N SANKARI Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF LAND REFORMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed to quash the order of the 2nd respondent under Section 9(5) dated 23.7.1997 vide C.Pa.33/96 C and notice under Section 11 (5) dated 30.4.99 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, in respect of the land in survey No.6/1A4 of Puthur village, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District measuring an extent of 4250 sq.meters and to direct the respondents to treat the proceedings referred to above as abated under Section 4 of Tamil nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for consideration herein are as follows: THE land in question which is agricultural in nature belonged to one C.Nirmala and the petitioners herein have purchased the property in question from the said Nirmala by registered sale deed dated 11.11.1982 and the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and have been using the same for agricultural purpose. While so, the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act has been extended to Puthur Village, where the property is situated, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.679 Revenue dated 17.7.1995 with effect from 9.8.1995 which is much after the purchase of the land by the petitioners herein. THEreafter, the proceeding has been initiated during 1996 for declaring the land belonging to Nirmala as surplus. THE second respondent who is the competent authority has issued notification under section 11(2) thereby calling upon Nirmala who was the erstwhile owner to file the statement under Section 7(1) of the Act. Admittedly there was no response from Nirmala for the notice given under section 7(2). It is equally admitted that the competent authority has not made any further efforts to obtain necessary information relating to the ownership of the land in question as contemplated under section 7(5) of the Act. However the second respondent/competent authority has proceeded to pass an order under section 9 thereby preparing a draft statement and caused the service of draft statement and the same was followed by an order under section 9(5). THEreafter the competent authority has passed the final order under section 10(1) thereby making final statement regarding the extent of the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit. THE same is followed by notification under Section 11(1) and then show cause notice under section 11(5) calling upon the holder of the excess land to surrender the possession of such excess land to the state Government. It is not in dispute that all the notice and order issued under sections 7(2), 9(1), 10(1) and 11(5) are caused to be sent to the original owner i.e. Nirmala that too by adopting the mode of service by affixure.

(3.) IT is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as the notice under section 11(5) for surrender and delivery of the possession of the property in question, the same shall be handed over to the owner and/or the occupier in the same manner as under Rule 8. IT is strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case, the competent authority has failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under section 7(5) and the failure to serve notice in the manner as contemplated under Rule 8 renders the entire proceedings to be vitiated.