S.Thilagam v. The Commissioner of Land Reforms

ORDER This writ petition is filed for Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the classification as Government Poromboke and include the petitioners' name in the records in respect of UDR survey No.158/21-AI, AJ and Town Survey No.7, Ward No.AL, Block No.22, for and extent of

11.02 cents and UDR Survey No.158/21-AK, AL and Town Survey No.Ward No.AL, Block No.22, for an extent of 11.02 cents situated at Piratiyur East Village, Sri Rangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, by considering the Judgment reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 720 and consequently consider the representation, dated

13.07.2020.

¶2Heard Mr.P.Arun Jayatram, the Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.Kishore, for M/s.R.B.Law Associates, the Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the material documents available on record.

¶3The contention of the petitioners is that one Pitchai who owned two acres of dry and in SF No.130/21 at Piratiyur East Village, Sri Rangam Taluk converted the said land into house plots and sold the same to different persons. The 1st petitioner has purchased a plot admeasuring 11.02 cents as per document No.6246/1984 dated 05.01.1984. The 1st petitioner's father and the 2nd petitioner's husband had purchased two successive plots measuring 11.02 cents as per document No.6247/1884. The father of the 2nd petitioner has settled by way of valid settlement deed in Document No.2484 of 2016 dated 29.04.2016. Thereafter, the survey number was re-numbered. The petitioners have approached the 3rd respondent for construction and to approve the building plan. However, the 3rd respondent submitted that the said property was classified as Government Poromboke and further revealed that the properties were already taken under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in the year 1996.

¶4The further contention of the petitioners is that when the said fact was enquired by the petitioners, the owners of the adjacent housing plots namely, one V.Somasundaram stated that the Land Ceiling proceeding was set aside by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court.

¶5The further contention of the petitioners is that there is no notice under the Tamilnadu Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Subsequently, the said Act was repealed with effect from 16.09.1999 by enacting Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealed Act, 1999. The said V.Somasundaram has filed a writ petition questioning the proceeding initiated under the said Act, in W.P.No.6975 of 2000 before this Court and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the said dismissal order, W.A.No.617 of 2002 was filed and the said writ appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2007(1)MLJ 750 V.Somasundaram and Others Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and Others. The Hon'ble Division Bench has allowed the same since proper notice was not issued to the subsequent purchasers. However, notice was issued to the original owner. In the present case also, the respondents have not issued any notice to the present owners i.e. the petitioners. Notice was only issued to the original owner. Therefore, the judgment of the writ appeal is applicable to the petitioners' case. Therefore, following the Judgement passed by this Court in the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.617 of 2002, reported in 2007

(1) MLJ 720, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition.

¶6After the Act was repealed as per Revenue records, it has been recorded that the original owner is the owner of the land. However, only in the Municipal records, still it is shown as Government Poromboke land. For which, the petitioners are relied on the revenue records where it has been stated as under: Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to enter the petitioners' name in the records.

¶7The Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted sought time to file counter. In the present case also, the petitioners' have raised the same plea i.e. that the petitioners were not served notice, but only the original owner was issued notice. Since the issue was already considered and decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion counter would not serve any purpose, since exactly on the same ground, the writ appeal was allowed.

¶8Therefore, the respondents are directed to rectify the records. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of Six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

¶9Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

04.09.2023

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ksa To

¶1The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Ezhizagam, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶2The Assistant Commissioner ( Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling ), Tiruchi - Pudukkottai Road, Tiruchirappali - 20.

¶3The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation, Bharathiyar Salai, Tiruchirappalli

S.SRIMATHY, J.

ksa W.P.(MD)No.16835 of 2020

04.09.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.09.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD)No.16835 of 2020 1. S.Thilagam 2. S.Saravanan ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The Commissioner of Land Reforms, Ezhizagam, Chepauk, Chennai. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms and Urban Land Ceiling), Tiruchi - Pudukkottai Road, Tiruchirappali - 20. 3. The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation, Bharathiyar Salai, Tiruchirappalli ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the classification as Government Poromboke and include the petitioner's name in the records in respect of UDR survey No.158/21-AI, AJ and Town Survey No.7, Ward No.AL, Block No.22, for and extent of 11.02 cents and UDR Survey No.158/21-AK, AL and Town Survey No.Ward No.AL, Block No.22, for an extent of 11.02 cents situated at Piratiyur East Village, Sri Rangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, by considering the Judgment reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 720 and consequently consider the representation, dated 13.07.2020. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader, for R1 & R2 Mr.Kishore, for, M/s.R.B.Law Associates, for R-3