Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2174 (MAD)

J. Gnanadurai v. Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk

2016-07-11

S.S.SUNDAR

body2016
ORDER : The facts in both cases are not in dispute that the petitioners are the lawful owners of their respective properties. 2. It appears that the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board issued a notification in G.O. R.No. 41, Housing Department dated 30.01.1973 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and decided to acquire the lands for Madurai North Neighbourhood Land Development Scheme. Though the notification under Section 4(1) of the vide G.O. R.No. 41, Housing, dated 30.01.1973, was issued and subsequently, a declaration under Section 6 of the land acquisition Act, was issued vide G.O. Ms.No.353, Housing dated 11.04.1974, the father of the petitioners had filed a W.P.No.9275 of 1982 challenging the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and thereafter, filed another W.P.No.15882 of 1994 challenging the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Since both the writ petitions were allowed and the land acquisition proceedings were quashed, the petitioners, as legal representatives of their father, are entitled to exercise their right of ownership. 3. It appears that the revenue records got transferred in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, pursuant to the acquisition proceedings issued by them. However, despite quashing of acquisition proceedings by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, the revenue records are not corrected though the petitioners made a request in that regard. These facts are not disputed by the second respondent in the counter affidavit filed by them. 4. However, the only contention of the Housing Board is that they have a proposal to acquire the lands and their request for acquisition of land for the scheme is also pending consideration before the Department. This cannot be a valid objection to restore the revenue records pertaining to the land in favour of the petitioners. Since the land acquisition was never completed, the mutation of revenue records in favour of the second respondent itself is illegal. 5. This cannot be a valid objection to restore the revenue records pertaining to the land in favour of the petitioners. Since the land acquisition was never completed, the mutation of revenue records in favour of the second respondent itself is illegal. 5. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petitions and the first respondent is directed to issue patta to the petitioners for the land measuring in Western 1 Acre 33 Cents in Survey No.28/4B and Survey No.28/4C1, Thathaneri Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District and in Eastern 40 Cents in Survey No.28/4B and Survey No.28/ 4C1, Thathaneri Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, after holding of a formal enquiry as to the identity of parties with reference to the earlier order of this Court in W.P.Nos.9275 of 1982 and 15882 of 1994. No costs.