IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.10.2007
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
and
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
W.P. Nos.8618 of 2006 and 4950, 8624 & 8625 of 2007 ,
W.P.M.P. Nos.9583 of 2006 in W.P. No.8618 of 2006 ,
M.P. No.1 of 2007 in W.P. No.8624 of 2007 ,
M.P. No.1 of 2007 in W.P. No.8625 of 2007
And
M.P. Nos.1 to 5 of 2007 in W.P. No.4950 of 2007
I. T. Uday Kumar ..Petitioner in WP.8618/2006
Vs.
1. The District Collector
Chennai District
Singaravelar Maligai
Rajaji Salai
Chennai 1.
2. The Tahsildar
Mambalam Guindy Taluk
K.K. Nagar
Chennai 18.
3. Pandia Raja Raja
Sri Maana Veera Vazha Naden Trust
Rep. by Hereditary Managing Trustee
M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian. ..Respondents in WP.8618/2006
( R3 impleaded as per the order
dated 02.11.2006 by KSAJ in
W.P.M.P. No.11455 of 2006 in
Writ Petition No.8618 of 2006 )
II. Ravichandran ..Petitioner in WP.4950/2007
Vs.
1. The Secretary
Housing & Urban Development Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort. St. George
Chennai 9.
2. The Secretary
Public Works Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 9.
3. The Secretary
Health Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 9.
4. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
No.493
Anna Salai
Nandanam
Chennai-35.
5. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings
Chennai.
6. The Member Secretary
CMDA
Thalamuthu Natrajan Maaligai
Egmore
Chennai 8.
7. The Spl. Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk
Chennai-5.
8. The Collector
Chennai Collectorate
M.Singaravelar Maaligai
Chennai 1.
9. The District Revenue Officer
Chennai District
Chennai 1.
10. The Tahsildar
Mambalam~Guindy Taluk
Taluk Office
Bharathidasan Colony
K.K. Nagar
Chennai 78.
11. T.Uday Kumar
12. A.B.Parthiban
13. A.Chidambaram
14. Archana Shekar
15. A.Kaliswamy
16. B.Sriram
17. Balamurugan Vaiyapuri Krishnan
18. D.Manjula
19. Dinesh Chandran
20. G.Kalaiarasi
21. K.R.Sreepriyan
22. Karthik R. Kalpat
23. M.Mani
24. M.R.Venkatesan
25. M.Shanmugha Sundaram
26. Manikandan Jagadeesan
27. Mujibur Rahiman
28. Nihas Eliasu Kunju
29. P. Babu
30. P.Giridhar
31. P.Kannan
32. P.Muthaiyan
33. P.Narayanaswami
34. P.R.Periyannan
35. P.Sasikumar
36. P.Soundaramourthy
37. P.Venkat Ramana Sarvanam
38. R. Krishna
39. R. Muthaiah
40. R. Ramesh
41. R.Sathish Kumar
42. R.Sridharan
43. R.Vivek Kalyan
44. Ramamoorthy Sethukumar
45. Ravi Chandran
46. S. Anantha Babu
47. S. Ezhilarasan
48. S.Gopalan Srinivasan
49. S.Karthikeyan
50. S.Ramkumar
51. S.Srikanth
52. S.Subramanian
53. S.Thiruambalam
54. Sharmila Chokkalingam
55. Sivagami Venkatachalam
56. Srinivasu Nimmu
57. Sriram, N.C.
58. Subhadra Padmanaban
59. U.Anto Judes paul Raj
60. V.Sabari Prasad
61. V.Varadharajan
62. Vasanthakumar Murali
63. Vetri Vinayak
64. Vinod Venkatesan ..Respondents in WP.4950/2007
( R12 to 64 impleaded as per suo motu
order dated 24.07.2007 by FMIKJ & STJ
in W.P. Nos.4950, 8624 and 8625 of 2007 )
III. 1.T.Udayakumar ..Petitioner in WP.8624/2007
IV. 2.Mr.Kimraj Sakariya ..Petitioner in WP.8625/2007
Vs.
1. The Spl. Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepuak
Chennai 5.
2. The District Revenue Officer
Chennai District
Chennai 1.
3. The Tahsildar
Guindy Mambalam Taluk
K.K. Nagar
Chennai 78.
4. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Nandanam
Chennai 35.
5. Mr.M.V.V.N.Arumuga Pandian
6. Mr.T.Chitrarasu
7. Tmt.N.Saraswathy
8. Tmt.Vijayalakshmi
9. T.Nedunchezian
10. V.Tamilselvi
11. A.B.Parthiban
12. A.Chidambaram
13. Archana Shekar
14. A.Kaliswamy
15. B.Sriram
16. Balamurugan Vaiyapuri Krishnan
17. D.Manjula
18. Dinesh Chandran
19. G.Kalaiarasi
20. K.R.Sreepriyan
21. Karthik R. Kalpat
22. M.Mani
23. M.R.Venkatesan
24. M.Shanmugha Sundaram
25. Manikandan Jagadeesan
26. Mujibur Rahiman
27. Nihas Eliasu Kunju
28. P. Babu
29. P.Giridhar
30. P.Kannan
31. P.Muthaiyan
32. P.Narayanaswami
33. P.R.Periyannan
34. P.Sasikumar
35. P.Soundaramourthy
36. P.Venkat Ramana Sarvanam
37. R. Krishna
38. R. Muthaiah
39. R. Ramesh
40. R.Sathish Kumar
41. R.Sridharan
42. R.Vivek Kalyan
43. Ramamoorthy Sethukumar
44. Ravi Chandran
45. S. Anantha Babu
46. S. Ezhilarasan
47. S.Gopalan Srinivasan
48. S.Karthikeyan
49. S.Ramkumar
50. S.Srikanth
51. S.Subramanian
52. S.Thiruambalam
53. Sharmila Chokkalingam
54. Sivagami Venkatachalam
55. Srinivasu Nimmu
56. Sriram, N.C.
57. Subhadra Padmanaban
58. U.Anto Judes paul Raj
59. V.Sabari Prasad
60. V.Varadharajan
61. Vasanthakumar Murali
62. Vetri Vinayak
63. Vinod Venkatesan ..Respondents in WP.8624 & 8625/2007
( R11 to R63 impleaded as per suo motu
order dated 24.7.2007 by FMIKJ & STJ
in W.P. No.4950, 8624 & 8625 of 2007 )
Prayer in W.P.No.8618 of 2006:
Writ Petition filed under the Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari
calling for the records of the impugned order issued
by the second respondent in her proceedings
A1/3223/2004/2004, dated 24.3.2006 and quash the same.
Prayer in W.P.No.4950 of 2007:
Writ petition filed under the Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents 1 to 4 hereinto clear, maintain
and construct a General Hospital in the site earmarked
for Government Peripheral Hospital in T.S.No.14 of Block
No.129, Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk.
Prayer in W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625 of 2007:
Writ petitions filed under the Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari
calling for the records of the 1st respondent in
proceedings D.Dis.K4/23586/06, dated 28.2.2007 and
quash the same.
For petitioner in W.P. No.4950 of 2007 :
: Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel, for Mr.M.S.Ramesh
For petitioner in W.P. No.8624 of 2007 :
: Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel, for
M/s.Anand Abdul and Vinodh Associates
For petitioner in W.P. No.8625 of 2007 :
: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for
M/s. Anand Abdul and Vinodh Associates.
For Respondents No.15 & 17 to 45 in W.P. No.4950 of 2007 :
: Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Jensenan
For Respondent No.11 in W.P. No.4950 of 2007 :
: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior counsel for
M/s.Anand Abdul and Vinodh Associates.
For Respondents No.1 to 3 in W.P. Nos.8624 and 8625 of 2007 and 4950 of 2007 :
: Mr.R.Viduthalai, Advocate General for
Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl. Govt. Pleader (W).
For Respondents No.48 & 51 :
: Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Mr. Manikandan.
For Respondent No.16 :
: Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.K.Sathish.
For Respondent No.4 :
: Mr.R.Viduthalai, Advocate General for M/s.R.Girirajan, T.N.H.B.
For Respondent No.5 :
: M/s.V.Bharathidasan (WP.4950/2007 for Corporation of chennai)
For Respondent No.5 :
: Mr.Javier Fliex (WP.8624/2007)
For Respondent No.6 :
: M/s.V. Ayyadurai
For Respondent No.48 :
: M/s.P.Raja
For Respondent No.58 and 59 in WP.8624 and 4950 of 2007 :
: M/s. Auxilla Peter
For Respondent No.53 :
: Mr.Manoharan
For Respondent Nos.46 and 49 :
: M/s.T.Meikandan
COMMON ORDER
F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
W.P.No.8618 of 2006 has been filed by the
petitioner therein seeking to challenge the order of
the second respondent therein, namely, Tahsildar,
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk. As per the said order, the
Writ Petitioner was directed not to proceed with any
constructions in an extent of 90 cents situated in
S.No.297/1 since an enquiry as regards the issuance
of patta was pending.
