In her reply, dated 30. 06. 87, A. Heera, had declared that she had no interest over the said property, as she had already sold the land to T. V. Antony and therefore, she had made a prayer for exemption of the land from the acquisition proceedings. The competent authority had issued an order, dated 7. 11. 87, in Rc. D. 120/87, specifying the amount calculated, under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The initial payment had been sent to the urban land owner, A. Heera. However, A. Heera had reiterated her stand stating that the property in question had been sold to T. V. Antony, in the year, 1980. On enquiry, T. V. Antony had admitted that he had purchased the land measuring 1 acre and 2 cents, in S. No. 43/2B-1, from the urban land owner, A. Heera, vide Document No. 6810, dated 1 12. 80, and that he had constructed a terrace building for his residence and he had installed a crusher unit in the said land. He had also stated that a Church had been constructed by the members of the Christian community of the area. He had further stated that 38 coconut trees were existing in the land. However, he had declared that at the time of the purchase it was a vacant site and that the structures were put up only in the year, 1982. Thus, it was clear that the property had been deliberately sold by its erstwhile owner, A. Heera, in violation of the provisions of the Principal Act and therefore, the said transaction is null and void.