Property sold in 1992 - Acquisition notice issued on 1993 to erstwhile owner - On the date of issuance of the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, the said Ramalinga Naicker was not the owner of the property and the petitioners have purchased the said property on the date of notice issued under Section 11(5) of the Act - entire work done by the second respondent was only by “desk work” and no physical possession has been taken yet. Therefore, the entire acquisition had lapsed as per the Repeal Act.

Madras High Court M.Ravi vs The Principal Commissioner & on 23 November, 2021 W.P.No.11690 of 2006 etc., batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.11.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.Nos.11690 to 11694, 12307, 12230, 36066 to 36068 and 40227 of 2006 4. On a perusal of the respective sale deeds, it is clear that all the petitioners have purchased the said property by their respective sale deeds in the year 1999 itself viz., after the Repeal Act came into force with effect from 16.06.1999. Therefore, their respective possession was handed over on the date of their purchase and they have constructed respective houses which were also assessed to property tax. Even till today, they are residing there and paying house tax and the electricity consumption charges. That apart, from their sale deeds, it reveals that the subject properties were sold out by one L.Srinivasan So/.P.Lakshmanan. The said Srinivasan derived title by the sale deed dated 17.02.1992, which was executed by one Pugazharasu through his Power Agent one J.Aadidevan S/o.Jagannathan. Therefore, as early as on 17.02.1992, the said Ramalinga Naicker, Rajambal and Krishna Naicker were not the owner of the properties comprised in S.Nos.36/9 and 36/8. Hence, the entire proceedings were initiated as against the said Ramalinga Naicker, Rajambal and Krishna Naicker. However, the physical possession of their respective house plots are very much with the respective https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.P.No.11690 of 2006 etc., batch petitioners. 5. Further, from the counter affidavit, it also reveals that the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act was issued on 10.02.1993 and the same was received by Rajeswari, viz., the daughter of said Ramalinga Naicker on 14.03.1993. On the date of issuance of the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act, the said Ramalinga Naicker was not the owner of the property and the petitioners have purchased the said property on the date of notice issued under Section 11(5) of the Act. The petitioners were never served with the notice under Section 11(5) of the Act and they are in possession and enjoyment of the respective plots, after constructing their respective houses. Therefore, the entire work done by the second respondent was only by “desk work” and no physical possession has been taken yet. Therefore, the entire acquisition had lapsed as per the Repeal Act. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings have lapsed. The third respondent is directed to mutate the Revenue Records in the name of respective petitioners as per the respective sale deeds and issue Patta to the petitioners, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order