SUMATHI SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three writ petitions are arising out of a common question to the effect that whether the mandatory provision under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Act 24 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was complied with by serving notice to the petitioners and whether actual physical possession of the subject land was taken over from the petitioners and as such, all these three writ petitions have been heard together and disposed of by means of this common order. In all the above three petitions, the petitioner have come forward with the same and identical prayer of quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 9(5) of the Act and Section 11(5) of the Act by the competent authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Urban Land Ceiling, the fourth respondent herein, and consequently, to direct the third respondent in all these petitions to incorporate the names of the petitioners as owners in all revenue records.

(2.) 0. In W.P. No. 14099 of 2007, the subject land is to the extent of 2100 Sq. Meters in Survey No. 72/10, Peerkankaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk. The subject land was settled in favour of the petitioner by her mother vide settlement deed registered as document No. 5220/1998 dated 16.12.1998. The notice under Section 7(2) of the Act was issued on 06.03.1997 and it was alleged to have been served by affixture as the owner was not residing in the village. The notice under Section 9(4) together with draft statement under Section 9(1) of the Act was also alleged to have been served by affixture by sticking to a pole on 01.09.1997. It is alleged that the competent authority inspected the land on 21.10.1997 and noticed that the land is surrounded by houses and approach roads. The order under Section 9(5) of the Act, by which, an extent of 1,600 sq.mt. of land was declared as excess vacant land after allowing 500 sq. meters for family entitlement, was passed on 23.10.1997 and the said order was also alleged to have been served by affixture. On 28.04.1998, final settlement under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued and the same was also alleged to be served by affixture. The notifications under Sections 11(1) and 11(3) of the Act were published on 12.08.1998 and 11.11.1998 respectively. On 17.12.1998, notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued directing the land owner to surrender possession of the land. On 09.02.1999, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the subject land as the land owner failed to surrender the land. Finally, on 09.04.1999, possession of the land is alleged to have been taken and handed over to the Revenue Inspector, Tambaram.

(3.) Mr. V. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned proceedings, put forward the following contentions: