The Special Commissioner And Commissioner Of Land Reforms v. N. Ranganathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.08.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

1. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Assistant Commissioner / U.L.T.

Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling) Ambattur, E.V.r.Buildings Aminjikarai, Chennai.

3. The Tahsildar Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur Chennai - 55.

..

Appellants Vs.

N.Ranganathan ..

Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.03.2021 in W.P.No.15860 of 2007.

For the Appellants :

Mr.S.Silambanan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate For the Respondent :

Mr.V.Ramesh Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Thiagarajan

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellants assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge thereby allowing the writ petition and holding that the impugned proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 stands abated. Learned Single Judge has also recorded that the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 were initiated against dead persons. Directions are given to mutate the name of the original writ petitioner and to issue patta.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General has produced the record and proceedings. From the record and proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General could not point out that the relevant notice under Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 is issued to the land owner. There is no document evidencing delivery of possession signed by the land owner.

4. In the absence of the statutory notice being given, the proceedings rightly abate. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280.

5. In the light of the above, the learned Single Judge has properly appreciated the facts and passed the impugned order.

6. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.17472 & 17469 of 2023 are closed.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 09.08.2023 Index : Yes/No drm

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(drm) 09.08.2023