Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 876 (MAD)

M. Grace v. Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Reforms

2013-02-12

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2013
Judgment 1. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to incorporate the names of petitioners as owners in respect of land comprised in Survey No. 115/2B2 measuring 2050 sq.mts.at Nemilichery Village Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvalluvar District in all the revenue records, like patta, chitta and adangal extract. 2. The admitted facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioners were the owners in possession of a land, measuring 2050 sq.mts. Comprised in Survey No. 115/2B2 at Nemilichery Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvalluvar District. 3. The land was acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu under Act 24/78 (The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ceiling Act'). 4. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the action of the State Government in acquiring the land under the Ceiling Act, challenged the order passed under Section 9(5), 10(1) and 11(5) vide W.P.No.22101 of 2003. 5. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 19.10.2006 and the proceedings held under the Ceiling Act were ordered to be quashed. 6. It is the case of the petitioners, that after passing of the order, the petitioners approached the 3rd respondent on number of occasions to change the revenue records in the names of petitioners in view of the order passed by this Court quashing the orders passed under the Ceiling Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that inspite of number of representations and legal notice dated 12.11.2007, the 3rd respondent has failed to perform his statutory duties to maintain the records correctly by incorporating the names of petitioners in the column of ownership and possession. 8. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not disputed, that the petitioners were the registered owners of the land in dispute, which was acquired under the Ceiling Act. The acquisition proceedings under Ceiling Act were quashed by this Court, and as consequence of the order, the 3rd respondent was bound to restore the situation existing before acquisition of the land under the Ceiling Act. 9. The 3rd respondent has thus failed to perform his statutory obligations to maintain records correctly by incorporating names of true owners in the revenue records in view of the orders passed by this Court. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. 9. The 3rd respondent has thus failed to perform his statutory obligations to maintain records correctly by incorporating names of true owners in the revenue records in view of the orders passed by this Court. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the 3rd respondent to carry out necessary correction of ownership of the land, measuring 2050 sq.mts. Comprised in Survey No. 115/2B2 at Nemilichery Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvalluvar District, by incorporating the names of petitioners. The needful are done within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. No costs.