ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Vs. G.D.VAITHIYALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ appeals are filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Tirunelveli and the Tahsildar, Palayamkottai Taluk challenging the common order passed by the Writ Court in W.P(MD)Nos.2010 to 2013 of 2015 etc., dated 10.07.2017. Those writ petitions were filed by the respective land owners for Mandamus forbearing the Assistant Commissioner, Urban land Ceiling, Tirunelveli, from taking physical possession of the respective property under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act , 1978 with further direction to the second respondent/Tahsildar to effect change of patta in the name of the petitioner for the above subject matter property.

(2.) The main contention raised by the respective petitioner before the Writ Court is that even though Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were initiated against the subject matter lands, physical possession of the property continuous to be with the respective petitioner and therefore, in view of the Repeal Act 1999, more particularly, under Section 4 of the said Act, the entire Urban Land proceedings get lapsed, as the possession has not been taken from the land owners. Therefore, it is contended that now, the Urban Land Ceiling authority is not entitled to take physical possession from the petitioners. The Writ Court, after considering the claim raised by the petitioners and by following the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007(1) MLJ 750 (V.Somasundaram and others vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai) and the decision of the learned single Judge reported in 2006(5) CTC 52 ( Vijay Foundation (P) Ltd., vs. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms), allowed the writ petitions with further direction to the second respondent/Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders on the request of the petitioners regarding the issuance of patta.

(3.) The learned Special Government Pleader vehemently contended that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as sought for in the writ petitions, since the subject matter lands were already taken possession under the Urban Land Ceiling Act proceedings. In support such contention, the learned Special Government Pleader invited this Court's attention to the possession certificates dated 21.09.1989 made available in the typed set of papers.