This appeal challenges a Single Judge's non-speaking order dismissing a writ petition regarding land acquisition. The High Court held the impugned order was not reasoned on merits and set it aside, remitting the matter for a fresh decision.
Impugned order of the Single Judge set aside and writ petition remitted for fresh decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.10.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN WA.No.145 of 2016 and CMP.No.1942 of 2016
1.Dr.V.P.R.Varadharajan 2.V.P.R.Raja ... Appellants/petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Assistant Commissioner Urban Land Ceiling and Tax Kundrathur – Alandur (E) No.153 Karuneegar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai-88.
2.The Sub Registrar, Adayar Sub Registrar Office, Adayar, Chennai-20 ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned single judge made in WP.No.1255 of 2015 dated 25.11.2015
WP.No.1255 of 2015:Petition presented to this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondents Letter No.Na.Ka.B/364/13 dated 27.9.2013 issued by the 1st respondent against the property comprised in Survey No.227/6E measuring an extent of 46 cents situated in Kottivakkam Village Saidapet Taluk Kanchipuram District and quash the same as the Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent are ceased to exist in view of Repeal of Act 15 of 1999 dated 16.6.1999 and accordingly direct the 1st respodent duly communicate the same to the 2nd respondent to cancel the entries forwarded by the 1st respondent relating to the property of the petitioner to the 2nd petitioner by order dated 27.9.2013 and duly comply the orders of Honourable court
For appellants : Mr.P.Subba Reddy. For respondents: Mr.Anandhamoorthy, AGP for R1 and R2.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 25.11.2015 made in WP.No.1255 of 2015 filed by the appellant.
without any saving clauses i.e, Act 15 of 1999. When there is no saving clause all the acts done by the Government earlier ceased to exist. The Assistant Commissioner, passed an order on 27.09.2013 stating that they have already taken possession which is questioned by the appellants herein in WP.No.1255 of 2015.
“19.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsel on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, this Court is of the view that the first respondent had acquired the said land during 1997, who in turn handed over the same on 15.03.1999, to the Revenue Authorities. A communication also sent to the second respondent on 31.03.1999. This fact revealed by the respondents by way of filing counter affidavit on the basis of the records maintained by the Government. Hence, the impugned order dated 27.09.2013, is only a subsequent communication and the same cannot be considered as an original cause of action. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.”
judge is liable to be set aside.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsh
To
1.The Assistant Commissioner
The State of Tamil Nadu
Urban Land Ceiling and Tax
Kundrathur – Alandur (E)
No.153 Karuneegar Street,
Adambakkam, Chennai-88.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Adayar Sub Registrar Office,
Adayar, Chennai-20.
3.The Section Officer
Writ Section High Court Madras
+1cc to the Government Pleader sr 71702
+3 ccs to Mr.P.Subba Reddy Advocate sr 71277 & 71687
WA.No.145 of 2016
aa02/11/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition without addressing the merits requires to be set aside.
Whether proceedings initiated against a wrong person without serving notice at the residential address invalidate the acquisition process.
Whether the effective date of takeover of land prior to the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act vitiates the subsequent order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. V.P.R. Varadharajan and others
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Assistant Commissioner Urban Land Ceiling and Tax
The Sub Registrar, Adayar
K.K. Sasidharan
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
