J.K.PUSHPALATHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is the owner of the land to an extent of 8 ? cents in S.No.60, Plot No.77, Gokul Nagar 4th street, Rajakilpakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The said property was initially purchased by her father through a registered sale deed dated 05.01.1983 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Tambaram, for a valuable consideration. Subsequently, her father had executed a settlement deed dated 28.12.1995 in her favour. Whileso, on 17.08.2015, she had approached the fifth respondent/the Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, seeking for issuance of a patta in her name, but, she was directed to get No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the fourth respondent/the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Tambaram Zone, Chennai. Based on the said advise, she had also approached the said Authority, but, unfortunately, the fourth respondent, vide proceedings dated 17.08.2015, refused to issue NOC stating that the said property was acquired under the Urban Land and Ceiling Act, 1978, prior to the year 1980.

(2.) Continuing his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing the notice of this Court to a G.O.Ms.No.565, Revenue ULC 1 (1) Department dated 26.09.2008, submitted that in the said Government Order, the Government, while deciding to regularize the purchase of lands by the Innocent Buyers covered under Urban Land Ceiling Act for the places in T. Nagar, Ambattur, Kundrathur, Poonamallee, Tambaram, Alandur, Egmore, Madavaram, Tondiarpet in Chennai City and other Cities such as Triuchirappalli, Salem, Coimbature, Madurai and Triunelveli, determined the price of the lands per ground. Although, earlier, the extent of land permissible for regularisation under the Scheme was only one ground, now, in the above said G.O, they have categorically stated that the said G.O. would be extended to all the Innocent Purchasers as on the date of issuance of G.O. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.174, Revenue (ULC 1 (2) Department, dated 20.5.2011, had regularized the lands belonging to 21 persons. Therefore, by citing the said G.O., it is contended that when the Government have regularised the lands purchased by the similarly persons, they cannot now refuse to extend the said benefit to the petitioner, as admittedly, her father had purchased the above said property on 05.01.1983 itself, hence, the present impugned proceedings of the second respondent denying to issue patta on the ground that the petitioner was only a settlee under the settlement deed, not the original owner, cannot be sustained.

(3.) In support of his submissions, he has also relied on a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.25319 of 2018, dated 09.10.2018, to contend that since the parents of the petitioner purchased the land and subsequently settled the same in favour of the petitioner, merely because the transfer in the name of the petitioner was not by way of sale, the respondent cannot arbitrarily deny the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 26.09.2008, extending the benefit of regularisation as on the date of issuance of the said G.O. to those Innocent Purchasers.