Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9633 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 August, 2023
WA No.1147 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WA No.1147 of 2021
1.The Competent authority (ULC)
Assistant Commissioner ULT, Madhavaram,
Urban Land Tax (Madhavaram Zone)
No.2, Vivek Nagar, Red Hills Road,
Kolathur, Chennai 99
2.The Tahsildar,
Madhavaram Taluk,
Thiruvallur District : Appellants
versus
1.D.Thyagarajan
2.D.Jeevarajan
3.Grace Abraham : Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 13.03.2020 in WP No.5682 of 2012.
For the Appellants : Mr.P.Muthukumar,
State Government Pleader
For the Respondents : Mr.G.Ilangovan
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1147 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader for
the appellants and Mr.G.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present respondents had filed Writ Petition bearing WP No.5682 of
2012 challenging the notice under Form No.VII, dated 26.11.1998, issued under
the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978.
3. The learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the said notice and
allowed the Writ Petition holding that the entire proceeding initiated by the
present appellants are null and void and that the original writ petitioners are
entitled for the benefit of the repeal Act.
4. We have perused the records provided by learned State Government
Pleader.
5. Though the learned State Government Pleader tried to canvass that all
the procedures have been followed; however, was at pains to point out from the
records that possession was delivered by the occupier and/or physical possession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No.1147 of 2021
was received by the present appellants. Learned Single Judge has arrived at a
conclusion that the original writ petitioners continue to remain in possession
even on the date of filing of the Writ Petition and that no physical possession
was taken.
6. From the records also it does not appear that the physical possession
has been taken by the present appellants from the respondents.
7. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of State of UP vs. Hari Ram [2013(2) LW 469].
8. In light of that, no error has been committed by the learned Single
Judge while passing the impugned order. The writ appeal as such is dismissed
and the record produced by the learned Government Pleader is returned back to
him. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.7198 of 2021 is
closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
03.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1147 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(tar)
WA No.1147 of 2021
03.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!