2. W.P.No.4950 of 2007 is a Public Interest
Litigation and the petitioner therein seeks for the
issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents
1 to 4 in that writ petition to clear, maintain and
construct a General Hospital in the site earmarked
for Peripheral Hospital in T.S.No.14 of Block No.29
Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk. The
T.S.No.14 referred to therein corresponds to the
original S.No.297/1.
3. W.P.Nos. 8624 and 8625 of 2006 have been
preferred by the petitioners therein challenging the
order of the first respondent therein, namely, the
Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration, dated 28.2.2007 in Proceedings
D.Dis.K4/23586/06 in and by which the order of District
Revenue Officer (hereinafter referred to as D.R.O.),
Chennai, dated 15.6.2006 was confirmed. The D.R.O.,
Chennai had cancelled the patta issued in favour of
Thiru. Nedunchezian, Chitrarasu and three others vide
S.D.No.44/04-05, dated 10.6.2004 as well as in favour
of M/s.Metro Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., in its
order vide TR.No.199/05-06, dated 5.5.2005 and
restored the same in the name of the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board with immediate effect.
4. The above referred to pattas, which were
cancelled and which were restored in the name of Tamil
Nadu Housing Board were related to the property
situated in S.No.297/1 with reference to which the
petitioner in W.P.No.4950 of 2007 has come forward with
the public interest litigation.
5. As the issue concerns the property relating to
S.No.297/1 and the rights of the parties, which would
need detailed discussion based on the allegations and
counter allegations contained in W.P.No.4950 of 2007,
the status of the parties would be referred to as
arrayed in the said writ petition. Respondents 12 to 64
were suo motu impleaded as party respondents by an
order, dated 24.7.2007.
6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved
in these writ petitions, a brief history has to be
narrated:
7. An extent of land measuring 5.90 acres in
S.No.297/1 of Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk
belonged to one Mr.Velu Mudaliar, who settled the same
in favour of his wife Mrs.Rajalakshmi Ammal. By
G.O.Ms.No.4729, dated 25.10.1961, the Government of
Tamil Nadu acquired the aforesaid 5.90 acres of land
for development of schemes formulated by the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board. Pursuant to the above said
notification, an award came to be passed on 31.7.1964 in
Award No.14/64 and the possession of entire extent of
5.90 acres was also taken and vested with the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board. Subsequently, on 31.10.1973, by
G.O.Ms.No.1031, an extent of 0.95 acres in S.No.297/2 was
excluded from the land acquisition proceedings in
exercise of the powers conferred under Section 48(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act. By virtue of such exclusion,
the acquisition was restricted to 4.95 acres. Further,
while the acquired land was retained in S.No.297/1, the
excluded extent of 0.95 acres was sub-divided and shown
under S.No.297/2. After exclusion, a revised award also
came to be passed in Award No.5/74, dated 4.1.1975.
8. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board utilised the extent
of 4.95 acres in S.No.297/1 for construction of flats,
named as Bharathi Dasan Colony and handed over 120
grounds and 0550 Sq.ft. of land meant for
construction of Government Peripheral Hospitals to
P.W.D. on 8.4.1981. The area of 120 grounds and 0550
Sq.ft. would cover an extent of 1.97 acres. While,
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board along with P.W.D. was
proceeding after the acquisition to fulfil the purpose
of such acquisition, namely, for construction of
Housing Board flats, Peripheral Hospital and other
allied activities, it appeared that the erstwhile
owner Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal executed a Power of
Attorney, dated 28.7.1988, which was registered as
document No.143/4 on the file of the Sub Registrar’s
Office Guduvancheri, in favour of one Mr.C.Mohan, for
the purpose of seeking allotment of the acquired lands
in her favour under the ex-owner category. But by a
subsequent deed, dated 28.4.1989, she cancelled the
Power of Attorney, dated 28.7.1988 and the cancellation
deed was also registered as document No.101/1988 on
the file of the Sub Registrar’s Officer, Guduvancheri.
Nevertheless, the said Thiru.C.Mohan, in his capacity as
Power Agent, stated to have executed three sale deeds on
15.3.1996, which were registered as document Nos.1416,
1413 and 1415 of 1996 in favour of one Tmt.
