Dr.S.Anandalakshmy v. The Competent Authority (ULC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.08.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P.NO.12103 of 2007Dr.S.Anandalakshmy ...Petitioner Vs.1.The Competent Authority (ULC) and Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Alandur, Chennai-600 088.2.The Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, Chennai-600 028. ...RespondentsPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first Respondentfrom in any manner interfering with the petitioner right, possessionand enjoyment of the land of an extent of 6996.60 sq.ft., inS.No.183, 184, Block No.62, at No.12, 3rd Sea Ward Road,Thiruvanmiyur, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalput District, Chennai-600 041,in the light of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) RepealAct 20 of 1999 and consequentially direct the second respondent toissue patta for the said land in the petitioner's name. For Petitioner : M/s.Rank Associates For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Government Advocate O R D E RPetitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writof Mandamus forbearing the first Respondent from in any mannerinterfering with the petitioner's right, possession and enjoyment ofthe land of an extent of 6996.60 sq.ft., in S.No.183, 184, BlockNo.62, at No.12, 3rd Sea Ward Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Saidapet Taluk,Chengalput District, Chennai-600 041, in the light of Tamil NaduUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20 of 1999 andconsequentially direct the second respondent to issue patta for thesaid land in the petitioner's name. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Under a deed of settlement dated 21.11.1969 registeredas document No.2637 of 1969, the sister of the petitioner gifted theland to an extent of 5.05 grounds in Thiruvanmiyur Village to thepetitioner. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment ofentire extent of land. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Act 1978 (herein after referred to as "The Act") cameinto force with effect from 3.8.1976. The petitioner filed astatement in terms of Section 7 of the Act giving details of excessland held by her. However, the petitioner sought exemption to holdthe same. Thereafter, the respondents' authorities took furthersteps and prepared a draft statement with regard to the vacant landheld in excess of the ceiling limits as provided under Section 9(1)of the Act and notice under Section 9(4) of the Act was issued. Thepetitioner submitted her objection to the same and the finalstatement was prepared as per Section 10(1) of the Act. Thenotification as required under Section 11(1) of the Act giving theparticulars of the vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limitwas also issued. Thereafter, the land vested with the Government inaccordance with Section 11(3) of the Act. The petitioner has beenrepeatedly seeking exemption from the provisions of the Act andcorrespondence ensured between the petitioner and the Government. Itis the specific case of the petitioner that the possession of theproperty in this case has not been taken by following the procedureprescribed under Section 11(5) of the Act. No compensation has beenpaid to the petitioner.3. It is also the case of the petitioner that in themajor portion of the property, she has built a house with a compoundwall around entire extent of the property. Unfortunately, based on anauthorisation given to the petitioner's sister in the year 1984, theauthorities have proceeded to take over the possession of the land bytaking a signature from the sister of the petitioner, whose name isTmt.Kalyanalakshmi Banumurthy, residing in the neighbouring plot.4. According to the petitioner, after coming into force theTamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999,since the possession of the land has not been taken over by therespondents in the manner prescribed, the proceedings under the Act24 of 1978 abates. 5. The respondents have disputed certain facts and statedthat draft statement under Section 9(1) of the Act and notice underSection 9(4) of the Act were prepared and sent and the petitioneracknowledged the same. In paragraph 12 of the counter, it is stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the lands were handed over to the Revenue department on20.6.1990 by getting signature of Tmt. Kalyanalakshmi Bhanumurthy onbehalf of Dr.Ananthalakshmi, on the delivery receipt to show thatthe excess land was handed over to the respondents. According to theDepartment, the compensation for the land acquired was kept asrevenue deposit on 9.11.2006. The counter affidavit also refers tothe various representation given by the petitioner to the Governmentseeking exemption from the provisions of the Act in respect of theland for a public and charitable purposes. The Government has alsoconsidered the same and on one occasion in proceedings dated29.7.1991, such plea was rejected. The respondents now claimed thatsince the possession was taken over on 20.6.1990, the petitioner isnot entitled to the benefit of theTamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling andRegulation) Repeal Act 20/1999. 