S CHANDRAN Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND REFORMS
LAWS(MAD)-2015-11-225
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 19,2015

S CHANDRAN Appellant
VERSUS
Principal Commissioner And Commissioner; Assistant Commissioner Land Reforms Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the second respondent's notification, dated 16.01.1985, under Section 11(1), notification, dated 23.04.1985, under Section 11(3), pursuant to the Order, dated 23.12.1983, under Section 9(5) and final statement under Section 10(1) of the Tamilnadu Urban Land (C & R) Act, 1978 in R.C.No.A1/134/82 and to direct the first respondent to issue suitable directions to the second respondent to drop all further proceedings in view of Section 4 of the TNUL (C & R) Repeal Act (TN Act 20 of 1999).
(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows: According to the petitioner, his father owned an extent of 3.52 Acres of dry lands in S.F.No.124/2 of Kottappattu Village, Tiruchirappalli District, under a Sale Deed No.4544 of 1944. The said land was in his exclusive possession and enjoyment. He died in the year 1972 intestate leaving behind his wife Guna Bai, and children, namely, Prema, Vijayalakshmi and Chandran (petitioner herein). After his demise, the said land came to be enjoyed by the four persons inclusive of the petitioner equally at 88 Cents equivalent to 3550 sq.mts., each. The petitioner is in possession of his share.
(3.) Further, the petitioner submitted that the second respondent sought to acquire the petitioner's land under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 holding that the petitioner owns vacant lands in excess of the ceiling limit. Though the said land is agricultural land and classified as 'Dry Land' in the revenue records, the second respondent treated the said land as "Urban Vacant Land" for the reason that the land was left uncultivated for the years and initiated action under the provisions of the above Act against all the four persons. Insofar as the petitioner and his mother are concerned, the action was jointly taken in file No.134 of 1982. The second respondent determined that both the petitioner and his mother were holding vacant land to an extent of 2050 sq.mts., each in excess of the ceiling limit fixed in S.F.Nos.124/8A and 124/7A of Kottapattu Village out of the total extent of 3550 sq.mts., owned by them each and issued an order under Section 9(5) and final statement under Section 10(1) of the Act by proceedings, dated 23.12.1983 in R.C.No.A1/134/82, acquiring the above lands from them besides vesting the same in the State Government and the notification under Section 11(1) and 11(3) of the Act were also published in the Government Gazette, dated 30.01.1985 and 08.05.1985 respectively. Both the petitioner and his mother were thus allowed to retain 1500 sq.mts., each as their entitlement under the aforesaid Act and the remaining extent of 2050 sq.mts., held by each of them has been acquired and deemed to have vested in the Government.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.