The parents of the petitioner had purchased the house plots in questing in the year 2000 and they had subsequently settled the same in favour of their own son, the petitioner herein. If the parents of the petitioner had died intestate, the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased parents, is entitled to inherit the property can apply for regularization of land/plot

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 

 Dated: 09..10..2018 

 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

 Writ Petition No.25319 of 2018

 M.Suresh ... Petitioner

    -Versus-

  1.The Special Commissioner/Land Reforms Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai 600050.

 2.The Principal Secretary / Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Chepauk, Chennai 600005. 

 3.The Deputy Commissioner, O/o Deputy Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Poonamallee, Chennai 600056. ... Respondents 

 7. A careful reading of the Government Order would go to show that it has been issued only to protect the interests of the innocent purchasers who had/have purchased the lands covered under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978. As already stated above, in the instant case, the parents of the petitioner had purchased the house plots in questing in the year 2000 and they had subsequently settled the same in favour of their own son, the petitioner herein. If the parents of the petitioner had died intestate, the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased parents, is entitled to inherit the property can apply for regularization of land/plot. As already discussed above, the 1st respondent had rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner had not acquired title by sale. The reason cited by the 1st respondent in his order impugned in this writ petition is untenable as the Government Order contemplates relief to such of those persons, who have purchased small pieces of land being unaware of the fact that the lands were subject matter to Urban Land Ceiling proceedings. In the considered opinion of this court, the parents of the petitioner were not urban land owners, they were, after all, innocent purchasers. It is not the case of the respondents that in order to avoid the acquistiion proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the settlement deed came into being. Therefore, the distinction sought to be drawn by the respondent is untenable and has to be rejected. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in the writ petition. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 25.07.2018 for regularization of his plots as per G.O.Ms.No.565 dated 26.09.2008 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.