P.Vijayalakshmi, Thiru. Thulasidas and Tmt.N. Saraswathi
and each of the sale deeds conveyed 30 cents of land
in S.No.297/1.
9. Subsequently, there was a communication, dated
19.1.2001 purported to have been issued by the Executive
Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board stating that
the Housing Board had no objection for Tmt. Rajalakshmi
Ammal to continue to enjoy her ownership in respect
of 0.90 acres of land in S.No.297/1. Later, on
10.6.2004, patta was granted in favour of Thiru.
Neduncheziyan and Chitrarasu, who are sons of
V.Thulasidas, and three others in S.D.No.44/04-05
apparently based on the purported letter, dated
19.1.2001, which was stated to have been issued by the
Executive Engineer of Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
Thereafter, by a subsequent sale deed, dated 1.12.2004,
the purchasers of the document, dated 15.3.1996, namely,
Tmt. N.Saraswathi and four others sold the 0.90 acres
of land to M/s. Metro Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd.,
(hereinafter referred to as MSRMP Ltd.), the 11th
respondent herein and one Thiru. Ramamoorthy Saravana
Kumar.
10. Later on, by a registered sale deed, M/s.Metro
Streel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., represented by its
Director Mr.Mahendra Kumar Jain conveyed its 1/3rd share
in favour of one Mr.Khimraj Sakariya, petitioner in
W.P.No.8625/2007. The other 1/3rd shareholder, namely,
Mr. Ramamoorthy Saravanakumar was stated to have
conveyed his share in favour of the wife of the 11th
respondent (i.e.) Mrs.U. Bhuvaneswari.
11. By a joint patta in C.A.No.450/05-06, dated
9.5.2005, the patta, dated 10.6.2004 was stated to have
been transferred and issued in the name of M/s.Metro
Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., and Mr.Ramamurthy
Saravanakumar.
12. One Mr.M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian also claimed
certain rights in respect of the land situated in
S.No.297/1 and had filed a number of suits and writ
petitions questioning the rights of the 11th respondent
and also moved the District Revenue Officer, the 9th
respondent herein, for the cancellation of the patta,
dated 10.6.2004 and 9.5.2005 which were issued in the
name of Tmt. Saraswathy and others and later in favour
of Ms.Metro Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. and others.
13. In the meanwhile, the 11th respondent approached
the 6th respondent C.M.D.A. for reclassification of
the 0.90 acres of land situated in S.No.297/1 from
institutional zone to residential zone. The 6th
respondent issued a notification dated 14.7.2005
calling for objections. The C.M.D.A., subsequently,
published a notification, dated 9.11.2005 in the
Government Gazette reclassifying the said land from
“institutional zone” to “residential zone”. Thereafter,
the 11th respondent issued an advertisement on
13.11.2005 in the newspapers for launching a Housing
Project to provide for residential flats.
14. It is stated that pursuant to the said
advertisement 54 flats were sold out. Thereafter, it
is claimed that necessary plan was also sanctioned by
the 6th respondent C.M.D.A. on 20.6.2006 for
construction of the flats in the said S.No.297/1.
15. At that point of time, the 10th respondent,
Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk issued a notice, dated
24.3.2006 directing the 11th respondent not to proceed
with the constructions since the issue relating to
cancellation of patta, dated 10.6.2004 and 9.5.2005
was pending consideration.
16. Challenging the same, the 11th respondent
filed W.P.No.8618 of 2006 and pending disposal of the
writ petition obtained an order of interim stay of the
notice issued by the 10th respondent, dated
24.3.2006.
17. The Corporation of Chennai, the 5th respondent
was also stated to have accorded sanction to the
building plan submitted by the 11th respondent in its
order dated 5.4.2006. The 11th respondent is stated
to have commenced construction of flats on 10.5.2006
and completed the same.
18. It is in the above stated background, the 9th
respondent passed orders on 15.6.2006 cancelling the
patta issued on 10.6.2004 and 9.5.2005, which came to be
confirmed by the 7th respondent, the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, in
his order, dated 28.2.2007.
19. At that point of time the public interest
litigation came to be filed in W.P.No.4950 of 2007.
While ordering notice to the 11th respondent on
13.2.2007, an order of interim injunction restraining
the 11th respondent from proceeding with the
construction was also made in the said writ petition.
