Allowed

Dr.T.Krishna Kumar v. the State Rep by

Madras HC8 Nov 2024WP/16571/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed three writ petitions directed at impugned orders rejecting applications for land regularization. The court held that successors-in-interest of original sellers, who acquired land via registered deeds before settlement, are eligible for regularization under the Innocent Purchaser Scheme despite subsequent transfers via Will or Partition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejecting regularization applications were set aside; respondents directed to regularize land in petitioners' names within six weeks.

Dr.T.Krishna Kumar Vs the State Rep by — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

W.P.Nos.16571, 16705 & 16711 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.18182, 18183, 18340, 18341 & 18350 of 2024

¶7

Dr.T.Krishna Kumar

¶8

T.Tamilarasi 3. T.Lavanya

¶9

... Petitioners in all W.Ps.

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State represented by The Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

The Principal Secretary/The Special Commissioner/ Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Ezhilagam, Chepauk,

¶14

Chennai – 600 005.

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Kundrathur, No.153, Karuneegar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai.

¶17

... Respondents in all W.Ps.

¶18

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

¶19

_____________ Page No. 1 of 11_

¶20

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶21

Prayer in W.P.No.16571 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3^rd respondent in the name of the 3^rd petitioner's mother in Letter Oo.Mu.No.467/2021/A dated 12.08.2021 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to regularize the land, stand in the name of the Petitioners to an extent of 3600 Sq.ft. in Plot No.2 in S.No.385/1 (part), No.173, Selaiyur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District under innocent purchaser category in terms of G.O.Ms.No.649, Revenue dated 29.07.1998 and G.O.(Ms).No.565, Revenue Department, dated 26.09.2008.

¶22

Prayer in W.P.No.16705 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3^rd respondent in the name of the 3^rd petitioner's mother in Letter Oo.Mu.No.468/2021/A dated 12.08.2021 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to regularize the land, stand in the name of the Petitioners to an extent of 5310 Sq.ft. in Plot No.1 in S.No.385/1 (part), No.173, Selaiyur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District under innocent purchaser category in terms of G.O.Ms.No.649, Revenue dated 29.07.1998 and G.O.(Ms).No.565, Revenue Department, dated 26.09.2008.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 2 of 11_

¶24

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶25

Prayer in W.P.No.16711 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Letter Na.Ka.No.E2/10809/2022 dated 22.06.2023 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to regularize the land, stand in the name of the Petitioners to an extent of 8910 Sq.ft. (5310 + 3600 Sq.ft.) in Plot No.1 in S.No.358/1 (part) No.173, Selaiyur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District under innocent purchaser category in terms of G.O.Ms.No.649, Revenue dated 29.07.1998 and G.O.(Ms).No.565, Revenue Department, dated 26.09.2008.

¶26

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Sankaran

¶27

Senior Counsel (in all W.Ps.) For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader (in all W.Ps.)

¶28

ORDER

¶29

By this common order all the three Writ Petitions are being disposed

¶30

of.

¶31

The details of the Respective Writ Petitions challenging the

¶32

respective Impugned Orders are as under:-

¶33

Sl.No.	W.P.No.	Impugned Letter No.	Impugned Letter dated
1.	16571 of 2024	Oo.Mu.No.467/2021/A	12.08.2021
2.	16705 of 2024	Oo.Mu.No.468/2021/A	12.08.2021

¶34

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

¶35

_____________ Page No. 3 of 11_

¶36

Sl.No.
3.

¶37

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶38

Sl.No. 3.	W.P.No. 16711 of 2024	Impugned Letter No. Na.Ka.No.E2/10809/2022	Impugned Letter dated 22.06.2023

¶39

It is the case of the Petitioners that they are the owners of the property bearing Plot No.1 and 2 in shantha Nagar comprised in Punjai Survey No.385/1 (part) of No.173 Selaiyur Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District, measuring an extent of 5310 sq.ft. and 3600 sq.ft. respectively.

¶40

The property originally belonged to one A.K.Umayal Atchi. Thereafter, the said A.K.Umayal Atchi, appointed a power agent who transferred Plot No.1 in favour of T.Lavanya, the 3^rd Petitioner herein and Plot No.2 in favour of T.Lalitha, the mother of the Petitioners herein.

¶41

When the property was transferred in the name of said T.Lavanya namely the 3^rd Petitioner herein, she was only 5 years old. The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) was enacted in the year 1978 and the Petitioners lands were acquired without informing the prior owners and the Petitioners were also totally unaware about the same.

