This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to process the application dated 12.08.2009 of the petitioners and issue patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring 4965 Sq. Ft. in Plot No. 3 & 4, Achuthan Nagar, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-97 comprised in S.No.77 and T.S.No.88, Block No.1 at Ekkatuthangal Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District.
C O M M O N O R D E R
1. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. It has been stated that the the petitioners, in W.P.No.19558 of 2009, had purchased the property, which was a vacant land, bearing plot No.2, Achuthan Nagar, 5th Street, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai admeasuring 4482 sq.ft., comprised in S.No.77, T.S.No.88, block No.1, at Ekkatuthangal Village, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, under a registered sale deed, dated 19.3.2008, from B.Nagaraja and M.Maheswari.
4. It has been stated that the petitioners, in W.P.No.19568 of 2009, had purchased the property, which was a vacant land, bearing plot Nos.3 & 4, Achuthan Nagar, Poonamallee Road, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai, admeasuring 4965 sq.ft. comprised in S.No.77, T.S.No.88, block No.1, at Ekkatuthangal Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai District, under a registered sale deed, dated 28.6.2007, from Radhammal and six others.
5. It had also been stated that the said properties had been purchased, by way of a registered sale deed, dated 28.6.2007, executed by Radhammal and six others. From the said sale seeds, it could be noted that the land purchased by the petitioners had formed a part of a larger extent property, which had, originally, belonged to one Kannaiya Reddiar, who had acquired the said property, under a court auction sale, in the year, 1925. The properties of Kannaiya Reddiar was a joint family property, along with certain other properties.
6. It had been further stated that, during the partition of the joint family property, the land purchased by the petitioners had been allotted to the share of Chinnaraja Reddiar. After the death of Chinnaraja Reddiar, in the year, 2000, his wife Radhammal, and her five sons and a daughter became its owners. The legal heirs of the Chinnaraja Reddiar had sold the property in question to certain persons, who had sold the said property to the vendors of the petitioners.
7. It has been further stated that the petitioners, after the purchase of the property in question, had applied for patta, in respect of the said properties, before the Tahsildar, Guindy, Mambalam Taluk, Chennai District. As the patta had not been issued, the petitioners had learnt, on enquiry, that the lands in question had been subjected to land ceiling proceedings, under the Tamil Nadu Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and therefore, the patta could not be issued in favour of the petitioners.
8. It had been further stated that, after the purchase of the properties in question, superstructures had been put up by the petitioners. The properties had been assessed in the name of the petitioners and they had also paid the property tax due, in respect of the said properties. They had also obtained electricity service connections to the said properties. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties in question, as the absolute owners, since the date of their purchase.
9. It had also been stated that it was learnt that the proceedings, under Section 9(5) of the Act had been issued, only on 16.5.1989, in respect of a larger extent of a land comprised in T.S.No.88, in the name of Chinnaraja Reddiar and not in the name of the real owners. As such, it was clear that the proceedings had not been initiated against the real owners of the properties in question. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings, under the Act are null and void.
10. It had also been learnt, on enquiry, that no notice under Sections 9 (5) and 10 (1) of the Act had been issued or served, on Chinnaraja Reddiar, or his son or on the purchasers of the properties which had formed a part of the larger extent of the properties owned by Chinnaraja Reddiar and the members of his joint family.
11. It had also been stated that no notice, under Section 11(5) of the Act had been served on Chinnaraja Reddiar and his legal heirs or on the other subsequent owners of the lands in question. Further, no compensation had been paid to the actual owners of the lands in question.
