P.SUNDARAM Vs. REVENUE SECRETARY
LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-349
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on February 25,2020

P.SUNDARAM Appellant
VERSUS
REVENUE SECRETARY Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)All the three writ petitions have been filed by one Mr.P.Sundaram s/o.Perumal Chettiar. The relief sought for in the writ petitions are as follows:
(i) W.P.No.29445 of 2015 has been filed to quash the proceedings of the Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax dated 27.06.2014 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay compensation for the lands comprised in S.No.103/3B2, Vayalnallur Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land') acquired by the respondents as per the prevailing market value as indicated in the Government Guidelines from the time of taking over possession along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(ii) W.P.No. 29446 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner, ULT and ULC, Chennai, to demarcate and allont an extent of 31 cents, which the petitioners are entitled in the subject land by issuing patta to extent of 31 cents.

(iii) W.P.No.10383 of 2017 has been filed for a comprehensive relief praying for issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the entire proceedings initiated by the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') commencing from the proceedings dated 30.04.1997 i.e., date on which proceedings under Section 9(5) of the Act was issued till the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, as null and void on account of failure to follow the procedure stipulated under the Act and consequently apply the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Ceiling Repeal Act, 1999 and declare the urban ceiling proceedings as having abated and to held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act 30 of 2013).

(2.)Since the relief sought for in W.P.No.10383 of 2017 is comprehensive in nature, the same is taken as the lead case and any decision arrived at in this writ petition would have a direct impact in other writ petitions.
(3.)Heard Mr.P.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.D. Ilayaraja, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for 4th respondent.
;


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