Public excerpt

WP(MD)/22598/2024 of Muthukumar Vs The Additional Collector - Madras High Court (Madras High Court)

Court: Madras High Court (Madras High Court) Case: HCMD011008522024 Parties: WP(MD)/22598/2024 of Muthukumar Vs The Additional Collector Pages: 6 Characters (full): 4534

Full judgment text and the official PDF are available after sign-in. This page shows an excerpt for discovery and research previews only.

W.P.(MD) No.22598 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
  DATED: 29.10.2024
CORAM
  THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA 
W.P.(MD) No.22598 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.19138 and 19139 of 2024
Dr.Muthukumar
...  Petitioner
/vs./
1.The Additional Collector,
   Tuticorin District,
   Tuticorin.
2.The Authorized Officer (Tamil Nadu Land Reforms),
   Tuticorin District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
   Kayathar,
   Tuticorin District 628 952.
   
...  Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for 
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in its 
Na.Ka.No.M1/14081/2017 dated 29.09.2020 and quash the same. 
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.22598 of 2024
For Petitioner
: Mr.V.Vijayashankar 
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai 
Government Advocate 
ORDER
 Without even initiating proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms 
(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, the order dated 29.09.2020, which is 
impugned in the writ petition, has been passed by the third respondent on the 
instructions of the second respondent. 
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased several bits of lands 
over a period of time in the village of Vadakkilandakulam in Kayatharu Taluk, 
Tuticorin District. The purchase was made for putting up a hospital and its related 
activities. The petitioner would submit that the purchase of small bits was not 
difficult but the major portions were proving to be difficult task. The petitioner 
had also got a loan sanction from the Axis Bank in October 2023 to the tune of 
Rs.9 Crore. In order to finalize the registration formalities, the petitioner had 
approached the Office of the Sub Registrar/the third respondent, who informed 
them that the lands held by the petitioner were in excess of the ceiling limit, as 
prescribed under the Land Reforms Act, 1961 and action had been initiated under 
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.22598 of 2024
Section 20A of the Act. The first respondent had instructed the third respondent 
that till such time the formalities under the Land Reforms Act were completed or 
the excess ceiling limit regularized under Section 37A or B of the Act, registration 
of lands should not be accepted. The Sub Registrar gave a copy of the said letter 
dated 29.09.2020 to the petitioner. It is only then that the petitioner became aware 
of the facts. Hence, the writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, wherein 
nowhere does it state that the proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms 
(Fixation of Ceiling on Land), Act, 1961 has been undertaken by the respondents. 
It is the case that they have received a complaint that the land owner or the 
private companies are possessing the lands over and above the statutory holding 
limit. A detailed enquiry was conducted from the instructions of the District 
Collector,  Thoothukudi  and  land  ceiling  enquiry  process  was  also  initiated. 
However, the details of the procedures have not been elaborated in the counter. 
The counter has not dealt with the procedure under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms 
(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Therefore, it is very clear that the 
proceedings  under  the  Act  had  not  been  initiated.  Without  initiating  the 
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD) No.22598 of 2024
proceedings and identifying the surplus land in the property, the communication 
and the act of the third respondent pursuant to the same cannot be countenanced. 
As and when the ceiling proceedings are initiated, it is well open to the petitioner 
to approach the respondents after coming  to the conclusion  pursuant  to the 
enquiry that the petitioner was holding the lands in excess of ceiling limit, the 
respondents can proceed to injunct the property from further alienations. 
4. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, 
connected Miscellaneous Pet

…