12. It had also been stated that, after the repeal of the Act, in the year, 1999, by the Tamil Nadu Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as the "Repeal Act"), the land in question would vest with the petitioners. As per Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act, 1999, the lands in question would continue to be with the petitioners, as the procedures contemplated under the Repeal Act had not been followed. Therefore, the fourth respondent had no jurisdiction or authority to refuse to process the application of the petitioners for the issuance of the pattas in favour of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners had preferred the present writ petitions, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.19558 of 2009, it has been stated that one E.K.Chinnaraju Reddiar was the owner of the land in S.No.88 of Ekkattuthangal village of Madras Urban Agglomeration. He had filed a return in form I, on 14.8.1978, under Section 7(1) of the Act, to the then competent authority (Urban Land Ceiling) Saidapet, on 14.9.1978. The village of Ekkattuthangal, had been added, subsequently, to the jurisdiction of the present competent authority, T.Nagar. The urban land owner, namely, E.K.Chinnaraju Reddiar, had held lands, in S.Nos.88,92,103,104, admeasuring an extent of 10232.5 sq.mts., 2676.0 sq.mts, 1915 sq.mts. and 2854.5 sq.mts., respectively, in Ekkattuthankal village, Chennai. He had also owned some lands in other villages, such as Alandur, T.Nagar, Manapakkam, Kolapakkam and Kodambakkam. The urban land owner had filed a petition before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, the second respondent herein, under Section 33 of the Act, challenging the order passed by the third respondent, in No.1658/81/A3, dated 30.4.1981. After examining the relevant records, the second respondent had dismissed the appeal petition, vide proceedings, in procs.D.Dis.28326/81/J2, dated 28.6.1983. Later, a notice under section 9(4), along with the draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act, had been issued by the third respondent, to the urban land owner, on 13.9.1985, and the same had been received and acknowledged by the urban land owner, on 31.10.1985. After due enquiry and verification, an order under Section 9(5) had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ULT), the third respondent herein, vide proceedings No.C3/SR.29A/Ekkattuthangal, dated 30.4.1986, and the same had been received by the urban land owner, on 21.8.1986. Later, the actual extent held by the urban land owner had been verified and an extent of 14418.5 sq.mts. had been determined as the excess vacant land. The draft final statement, under section 10(1) of the act had been issued to the urban land owner, on 15.5.1989, giving the details of excess vacant lands, in Ekkattuthangal village, as follows:
T.S.No.
Extent in sq.mtrs.
88
9732.5
92
2676.0
103
1915.0
104
95.0
Total
14418.5
14. It has been further stated that the draft final statement had been received by the urban land owner, on 7.7.1989, and it had been acknowledged by him. After publication of the notifications, under Section 11(1) and 11(3) of the Act, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 26.5.1992 and 28.8.1992, respectively, a notice under Section 11(5) had been issued, on 20.2.1993. It had been served on the urban land owner, on 27.7.1993. The Deputy Tahsildar, working in the office of the third respondent, had handed over the possession of the excess vacant land to the Revenue Inspector, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, on 23.3.1995. Thereafter, the land in question had been allotted to the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited, vide G.O.Ms.No.175, Revenue ULC 1 (2), dated 14.2.1997. The order determining the amount payable, under Section 12(6) of the Act had been issued by the third respondent, on 16.12.2002, and it had been sent to the urban land owner, by registered post with acknowledgment due. However, it had been returned by the postal authorities concerned with the endorsement deceased.
15. It had been further stated that, in such circumstances, the petitioners, who had purchased a portion of the land in question, measuring an extent of 4482 sq.ft., in plot No.2, Achuthan Nagar, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai, comprised in S.No.77 and T.S.No.88, block No.1 of Ekkattuthangal village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, have no locus standi to challenge the land ceiling proceedings, indirectly. As such, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, are devoid of merits.
16. It had also been stated that the petitioners had purchased the lands in question after they had been vested with the Government. The urban land owner had been given the necessary opportunities, as per the relevant provisions of the Act, before the lands in question had been taken over by the State Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that the necessary procedures, prescribed under the act, had not been followed, before the land had been taken and handed over to the authorities, on 23.3.1995. Thereafter, the occupation of the land in question, by the petitioners, would amount to 'unlawful encroachment'. All the notices contemplated under the Act had been issued to the erstwhile land owner, namely, E.K.Chinnaraju Reddiar. The lands in question had been taken over by the authorities concerned, with the consent of the land owner. The compensation amount had been arrived at by the authorities concerned, and a notice had been sent to the urban land owner, on 13.7.2003. However, neither the urban land owner, nor his representatives, had turned up to receive the compensation. Since, the excess vacant land had been taken over by the revenue authorities concerned, prior to the repeal of the Act, on 16.6.1999, the cases of the petitioners would fall well within the saving clause, provided under Section 3(1)(a) of the Repeal Act.
