Disposed

G.Murali, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Apr 2021WP/18061/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to treat his purchase of land as an 'innocent buyer' under a Government Order and confirm his title and possession. The court held that since acquisition proceedings ended long before the relevant Repeal Act, the authorities must decide the representation on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the fourth respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 30.06.2018 on merits within eight weeks.

G.Murali, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Date : 21.04.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.18061 of 2018

¶6

G.Murali ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 01. 2.The Principal Secretary, Urban and Housing Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 01. 3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai - 05. 4.The Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 05. 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Department, Tambaram, Karuneegar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai - 28. 6.The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to receive payment from the petitioner as per GO Ms.No.565 dated 26/09/2008 under the innocent buyers category for the property bearing Plot No.37, in S.No.412/2 (Part), situate in No.167, Perungalathur Village, admeasuring 4.12 cents and confirm the title and possession on the petitioner over the aforesaid land as sought vide application dated 5.11.2009.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj Special Government Pleader

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to receive payment from the petitioner as per GO Ms.No.565 dated 26/09/2008 under the innocent buyers category for the property bearing Plot No.37, in S.No.412/2 (Part), situate in No.167, Perungalathur Village, admeasuring 4.12 cents and confirm the title and possession on the petitioner over the aforesaid land as sought vide application dated 5.11.2009.

¶12

2.The land in question i.e. property bearing Plot No.37 in S.No.412/2 (Part), situate in No.167, Perungalathur Village, admeasuring 4.12 cents claiming to have been purchased by the petitioner without knowing that the land had been in land acquisition proceedings in Urban Land Ceiling Act, therefore, in order to regularise the same, in view of the subsequent repealment of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, he wanted to consider the petitioner as innocent buyers category in view of the G.O.Ms.No.565 Revenue Department dated 26.09.2008 and accordingly after receipt of payment from the petitioner, he can be given relief to release the land from the clutches of land acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. In order to get the said relief, the petitioner has given representation to the respondents on 18.11.2013 and thereafter on 30.06.2018, however those representations since have not been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

¶13

3.Reiterating the aforesaid factual aspect, Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahamed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would seek indulgence to give a suitable direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner dated 18.11.2013 and 30.06.2018 submitted to the fourth respondent and decide the same and pass orders thereon on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court and if such an eventuality, the petitioner would be satisfied.

¶14

4.Per contra, Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, by relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, would submit that, the land in question claimed to have been purchased in the year 1989 i.e. during the proceedings where the Urban Ceiling Act had come into effect, therefore, it is hit by Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1978. Moreover, the ULC proceedings has come to a conclusion that the land has been taken possession as early as on 06.08.1990 and subsequently, in the land acquired under the ULC proceedings, the Requisition Authority i.e. Tamil Nadu Slum

¶15

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

¶16

Clearance Board on 06.11.2001 have also started utilisation of the land. Therefore, the question of considering the request of the petitioner by treating the petitioner as an innocent buyer in this case does not arise, therefore, the request made by the petitioner cannot be accepted and it has only to be rejected. Therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petition may be rejected and the writ petition can be dismissed, he contended.

¶17

5.I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶18

6.Even though it was claimed by the petitioner that he was an innocent purchaser, in view of the facts that has been projected by the respondents through the counter affidavit and the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in this regard, the land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act came to an end by 06.08.1990 itself i.e. well before the commencement of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came in and therefore, in the Repeal Act, whatever be the effect of repealing that would not apply to the petitioner's case. Moreover, the land in question has already been handed over on 06.11.2001 to the Requisition Authority and therefore, as claimed by the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents, whether he would be entitled to be considered as an innocent purchaser or not can be very well decided based on the aforesaid facts by the respondents themselves.

¶19

7.In that view of the matter, by merely recording the aforesaid made by both sides, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by giving a direction to the respondents, especially the fourth respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 30.06.2018 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

8.With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-V)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

Sgl

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

1.The State of Tamil Nadu
The Principal Secretary to Government
Revenue Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 01.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Urban and Housing Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 01.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai - 05.
4.The Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 05.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Ceiling & Urban Land Tax Department,
Tambaram, Karuneegar Street,
Adambakkam, Chennai - 28.
6.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
+1cc to Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, Advocate, S.R.No. 24399
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 25019
W.P.No.18061 of 2018
SR II(CO)
GN(02/07/2021)

¶28

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

G.Murali, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Murali, v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Loganathan Vs Inspector General of

G.Murugan Vs The Inspector General of

V.Malliga Vs the District Collector

D.Sigamani Vs The Revenue Divisional

Mrs.Ellammal, Vs The District Collector

Ramachandaran, Vs The District Collector