Subsequently, at the instance of the 11th respondent, by
order, dated 20.2.2007 the Division Bench, permitted
him to continue the construction, at the same time,
however, made it clear that no third party should be
inducted and possession should not be parted. Thereafter,
challenging the orders of the 7th and 9th respondents
cancelling the joint patta, dated 10.6.2004 and 9.5.2005,
W.P.Nos. 8624 and 8625 of 2006 were filed, which along
with W.P.No.8618 of 2006 were also tagged along with
W.P.No.4950 of 2007. When the above writ petitions
were taken up for hearing on 24.7.2007, it was
brought to the notice of this Court about the sale of
the residential flats to 54 persons and therefore, suo
motu orders were passed impleading them as party
respondents in the above writ petitions. They were
accordingly, impleaded as respondents 12 to 64 in
W.P.No.4950 of 2007 and as respondents 11 to 63 in
W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625 of 2007. After notice to the
newly impleaded respondents, different counsel entered
appearance on their behalf.
20. That apart, one Thiru.M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian
at whose instance the 9th respondent D.R.O. passed
his order, dated 15.6.2006 cancelling the joint patta,
dated 10.6.2004 and 9.5.2005 came forward with an
application to get himself impleaded in W.P.No.4950 of
2007. Since it was a public interest litigation, he
was also permitted to make his say as an interloper.
Moreover, he has already been arrayed as 5th
respondent in W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625 of 2007 and he was
also heard.
21. In these writ petitions, the Pro Bono Publico
would contend that the land which was acquired by the
State Government to be used for a public purpose
of construction of Peripheral Hospital as part of
Housing Board Scheme and possession was vested with
the State Government and the Housing Board no one, much
less, the 11th respondent or respondents 12 to 64 can
be permitted to claim ownership of the land and
allowed to grab the Government land and make personal
gain out of it by putting up construction in the form of
residential flats. It is, therefore, claimed on the one
hand that such an illegality should not be allowed to
be perpetrated and therefore, the land, should be
restored by directing the Government to construct
Peripheral Hospital as originally scheduled at the
time of acquisition. On the other hand, the 11th
respondent would contend that he was a bona fide
purchaser having regard to the valid sale deeds executed
in his favour, as well as, the proceedings issued by
the State Government, C.M.D.A., and Urban Land Ceiling
authorities and certain orders of this Court confirming
such proceedings and based on the above valid
proceedings, he had promoted the land by investing
several crores of rupees which had also resulted in the
respondents 12 to 64 to make huge investments for the
construction of the residential flats, equity demands the
protection of the rights of the 11th respondent by
permitting him to retain the properties along with the
respondents 12 to 64. Supporting the stand of the
11th respondent, respondents 12 to 64 also contended
that they were all bona fide purchasers of the
respective flats by borrowing heavy amounts from Banks
and financial institutions and since the petitioner in
the public interest litigation as well as the 5th
respondent Arumuga Pandian in W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625 of
2007 were not bona fide in their approach in
questioning the rights of the 11th respondent and
through him the respondents 12 to 64, the public
interest litigation should be rejected and it should
be left to the decision of the State Government to
decide as to in what other equitable manner the rights
can be safeguarded.
22. As against the above, on behalf of the State
Government, it is contended that since, after the
acquisition in the year 1964, as well as after the
modified award in the year 1975 the possession of the
land in S.No.297/1 in an extent of 4.95 acres was
validly acquired and vested with the State and later
continue to remain with the Housing Board unless there
had been a valid reconveyance ordered under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, no one, much
less, the respondent 11 and other respondents 12 to 64
can claim any equitable right based on their illegal
encroachment of the land in question. Therefore, the
State Government would contend that there is no scope
for any equity to be considered in favour of
respondents 11 to 64 and that it is the obligation of
the State Government to fulfil the purport and intent
of the acquisition by restoring the land and put the
same into the use for which it was originally intended.
23. On behalf of the Pro Bono Publico,
Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel addressed his
arguments. The learned Senior Counsel in his submissions
contended that a rank fraud was played by several
parties either at the instance of the original owner
Rajalakshmi Ammal or the subsequent purchasers in
order to make it appear as though an extent of 0.90
acres in S.NO.297/1 was withdrawn from the original
acquisition and in that pursuit, the process of this
Court was also abused to certain extent and in such
circumstances, having regard to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221
(A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Govt. of A.P. and
Others) JT 2000 SC 218 (M/s. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs.
State Bank of India) and AIR 1996 SC 253 (Dr.G.N.
Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority and
others) there can be no consideration on equity in
favour of respondents 11 to 64.
