The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to dispose of a land ceiling exemption representation. The Court held that the petitioner approached with unclean hands regarding the ignorance of the land's acquisition date.
No costs. Writ Petition dismissed.
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 : 05.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.16703 of 2018
V.Lakshmi Veeraraghavan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director,
Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Ezhilagam, Ground Floor,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax,
No.153, Karuneegar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai – 88. .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19.03.2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.P.Senniyangiri
For Respondents: Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan,
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of the land measuring an extent of 2400 sq.f.t, in S.F.No.54, Sembakkam Village from her vendor vide Sale Deed dated 06.07.1999 bearing Document No.2209 of 1995. After purchasing the property, when she approached the revenue authorities for mutation of patta and other revenue records in her name, she was informed that the land in dispute was already the subject matter of land ceiling. However, she was informed to move appropriate application seeking exemption from the provisions of land ceiling as she was a bona fide purchaser.
2.This Court could have entertained the claim of the petitioner, had the petitioner mentioned the basic information with regard to the date on which the land was subjected to the land ceiling.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded ignorance of the date of acquisition of the land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The learned counsel also pleaded that the petitioner has purchased the property only from the landlord.
4.It is not known how the landlord can alienate the property knowing pretty well that the land in question has already become the subject matter of the land ceiling proceedings.
5.This Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition as the petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The Director,
Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax,
Ezhilagam, Ground Floor,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax,
No.153, Karuneegar Street,
Adambakkam, Chennai – 88.
+1cc to M/s.E.P.Senniyangiri, Advocate SR.No.44440
AK(CO)
sm:18.7.2018
W.P.No.16703 of 2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should entertain a writ petition seeking direction to dispose of a land ceiling exemption representation when the petitioner approached with unclean hands.
Whether the petitioner could have established her claim regarding the date of land acquisition under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Lakshmi Veeraraghavan
The Director, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax
The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax
T. Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
