Karumbu Kadai Rajiv Vs State of Tamil Nadu

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED; 10.04.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.10220 of 2006

¶6

and WPMP No.11563 of 2006

¶7

Karumbu Kadai Rajiv Nagar Kudiyiruppor

¶8

Welfare Association

¶9

No.8, Rajiv Nagar
Karumbu Kadai, Coimbatore 8
Rep.by its President Mr.S.M.Illiyas ..Petitioner
 ..Vs..
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9

¶10

2.Competent Authority and

¶11

Assistant Commissioner

¶12

Urban Land Ceiling, Coimbatore..Respondents

¶13

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
No.53/89 A1 dated 17.11.1994 and quash the same as abated
as per the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 20/1999) and forbear the respondents
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the petitioner’s association in any manner in respect of

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

the properties at Survey No.246/2, 3A and 3C of Anupar
Palayam Village, Koottu Pagudhi, Coimbatore District.

¶16

For petitioner : Mr.G.Venkatesh

¶17

 for M/s V.Manohar and N.Thiyagarajan

¶18

For respondents : Mr.N.Srinivasan

¶19

 Additional Government Pleader

¶20

 (for R1 to R2)

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition was filed by Karumbu Kadai
Rajiv Nagar Kudiyiruppor Welfare Association challenging
the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent in
proceedings No.SR.53/89 A1 dated 17.11.1994, to quash the
same on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the
second respondent should abate as per the Tamil Nadu Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (Act 20 of
1999) with the consequential direction forbearing the
respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the members of the petitioner’s
association in any many manner in respect of the properties
at Survey No.246/2, 3A and 3C of Anupar Palayam village,
Koottu Pagudhi, Coimbatore District.

¶23

2.(i)It was pleaded before this court that the
petitioner association is a registered association and the
members of the petitioner association are the owners of the
the lands in Survey No.246/2, 3A and 3C of Anupar Palayam
Village, Koottu Pagudhi, Coimbatore District to an extent
of 118.70 grounds. It was also contended that the members
of the petitioner association have purchased the said
properties and after purchase, they have put up
construction after obtaining sanctioned plan from the
competent authority. Subsequently, when they had approached
the Tahsildar, Coimbatore for patta, they came to know that
the abovesaid property was covered under the proceedings
issued by the second respondent dated 17.11.1994 under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act 1978. Since the respondent has initiated
the proceedings under the abovesaid Act against the
vendor's predecessor C.P.Manickam, they have come to
challenge the impugned proceedings by filing the present
writ petition on the ground that the proceedings initiated
by the second respondent is abated.

¶24

(ii)Further, it was pleaded that the petitioner
association is being the owners of the property covered

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

under the impugned proceedings dated 17.11.1994, unless the
second respondent issues a notice to the members of the
petitioner association, they cannot take any proceeding
under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act 1978.

¶27

3.(i)This Court is not able to appreciate the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The reason is very simple and clear that
although they claimed to be the owners of the property by
virtue of purchase, nowhere in the affidavit they have
mentioned the date of purchase and the extent of property
purchased from the vendor.

¶28

(ii)The second respondent is liable to issue notice
only to the persons who are owning the land on the date of
issuance of the notice as per the revenue records. In the
present case, the second respondent-competent authority had
initiated proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 against the petitioner
vendor predecessor C.P.Manickam by issuing notice under
Section 7(2). It was also admitted by the petitioner in
para 3 of the affidavit that the said C.P.Manickam had also
received the said notice on 21.12.1992 and thereafter,
draft notice was issued on 29.1.1993 and the same was also
again admittedly received by the land owner on 29.3.1993,
whereupon objections received from him, was also admitted
by the petitioner. It was further admitted by the
petitioner herein that the previous vendor after initiation
of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act 1978, had sold the property to H.Abdul
Bazheer and he has given power to Mohammed Yakoob to sell
the abovesaid property and based on the said power the said
Mohammed Yakoob suppressing the fact that the said property
was covered under the Ceiling, sold the property to the
petitioner. The abovesaid transfer of the land is hit by
section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulations) Act 1978 since section 6 clearly states that
no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling
limit shall transfer any such land until he has furnished a
statement under Section 7 and a notification regarding the
excess vacant land held by him has been published under
sub-section (1) of section 11 and any such transfer made in
contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null
and void.

¶29

(iii)The original vendor C.P.Manickam had maliciously
sold the land to come out from the coverage of the Tamil
Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1978
proceedings. Be that as it may, when the petitioner came
to this Court in 2006 for quashing the proceedings

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

initiated by the second respondent dated 17.11.94 on the
ground that they have been in physical possession of the
land on the date of coming into force of the Repeal Act
20/1999 which would automatically stand attracted, has not
satisfactorily proved before this Court that they have been
in physical possession of the land. Moreover, no document,
whatsoever, proving the physical possession of the land has
been filed before this Court. Therefore, this Court is not
able to extend the benefit of section 4 of the Repeal Act.

¶32

4.Accordingly, W.P.No.10220/2006 fails and the same
is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.11563/2006
is also dismissed.

¶33

sal
Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
To
1.The Secretary
Revenue Department
Fort St.George, Chennai 9
2.The Competent Authority and
Assistant Commissioner
Urban Land Ceiling, Coimbatore
+1cc to Mr.V.Manohar, Advocate SR.No.21027.
W.P NO.10220 of 2006

¶34

nm(co)
gn 14/05/2013

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Karumbu Kadai Rajiv v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karumbu Kadai Rajiv v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.N.Sooriya Narayanan Vs the Managing Director

R.Govindarajan, Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Malliga, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

R.Egamparam Vs the Deputy Chairman

M.Chinnapillai, Vs the District Collector

Saravanakani @ Senthilvel Vs Secretary to Govt. of India