IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.07.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN W.P. No.10172 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 M.Narayanasamy ..Petitioner Vs The Commissioner Hosur Municipality Hosur ... Respondent Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of certiorari as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chandrasekar For Respondent : Mr.Arumugam **** O R D E R
The writ petitioner is seeking for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in Na.Ka.3946/2008/F1 dated 8.4.2009 and to quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The petitioner is the owner of S.Nos.184,185,186A,186 C measuring an extent of 8 Acres 60 cents of Punja Lands situated in Hosur Municipality limits. One Chellamuthu filed a suit in O.S.No.315 of 1996, one Muthusamy in O.S.No.316 of 1996 and one A.V.Rajendran in O.S.No.317 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Hosur for a declaration that the respective plaintiffs are the owners of the portions of the said extent of 8.60 acres of land and for consequential injunction and other reliefs. The plaintiff claimed title under three sale deeds said to have been executed by the power agent of the original owner, who had executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioner herein. Certain portions of the properties have been sold by the petitioner to third parties who are the defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit . After contest,these three suits were dismissed by the trial Court. Thereupon, the plaintiffs in the said suit filed three appeals in A.S.No.78/2003, 79/2003 and 80/2003 before the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri and after contest, those three appeals were also dismissed on 30.11.2005. Aggrieved against the Judgment and decree made in the first appeals, the second appeals are now filed and the same are pending before this Court in S.A.Nos.549/2006, 1004 and 1005 of 2006. Pending proceedings the said three plaintiffs attempted to form lay outs. One of the plaintiffs namely Muthusamy executed a gift deed dated 16.10.1995 in favour of the respondent Municipality in and by which, certain extent of lands out of 8.60 acres was gifted to the respondent for forming of roads. Hence the petitioner has made representation on 17.7.2008 for cancellation of the said gift deed executed by a person who has no title to the property as his title has been denied by the competent Civil Court. Instead of cancelling or passing a suitable resolution, that the Gift deed will not be acted upon, the respondent passed the impugned order holding that the matter between the petitioner and the person claiming ownership in respect of the same property is pending in second appeal before this Court and the Municipality is not a party in the said proceedings and no orders have been passed by the Court against the Municipality. It is further stated that legal experts have stated that the land belongs to Municipality as they have been earmarked for roads , parks and open space and that the lands are in possession of the Municipality. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition for the above said prayer.
3. On notice, Mr. Arumugam, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent /Municipality.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents including counter affidavit available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though three other persons are claiming ownership in respect of the property to an extent of 8.60 acres owned by the petitioner,the issue is pending before this Court in second appeal at the instance of those persons who have not only lost before the trial Court but also before the first appellate Court. Therefore, the question with regard to the ownership of the land has been confirmed by two Courts below and the petitioner is the owner of the subjejct lands. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent Municipality in acting on the gift deed executed by one of those three persons in respect of the land in question by forming roads and laying out parks is not correct. According to him, until the issue is decided by this Court, the Municipality should not act in forming roads and laying parks as ultimately if in the second appeal, those persons loose their cases, then the Municipality has to return the lands to the petitioner, in which case, the time and the money spent would be a waste.
6. I find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the person who had gifted the land to the Municipality has lost in two Courts on the issue relating to title. As rightly contended by the petitioner, in the event of the petitioner succeeding before this Court in Second appeal, then the gifted land has to be given back and the time and public money spent would be a waste.
7. Therefore, in the interest of all the parties concerned, this writ petition is disposed of by giving a direction to the respondent not to make any further development in respect of the forming of the roads or laying the parks in the lands in question ie., in S.Nos.184,185, 187A,and 186 C, measuring an extent of 8 acres 60 cents of punja lands, situated in Hosur Municipal Limits, until the termination of the civil proceedings pending between the petitioner and the person who had gifted the lands to the Municipality, which is pending in second appeal before this Court.
8.In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
13.07.2009 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sg To the Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Hosur S.RAJESWARAN,J sg W.P.NO.10172/2009 13.7.2009