¶42

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

¶43

_____________ Page No. 4 of 11_

¶44

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶45

In the year 2012, the Petitioners mother namely T.Lalitha has settled

¶46

the property in favour of her husband S.Theagarajan / the father of the Petitioners herein. Meanwhile, the 3^rd Petitioner has also settled her share of property in the name of her father namely S.Theagarajan, since the 3^rd Petitioner was residing in abroad.

¶47

The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), 1978 was also repealed with effect from 16.06.1999 by Act 20 of 1999. The Petitioner would submit that G.O.Ms.No.565 Revenue Department dated 26.09.2008 was issued by the 1^st Respondent containing guidelines for innocent purchasers under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978. The Petitioners were unaware about this guidelines as they were living abroad. Thereafter, the Petitioners had submitted an application for regularization of the property in punjai Survey No.385/1 (part) of No.173 Selaiyur Village, Saidapet, Taluk, Chengalpet District measuring an extent of 5310 sq.ft.

¶48

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

¶49

_____________ Page No. 5 of 11_

¶50

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶51

Though an enquiry was called for, the same was not concluded which constrained the Petitioners to give yet another representation on 10.03.2022. By the Impugned Order the Petitioners application for regularization was rejected.

¶52

The said S.Theagarajan, father of the Petitioners herein had executed a Will bequeathing the property on the petitioners herein. The said S.Theagarajan passed on 17.05.2021 and his wife T.Lalitha, the mother of the Petitioners herein passed away on 15.02.2022.

¶53

The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners had applied for regularization to the 3^rd Respondent who had recommended the same to the 2^nd Respondent vide Order dated 28.05.2023 and the same was rejected on the ground that the Petitioners had obtained the property through a Will and therefore, was not entitled the benefit of G.O.(Ms).No.565 Revenue Department dated 26.09.2008. Challenging the

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 6 of 11_

¶55

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶56

same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶57

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶58

The very premise on which the Petitioners application is rejected

¶59

displays the non-application of mind on the part of the Petitioners. The said properties were transferred to the 3^rd Petitioner and the mother of the Petitioner from one A.K.Umayal Atchi and they were totally unaware of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) proceedings and therefore, they seek umbrage as an innocent purchasers under the said G.O.(Ms).No.565 Revenue Department dated 26.09.2008.

¶60

It is further brought to the notice of this Court that in G.O.(Ms).No.63 Revenue and Disaster Management [ULC-I(2)] Department dated 27.01.2020, the Government had examined the proposals submitted by the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax and had passed an Order that all the transactions done through registered deed by the innocent purchasers and the original land owner where

¶61

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

¶62

_____________ Page No. 7 of 11_

¶63

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶64

the land was acquired under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 through Settlement Deed, Partition Deed, Gift Deed, Release Deed, Exchange Deed etc. could be considered for regularization under the Innocent Purchasers Scheme, subject to the criterion that a sale should have been effected before the land is settled in favour of any person for valuable consideration or gifted or released or partitioned or settled in favour of any person for valuable consideration or gifted or released or partitioned or Settled or Exchanged to the present petitioner through a valid registered deed and petition received from the Innocent Purchasers be entertained after scrutiny and verification of the genuineness of the transaction.

¶65

Since, the 3^rd Petitioner and the mother of the Petitioner have purchased the property as early as on 05.09.1987, the provisions of G.O.(Ms).No.63 Revenue and Disaster Management [ULC-I(2)] Department dated 27.01.2020 would apply. Therefore, the respective Impugned Orders challenging the respective Writ Petitions are set aside and the Respondents are directed to regularize the land in the name of the Petitioners herein and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page No. 8 of 11_

¶67

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶68

of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶69

These Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶70

08.11.2024

¶71

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation :Yes/No rgm

¶72

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

¶73

_____________ Page No. 9 of 11_

¶74

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

P.T.ASHA, J.

rgm

The Principal Secretary to the Government, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶79

The Principal Secretary/The Special Commissioner/ Director of Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶80

The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Kundrathur, No.153, Karuneegar Street, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088.

¶81

The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai.

¶82

W.P.Nos.16571, 16705 & 16711 of 2024

¶83

and

¶84

W.M.P.Nos.18182, 18183, 18340, 18341 & 18350 of 2024

¶85

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

¶86

_____________ Page No. 10 of 11_

¶87

W.P.No.16571 of 2024 and etc. batch

¶88

08.11.2024

¶89

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

¶90

Page No. 11 of 11

Dr.T.Krishna Kumar v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.T.Krishna Kumar v. the State Rep by

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

Ragupathy Vs The Tahsildar

T.Rahman Vs The District Registrar

N.Chandraprakasam Vs the Tahsildhar

Durairaj Vs the Commissioner

R.Ponnusamy Vs Secretary, Revenue Department

S.Soma Sundaram Vs the District Collector