6. On going through the files and also the statement madeby the petitioner and the counter affidavit, this Court is notinclined to accept the stand of the respondents that the possessionof the property has been taken over for the following reasons. (i) The preparation of draft statement under Section 9(1)of the Act, notice under Section 9(4) of the Act, and the finalstatement under Section 10(1) of the Act are all not in dispute. (ii) The fact that the petitioner has sought for exemptionand the Government denied the same is also not in dispute. Duringthe period of 1984, the petitioner was working as a Director in LadyIrwin College, Delhi, and at that point of time, she authorised hersister to attend the enquiry before the respondents and thatproceedings was concluded and the authorisation was not extendedthereafter. The petitioner has been corresponding with theauthorities. (iii) On 30.5.1990, the petitioner, in response to thenotice under Section 11(5) of the Act to hand over possession of theproperty has written a letter to the authorities stating that herresidential address is No.A204, Manasaraovar, 19 III Seaward Road,Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.41. The excess vacant land isalso situated with the said property. She has sought for exemptionin the letter dated 30.5.1990 for this property from the aboveaddress. This letter seeking exemption was considered and rejectedby the Government on 25.7.1991. It is stated that on 20.6.1990, theland was handed over by the sister of the petitioner. It is notclear as to why Mrs. Kalyanalakshmi Banumurthy should sign thedelivery receipt. The address of the petitioner was clearly indicatedto the authorities and the Government's reply dated 25.7.1991 hasbeen sent to the same address. Therefore, the authorities shouldhave taken possession from the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) A document is furnished by the petitioner to show thatthe mother of the petitioner was residing at the above said address.The legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar on the death ofTmt.Jayalakshmi Subramanian, mother of the petitioner, who died on30.8.1999, shows the address as above. Therefore, it is apparentthat the property was in possession and occupation of the petitionerand her mother. (v) The petitioner produced a document issued by theCorporation of Chennai granting demolition order for the old buildingfor the purpose of reconstruction of the very same property. Thesketch, which has already been furnished, also shows the excess landis included within the premises of the petitioner's property and itis compounded. Except with the permission of the land owner, theaccess to the property is not feasible. In such an event,possession if at all could have been taken only on notice to theowner or any person living in the property viz., the petitioner orher mother. In this case, possession is not taken from the petitioneror her mother but from the neighbour. (vi) In this case, the delivery receipt states that the sisterof the petitioner handed over the possession of the property. Whenthe address of the petitioner is known to the department and when itis occupied by the petitioner and her mother, there was nojustification for the respondents to take delivery of the propertyfrom another person residing in the neighbouring place. It is notthe stand of the respondents that Tmt. Kalyana Lakshmi Bhanumurthi,who is said to have signed the receipt, is the person, who is inpossession of the property at that time. Unless, there is a specificmention that the said person is in possession of the property, thepossession of property cannot be taken from that person. Obtainingsignature from a relative cannot justify taking over possession ofthe property without the knowledge of the owner. It is an untenableplea. The subsequent records viz., the legal heirs certificate andthe demolition certificate clearly show that the property continuedto be in possession of the petitioner. Hence, the plea that thepossession was taken over on 20.6.1990 cannot be accepted as validin law. The possession therefore continues to be with thepetitioner. 7. In view of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 20/1999, since the possession ofthe property has not been taken in the manner known to law,proceedings initiated under the Act 24/1978 abates. The writpetition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, thepetitioner is entitled to get the wrong entry in the revenue recordscorrected to read as free hold land. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2007 is closed. If any application is filed for correction of theentries in the revenue records, the same shall be considered by theauthorities in terms of the order of this Court. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarraTo1.The Competent Authority (ULC) and Assistant Commissioner (ULT) Alandur, Chennai-600 088.2.The Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, Chennai-600 028. 1 cc To M/s.Rank Associates, Advocate, SR.37656.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.36868. WP No. 12103 of 2007MRD(CO)RVL 27.08.2009