24. The learned Senior Counsel brought to our
notice, the recitals in the sale deed, dated 15.3.1996
said to have been executed by the Power Agent
Mr.C.Mohan on behalf of Rajalakshmi Ammal, which when
compared with her own stand as stated in her reply
notice, dated 31.3.1998 to one of the parties, with
copies marked to various other parties including some of
the respondents herein, were wholly inconsistent and the
above documents would show how a calculated fraud was
played to grab the Government land for making a
personal gain.
25. According to the learned Senior Counsel when the
said parent documents did not establish any valid title
to the subject land covered by S.No.297/1, the 11th
respondent, who seeks to claim title by way of a
purchase effected on 1.12.2004, cannot be heard to say
that he was a bona fide purchaser and now claim
equitable relief on that basis. The learned Senior
Counsel could also brought to our notice various other
discrepancies in different documents to demonstrate how
the bona fide claim and equitable rights claimed by
respondents 11 to 64 cannot be considered.
26. As against the above submissions, M/s.
R.Krishnamurthy and T.R. Rajagopalan, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the 11th respondent and M/s.
G.Masilamani, T.V.Ramanujam and R.Muthukumarasamy, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the various
respondents, who were purchasers of the individual
flats, namely, the respondents 12 to 64 would contend
that since at the time of purchase by the 11th
respondent on 1.12.2004 along with others, there were
certain documents issued by the Urban Land Ceiling
Authorities as well as by an authority in the rank of
Deputy Secretary which confirm to very large extent that
the original owner Rajalakshmi Ammal continue to retain
ownership in respect of the subject land and with
reference to those Government documents, even as on date,
as there is no dispute as to its existence, it will
have to be held that the 11th respondent was a bona
fide purchaser. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore,
contended that in spite of such valid Government
documents, if anyone wanted to question either such
valid documents or the ownership rights of the 11th
respondent as well as respondents 12 to 64, they should
approach the appropriate Civil Court and not this Court
by way of a public interest litigation.
27. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that
the various Government proceedings, in particular, the
orders of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities as well as
the letter of the Deputy Secretary were all documents
which persuaded the 11th respondent to believe the
lawful ownership of the original owner and applying the
doctrine of “Promissory Estoppel” the State Government
is bound to protect the rights of the 11th respondent
as well as the subsequent purchasers of the individual
flats, namely, the respondents 12 to 64 and their
possession cannot be interfered with.
28. Reliance was placed upon the decisions reported
in (2001) 6 SCC 512 ( Kewal Chand Mimani (D) by Lrs. Vs.
S.K.Sen and others), (2005) 3 SCC 91 (R & M Trust Vs.
Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others), AIR
1979 SC 621 (M/s.Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.,
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others), (1996) II SCC
501 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs.
Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., and
Others), (1997) 2 SCC 627 (C.Padma and Others Vs. Dy.
Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and others),
1998 (1) MLJ 314 (The Senior Superintendent of Post
Offices, Coimbatore Division Vs. The Coimbatore Diocese
Society represented by its Procurator, Coimbatore and
others), (1985) 4 SCC 369 (Union of India Vs. Godfrey
Philips India Ltd.), (2004) 6 SCC 465 (State of Punjab
Vs. Nestle India Ltd., and another) and (2007) 5 MLJ 436
(SC)-(Amey Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Another
Vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others).
