Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Tamil nadu urban land ceiling act.regularisation of land purchased by innoncent buyers

(Querist) 24 April 2012 This query is : Resolved 
Friends,

I purchased a piece of land in Chennai in 1988.At the time of registration of sale deed,I was not preesnt.
To my utter shock, I came to know a year ago that the land was notified under the TN urban ceiling Act since repealed.
My queries are
1. The Registrar of the registration department was obliged to obtain the declaration from transferor and transferee of such lands covered under ULCRA BEFORE registration. Obviously, the seller and the registration deptt officers colluded
and violated section 27 of the ULCRA.Thus, an injury was inflicted on me u/s 81 of the Registration Act.
2.Therefore, can I proceed against the Registration department officials and the sellers individually to recover the cost of regularisation?
3. What is the Vires of the notification issued by the TN govt asking only the innocent buyers to pay the cost of regularisation without taking any action sellers of such land and the registration department officers responsible for registering such lands without following the procedure as per the law?
4. If the State Govt does not take any step to remove any such lands under its possession due to notification, what remedies are available to the innocent buyer?
Kindly explain the position.

Thanks
mani srinivasan (Querist) 24 April 2012
Errata.

1.At the time of registration of sale deed,I was not present when the sale deed was registered.

2.If the State Govt does not take any step to remove encroachments ,if any, in such lands under its possession due to notification, what remedies are available to the innocent buyer?
Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 24 April 2012
A buyer is required to be most vigilant person and he is not permitted to shieft his duty over others and can not be permitted to award himself as an 'innocent buyer' award.

You were not present at the time of purchase then whom to blame? You might have obtained the search report from the local competent lawyer about the status of the land prior to taking decision to purchase. You did nothing and now accusing Govt.and so-called encroachers.

Anyway, file a criminal complaint against all persons involved in the fradulant game and also file a civil suit for recovery of your money with cost and damages.

mani srinivasan (Querist) 25 April 2012
@ RajKumar Makkad.

To quote from your introduction

"None can be perfect in Law and so is my situation."

When there are three parties to this transaction, the buyer, seller and the Registrar, why the buyer alone is penalised by the State Government?

Within the same area, some lands were not comining with ULCRA. Despite search done, it was difficult in 1988 to find out that the said lands were under ULCRA since land records were not fully computerized.

With due respects, I must point out that your reply does not answer the queries raised and the reply is rather general.
Whether the impugned G.O asking the buyer to shell out hefty regularisation fee whilst allowing the the seller of such lands & Registrar to escape without any liability is legally valid is the real issue.
In the given situation, what are the remedies available under 81 of the Registration Act read with section 27 of the ULCRA (since repealed) is the real issue.

In this case, the Registrar has endorsed on the sale deed itself that the seller's PoA is personally known to him.

Even today, Tamil Nadu Govt is allowing sale of such notified lands. When the possession is with them, how can allow such transactions? It promotes land mafia to encroach the lands of innocent owners living in far off places. Is it not the duty of State Govt to protect the notified lands under its possession pending regularisation?
I can't even sell it since regularisation is pending before the Govt which is dithering without telling the real reasons.
As far as buyer's negligence is concerned, I did not purchase the" Marina beach" unwittingly and in a totally gross and negligent manner. It was a piece of land on which there was a small hut.
mani srinivasan (Querist) 25 April 2012
The "Innocent Buyer" title was bestowed by the State Govt itself on such land owners when the issued the G.O attached for ready reference.
Please see pages 94-95 of the Policy note
prabhakar singh (Expert) 25 April 2012
eating not allowed.....


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now



Similar Resolved Queries :