Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13495 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2023
W.A.No.1685 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1685 of 2023
1.The Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Tax cum Competent Authority,
Urban Land Ceiling,
Kundrathur Zone,
Chennai-600 088.
2.The Principal Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Reforms,
Chennai-600 005. .. Appellants
Vs.
G.Subramani Naicker (Deceased)
1.S.Kothai Nayagi
2.S.Udhaya Rani
3.S.Vedavalli
4.S.Veeraraghavan
5.S.Jayakumar
6.S.Saravanan .. Respondents
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1685 of 2023
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.4.2022 made in
W.P.No.25970 of 2005.
For the Appellants : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by
Mrs.R.Anitha
Spl. Government Pleader
For the Respondents : Mr.N.Srinivasan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate
General, assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government
Pleader for the appellants and Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. The present respondents have filed the writ petition to
declare that the proceeding initiated by the appellants is illegal, null
and void in view of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 20 of 1999.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1685 of 2023
3. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellants
herein without ascertaining the details about the original land
owner, sent notices under the Principal Act and affixed the same on
the lands.
4. We have perused the original records produced by learned
Additional Advocate General for the appellants. We could not find
any document depicting that the possession has been taken by the
present appellants.
5. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Hari Ram, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280, has observed that the
possession can be a peaceful possession or forceful dispossession
and the same ought to be in the manner provided under the
enactment.
6. No possession receipt seems to have been signed by the
appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1685 of 2023
7. In the light of the above, no error is committed by the
learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition.
8. The writ appeal is disposed of. There is no order as to
costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.14927 of 2023 is closed. The original
records are returned back to learned Additional Advocate General.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
04.10.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1685 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.1685 of 2023
04.10.2023
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!