29. At the outset, we wish to deal with the public
interest litigation in the first instance as the
disposal of the said writ petition would in effect
find a solution for the disposal of the other writ
petitions. In the public interest litigation, the issue
that looms large is as to “whether the so called
ownership rights claimed by the 11th respondent and
through him the other respondents 12 to 64 should
prevail or the status of the subject property as the
Government land should be maintained and the
consequential directions to be issued.” In order to
ascertain the stand of the State Government that the
subject land is the property of the State, the
relevant documents which are to be examined are as
under:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S.NO DATE PARTICULARS AVAILABLE AT
WHICH VOL.&
PAGE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 31.7.196 Award NO.14/1964. VI – 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 31.10.19 G.O.Ms.No.1031, Housing. II – 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3 4/1/75 Copy of the revised Award VI – 15
No.5/74.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4 13.3.198 Order, dated 13.3.1981 of the V – 17
Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu
in CROP No.145 of 1976 for
disbursement of the
compensation payable in respect
of the land acquired under
award No.5/1974, dated
4.1.1975
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 28.7.198 General Power of Attorney VII – 1
executed by V. Rajalakshmi
Ammal in favour of C.Mohan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6 28.4.198 Copy of cancellation of VII – 8
General Power of Attorney by
Rajalakshmi, dated 28.7.1988.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7 31.10.19 Order in W.P.No.1172 of 1985, VII – 14
in the Writ Petition filed by
Velu Mudaliar and Rajalakshmi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8 24.3.199 Notice issued by the II – 256
Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy
Taluk to the 11th
Respondent.(Impugned order in
W.P. No.8618 of 2006)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9 31.3.199 Reply by Rajalakshmi to the VII – 20
legal notice issued by
Vilvijayan and Anandakumar,
dated 20.2.1998.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10 14.1.200 Copy of the letter purported I – 4
to have been issued by the
Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer,
K.K.Nagar Division of Tamil
Nadu Housing Board.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11 19.5.200 Proceedings of the Tahsildar, VI – 25
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12 8/6/04 Letter of the D.R.O. to the VI – 30
Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy
Taluk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
13 8/6/04 Reply by the Tahsildar, VI – 30
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk to
D.R.O., Chennai.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14 Extracts from the Town Survey VI – 64
Register in respect of the
property situated in
S.No.297/1 containing the
original entry in the name of
Tamil Nadu Housing Board and
the change of such entry dated
10.6.2004 in favour of
T.Neduncheziyan, and others
and subsequent change made by
proceedings, dated 5.5.2005 in
favour of M/s.Metro Steel
Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and
others
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
15 29.3.200 Notice issued by the DRO to VI – 48
M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian,
Neduncheziyan, Chitrarasu,
Thulasidas, Saraswathy and
C.Vijayalakshmi for hearing to
be held on 31.3.2006 at 3.00 p.m.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
16 28.4.200 Copy of the letter issued by II – 270
the Deputy Secretary to
Thiru.MVVN. Arumuga Pandian,
dated 28.4.2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
17 15.6.200 Order of the District Revenue I – 16
Officer, Chennai District.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
18 22.6.200 Copy of the hearing notice II – 272
issued by the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner
of Administration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
19 30.6.200 Copy of the letter issued by I – 6
the Assistant Secretary (LA) to
Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
20 28.7.200 Letter issued by the Tamil I – 26
Nadu Housing Board to MVVN.
Arumuga Pandian furnishing the
land usage details of
S.No.297/1 of Kodambakkam
Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
21 12/12/06 Proceedings of the Special I – 26
Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration,
granting stay of the order of
the DRO, dated 15.6.2006 and
also posting the main revision
for hearing on 21.1.2007 at
11.00 a.m.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
22 1/2/07 Copy of the hearing notice II – 272
issued by the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration,
posting the hearing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
23 23.2.200 Letter from the Managing VI – 64
Director, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board to the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration, dated
23.2.2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
24 28.2.200 Copy of the Order of the VI – 66
Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land
Administration confirming the
order of the D.R.O., dated
15.6.2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
30. When we peruse the above documents, we find that
the starting point is the award No.14 of 1964 dated
31.7.1964. In the said award, acquisition of 16.05
acres, which were lying in different survey numbers
including S.No.297 which covered 5.90 acres, was made.
The said property then stood in the name of S.Velu
Mudaliar. Subsequently, in G.O.Ms.No.1031, Housing,
dated 31.10.1973, the extent of 0.95 acres was
withdrawn from the acquisition and in the Schedule to
the said G.O., the boundaries were specifically
mentioned. In fact, by virtue of the withdrawal made
in the said G.O., S.No.297 was sub-divided as 297/1 and
2. The acquired land, namely, the 4.95 acres was
stated to have situated in S.No.297/1. The left out
land, namely, the 0.95 acres situated in the sub-
divided S.No.297/2 standing in the name S.Velu Mudaliar
and Rajammal surrounded on the North by 297/1 East by
S.No.294, South by 298 and West by S.Nos.300 and 299.
31. In the revised award No.5/74, dated 4.1.1975,
the extent of acquired land in S.No.297/1 has been
specifically mentioned as 4.95 acres. In the revised
award, one other land situated in S.No.340/2 in an
extent of 0.18 acres has also been mentioned. In
fact, in the descriptive part of the award the extent
of 4.95 acres in S.No.297/1 and 0.18 acres in
S.No.340/2 and the total extent of 5.13 acres has
been clearly mentioned.