17. It had been further stated that the petitioners had filed the present writ petitions, after a lapse of more than 13 years from the time of the taking over of the possession of the lands in question, by the State Government. Further, the details of the exact location of the lands purchased by the writ petitioners are not known, as they are small portions of the larger extent of land, in P.S.No.88 of Ekkattuthangal village. Further, any sale or purchase of the lands, after 3.8.1976, i.e., after the introduction of the Act, would be null and void, as per Section 6 of the said Act. In fact, it is for the petitioner to verify the Government records concerned before purchasing the lands in question. Even otherwise, the petitioners do not have the locus standi to question the land ceiling proceedings, indirectly, after a lapse of more than 13 years from the date of the taking over of the possession of the lands in question. Further, the lands taken over by the State Government had been allotted to the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited, on 14.2.1987.
18. It had also been stated that the State Government had passed orders, in G.O.Ms.No.565, Revenue, dated 26.9.2008, to regularise the purchase of the acquired lands, under the 'Innocent Buyers Category'. Therefore, it would be open to the petitioners to seek an appropriate remedy, under the said government order. In such circumstances, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed.
19. In view of the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and in the counter affidavit filed in support of the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits.
20. From the original records produced before this Court, by the respondents, it is noted that the land ceiling proceedings had been initiated against one Chinnaraja Reddiar, who had held excess vacant lands, in Ekkattuthangal village, to an extent of 14418.5 sq.mts. A notice, under section 9(4) of the Tamil Nadu Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, had been issued to the urban land owner. Further, it is noted that the urban land owner had filed the return in form I, on 14.8.1978, under Section 7(1) of the Act, before the Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) Saidapet. After, the urban land owner had filed a petition before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, the second respondent herein, under Section 33 of the Act, challenging the order passed by the third respondent, in No.1658/81/A3, dated 30.4.1981, a notice under section 9(4), along with the draft statement, under Section 9(1) of the Act, had been issued, by the third respondent, to the urban land owner, on 13.9.1985. The urban land owner had received and acknowledged the same, on 31.10.1985. After due enquiry had been conducted and on verification of the relevant records, orders under Section 9(5) had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ULT), the third respondent herein, vide proceedings No.C3/SR.29A/Ekkattuthangal, dated 30.4.1986. The said proceedings had been received by the urban land owner, on 21.8.1986. Thereafter, the actual extent of the lands held by the urban land owner had been verified and an extent of 14418.5 sq.mts. had been determined as the excess vacant land, in Ekkattuthangal village. The draft final statement, under Section 10(1) of the Act had been issued to the urban land owner, on 15.5.1989, and it had been received by him, on 7.7.1989. After publication of the notifications, under Section 11(1) and Section 11(3) of the Act, in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 26.5.1992 and 28.8.1992, respectively, a notice, under Section 11(5), had been issued, on 20.2.1993, and the same had been served on the urban land owner, on 27.7.1993. Thereafter, the Deputy Tahsildar, working in the office of the third respondent, had handed over the possession of the excess vacant land, to the Revenue Inspector, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, on 23.3.1995. Thereafter, the land in question had been allotted to the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited, vide G.O.Ms.No.175, (Revenue ULC 1 (2), dated 14.2.1997. An order determining the amount payable to the urban land owner, under Section 12(6) of the Act, had been issued by the third respondent, on 16.12.2002. Even though the urban land owner, namely, Chinnaraja Reddiar, had died, at that stage, it cannot be said that all the proceedings initiated and completed by the respondents, as per the relevant provisions of the Act, would become null and void.
21. Further, it cannot be said that the petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers of the lands in question, would have the locus standi to come before this Court by filing the present writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue writs of Mandamus to direct the respondents, to process the applications, for the grant of pattas, in respect of the lands in question, especially, when such lands had been declared, as excess vacant lands, in the proceedings initiated against Chinnaraja Reddiar, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1978, cannot be held to be maintainable in the eye of law. The proceedings of the respondents, under the said Act, had not been challenged, successfully, either by Chinnaraja Reddiar, or by his legal heirs. While so, it cannot be said that the said proceedings are null and void, automatically. Further, it is noted that the land in question had been allotted to the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited, vide G.O.Ms.No.175, Revenue ULC 1 (2), dated 14.2.1997. As such, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, they are dismissed. However, it may be open to the petitioners to seek certain reliefs, under the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.565, Revenue, dated 26.9.2008, as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.