Disposed

S.Jagannathan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC6 Jan 2023WP/223/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a fresh order granting the petitioner eight weeks to file a written submission. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within the stipulated time. The writ petition on its merits is not decided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and pass orders within eight weeks.

S.Jagannathan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.223 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.223 of 2023

¶7

S.Jagannathan …. Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1 The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its secretary to Government revenue Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai

¶10

2 The special Commissioner Urban Land Ceiling and urban Land Tax Chepauk Chennai 05

¶11

3 The Competent Authority and Assistant commissioner urban Land Tax Coimbatore …. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the sale deed dated 01/11/1989 under the innocent buyer category and regularise the property admeasuring 5 cents and 162 sq.ft comprised in S.No.95/1 and 2 Ganapathy Village Coimbatore district in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 565 Revenue NA/ NEE/ U department dated 26/09/2008 and G.O. Ms.No. 649 Revenue NA/ NEE/ U Department dated 29/07/1998.

¶13

1 / 5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.223 of 2023

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarajan For Respondents : Mrs.Akila Rajendran Government Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the respondents to regularise the sale deed dated 01/11/1989 under the innocent buyer category and regularise the property admeasuring 5 cents and 162 sq.ft comprised in S.No.95/1 and 2 Ganapathy Village Coimbatore district in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 565 Revenue NA/ NEE/ U department dated 26/09/2008 and G.O. Ms.No. 649 Revenue NA/ NEE/ U Department dated 29/07/1998.

¶19

The petitioner purchased a property to the extent of 2262 sq.ft at S.No.95/1 and 2, Ganapathy Village. However, subsequently he came to know that the land was subjected to the proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and without knowing the same, since the petitioner as an innocent purchaser had purchased the property, in view of the Urban Land Ceiling Act having been repealed by the subsequent Act, the Government had come forward to issue G.O.Ms.No.565 dated 26.09.2008 of the Department of Revenue, under which if the land is less than 1 ½ grounds, as an innocent purchaser who purchased the land covered under the Urban Land Ceiling Act proceedings, that can be

¶20

2 / 5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.223 of 2023

¶23

regularized after remitting the value fixed by the authority. In this regard, the 2^nd respondent is empowered to regularize the land purchased by the petitioner. Therefore, in order to regularize the same, the petitioner had given a representation on 29.10.2022 and in order to consider the same, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

¶24

Heard Mr.Rajarajan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶25

Learned Government Advocate would submit that the said representation dated 29.10.2022 submitted by the petitioner would be considered by the 2^nd respondent on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court,

¶26

Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for and having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order.

¶27

“That there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated

¶28

29.10.2022 and pass necessary orders thereon on merits and in

¶29

3 / 5

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.223 of 2023

¶32

accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the

¶33

date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶34

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

06.01.2023

¶36

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order KST To

¶37

1 The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its secretary to Government

¶38

revenue Department Secretariat Fort St.

¶39

George Chennai

¶40

2 The special Commissioner

¶41

Urban Land Ceiling and urban Land Tax Chepauk Chennai 05

¶42

3 The Competent Authority

¶43

and Assistant commissioner urban Land Tax ' Coimbatore

¶44

4 / 5

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.223 of 2023

¶47

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶48

KST

¶49

W.P.No. 223 of 2023

¶50

06.01.2023

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5 / 5

S.Jagannathan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jagannathan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Mallika Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Swathy Vs The District Registrar

Karuna Bhandari Vs Inspector General of

Parvathi Vs The District Collector

Tamil Nadu Real Estates Private Limited Vs The District Registrar

Karthick Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer