[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

P.Ganesan vs The Competent Authority Of Urban on 25 February, 2026

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S. M. Subramaniam

    2026:MHC:810


                                                                                                   WA No. 2224 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                              Reserved on :              09.02.2026

                                              Pronounced on : 25.02.2026
                                                            CORAM
                           THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
                                              AND
                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
                                                 WA No. 2224 of 2023
                                                       AND
                                                CMP NO. 19246 OF 2023

                1. P.Ganesan
                S/o.Periyanna Gounder,
                No.7/3, 6th Street, Lakshmipuram,
                Peellamedu, Coimbatore-641 004.
                                                                                          Appellant(s)
                                                                 Vs
                1. The Competent Authority of Urban
                Land Ceiling and Assistant
                Commissioner of Urban Land Tax,
                Adambakkam, Tambaram(E),
                Chennai 600 088.
                                                                                          Respondent(s)
                PRAYER:
                    Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside

                the order dated 18-12-2015 in W.P.No.7592 of 2010 and allow the present Writ

                Appeal.

                                  For Appellant(s):       Mr.P.Srinivas
                                  For Respondent(s):      Mr.T.Arunkumar
                                                          Additional Government Pleader
                                                            *******

                1/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 04:05:24 pm )
                                                                                          WA No. 2224 of 2023


                                                      JUDGMENT

(Judgement of the Court was made by C.Kumarappan J.)

The present Writ Appeal is filed assailing the order of the learned Single

Judge dated 18.12.202015. The appellant and the respondents are the petitioner

and respondents respectively before the Writ Court.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to

their litigative status before the learned Single Judge.

3.(a).The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present

Writ Appeal is that, the property bearing SF.Nos.242, 246, 248 and 254 of

Thiruneermalai Village comes within the purview of “The Tamil Nadu Urban

Land Ceiling Act” [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. Hence, based upon the

proceedings under Section 9(5) of the Act, a draft statement was served upon

the owners of the vacant land in excess of their ceiling limit. In pursuance

thereof, authority took initiative to take possession of vacant land in excess of

ceiling limit as per Section 11(5) of the Act. Thereafter, excess land was taken

possession by the Tahsildar vide order dated 30.06.1993.

(b).Aggrieved with the same, an appeal under Section 13 of the Act was

filed by the owners of the vacant land. In the above appeal, the proceedings

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 04:05:24 pm )

under Section 11(5) was set aside, and remitted back to the competent

authorities to again proceed from the stage of Section 9(5) of the Act.

(c).In pursuance thereof, notice was given and called upon the owners of

vacant land to give their objections. After that, the impugned order dated

30.11.1994 was passed and was served upon them.

(d).It appears that when the matter was pending consideration by the

competent authority under Section 13(5) of the Act, the petitioner purchased the

subject land on 18.02.1993. However, before passing the order impugned in the

writ petition, no notice was given to the petitioner. Challenging the same, he

preferred the impugned writ proceedings. But, the Writ Court rejected the

request of the petitioner. Aggrieved with the same, the present Writ Appeal is

filed.

4.Heard Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and

Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent/respondent.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on and from

18.02.1993, the petitioner became the owner of the subject land, therefore, he

ought to have been given notice, when de novo proceedings started from the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 04:05:24 pm )

stage of Section 9(5) of the Act. It was contended that, since no notice was

issued, the action of taking possession of excess vacant land under Section 11(5)

of the Act is not binding upon him. It is also the further submission of the

petitioner that no final order has been served upon the petitioner. Hence, prayed

to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

6.The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional

Government Pleader and would contend that after the matter was remanded in

the year 1993, again Section 9(5) proceedings started and notice was issued to

the owner of the vacant land and that such notice was received by one

Thiru.Rudhramoorthy, the authorised power agent of Thiru.Koorathalwar on

06.02.1995 and that a fresh Section 11(5) proceedings were issued on

30.09.1997, and the possession of the vacant land was also acknowledged by the

power agent of the owner. It is the further submission of the learned Additional

Government Pleader that any sale of excess land after the Act came into force

become null and void. It is the further submission of the learned Additional

Government Pleader that, the petitioner being the subsequent purchaser and has

purchased the property after the Act came into force, his sale become null and

void. Therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings under

Section 11(5) dated 30.09.1997. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 04:05:24 pm )

7.We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.

8.As per the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Section 4 mandates that except as

otherwise provided in the Act, on and from the commencement from the Act, no

person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit.

Section 5 of the Act deals about the ceiling limit in respect of vacant land situate

in urban agglomeration under three categories. Section 6 of the Act deals about

the Transfer of vacant land. According to Section 6, no person holding vacant

land in excess of the ceiling limit immediately before the commencement of this

Act, shall transfer any such land or, part thereof, by way of sale, mortgage, gift,

lease or otherwise, until he has furnished a statement under Section 7 and a

notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published

under sub-section (1) of Section 11; and any such transfer made in

contravention of this provision will become null and void.

9.In the case in hand, admittedly, on 18.02.1993, the petitioner purchased

the subject land viz., the property situate in SF.No.242 at Thiruneermalai

Village. On that day, a proceedings under Section 11(5) of the Act was under

challenge before the competent Authority. Therefore, by virtue of Section 11(4)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 04:05:24 pm )

(i) of the Act, any sale or transfer will become null and void. Here, the main

ground urged by the petitioner is that, he was not issued notice after the earlier

11(5) proceeding was set aside and on the date of setting aside the 11(5)

proceedings, he was the owner.

10.As discussed hereinabove, on the date of purchase of the property,

there was a proceeding pending before the competent authority under Section

11(5) of the Act, to take possession of the excess land. Therefore, as per Section

11(4) (i) of the Act, any sale or transfer after the publication of notification

under Sub Section (1) of Section 11 the Act, and after declaration of the excess

vacant land, the sale become null and void. Therefore, though the sale deed

stands in the name of the petitioner on 18.02.1993, the same becomes null and

void in view of the above law. In the case in hand, the competent authority has

issued notice to the authorized person of the original owner of the excess vacant

land and ultimately took possession of the excess land.

11.In view of the above position, we do not find any infirmity in the order

of the learned Single Judge.