32. The above referred to documents, therefore, make
it clear that while original acquisition was in the
composite S.No.297 for the total extent of 5.90 acres,
after the exemption granted in G.O.Ms.1031, dated
31.10.1973, the acquired land got reduced to 4.95
acres, which fell in S.No.297/1, whereas the exempted
extent of 0.95 acres fell in S.No.297/2. With reference
to the above statement of facts, there could not have
been any dispute at all by anyone.
33. In fact, after the above said acquisition, the
original owner Rajalakshmi Ammal aspired for the
allotment of plots in her favour from the Housing
Board under the ex-owner category. With that view, she
executed a Power of Attorney, dated 28.7.1988 in favour
of one Thiru.C.Mohan, s/o. Late V.L.Chellappa.
34. A perusal of the said Power of Attorney disclose
that the purport of the power was to correspond and
negotiate with the Housing Board or with the other
appropriate authorities to get the allotment of the land
or flats under ex-owners category scheme by virtue of
the acquisition. However, by a document, dated
28.4.1989, the said Rajalakshmi Ammal, wife of Velu
Mudaliar cancelled the Power of Attorney, dated
28.7.1988, which was registered as document No.101 of
1989 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Guduvancheri.
35. The recitals of the said document disclose that
the Power Agent was indulging in dishonest and illegal
activities and therefore, she did not want to
continue the power granted in favour of her agent,
namely, Thiru. C.Mohan. Prior to the execution of the
power, the said Rajalakshmi Ammal along with her
husband Velu Mudaliar had filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.1172 of 1985 seeking for the issuance of a Writ
of Mandamus to direct the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to
allot necessary flats under the ex-owner category
scheme framed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu State
Housing Board Act, 1961.
36. A perusal of the said order disclose that the
very same prayer was earlier rejected by the Housing
Board, by order, dated 21.9.1984. Further, after the
initial acquisition made under award No.14 of 1964, the
exclusion of 0.90 acres itself came to be made in
G.O.Ms.No.1031, dated 31.10.1973. On finding that the
said lands were not in the possession of the original
owners Rajalakshmi Ammal and Velu Mudaliar and since
they have laid out those plots and sold them to 17
persons, ultimately, this Court declined the prayer
of the original owners for the allotment of necessary
plots under the ex-owner category scheme. Thereafter,
the original owner Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal sent a reply
to legal notice, dated 20.2.1998 issued on behalf of
M/s. Vilvijayan and C. Anandakumar. The reply of Tmt.
Rajalakshmiammal was dated 31.3.1998. Some of the
statements contained in the reply are very relevant
for our present purpose which requires extraction and
reads as under:
“A perusal of the contention of
the notice under reference will reveal
that a rank one forgery committed by
certain vested interested persons who
conspired among themselves in order to
swallow the Government property, which was
acquired by the Government in 1963 itself
for the development of the area as
Kodambakkam Pudur neighbourhood scheme and
taken over possession also from the
erstwhile land owners late S. Velu Mudaliar
and a portion of the extent of land
excluded from the said acquisition in
G.O.Ms.No.1031, Housing, dt.31.10.1973,
which was under the occupation of the
encroachers, had also been conveyed in
their favour by the erstwhile landowners by
means of registered sale deeds.
……………………………In any
stretch of even imagination neither the
erstwhile landowner late Velu Mudaliar
nor Tmt. Rajalakshmi would not have joined
as party in the alleged sale agreement
because the said piece of land in Survey
No.297(Part) was acquired by the
Government along with a larger extent of
other properties belonging to them in 1963
itself. The statement of your clients
that they have put up compound wall
around the suit property together with an
asbestos sheet shed and a thatched shed
therein is curious and self servient as
it is a fertile imagine one for setting
up of a case in their favour, because the
said alleged property has been under the
effective possession and enjoyment of
Government.
…………….The said Velu
Mudaliar died on 7.4.1988. After his
death so far as C.Mohan is concerned,
he was a power of Attorney Agent for
Tmt.Rajalakshmi for getting allotment of
land from the Government under ex-owner
category towards the lands measuring
more than 5.95 acres of land acquired by
Government and the said Power of Attorney
was given in 1988 and the same was also
cancelled by means a registered deed in
1989 as he misused the power and could
not get the said allotment and the Power
of Attorney was given only to approach
the concerned authorities to get eligible
extent of ex-owner category land from the
Government. The said Mohan might have
created some incrimination documents
without authority. Which will not in any
way bind the said Tmt. Rajalakshmi as the
same would not have executed by her.
…………………She is not in any
way concerned with the said suit since
the property involved is a Government
property and she is not having any
manner of right interested and title over
the same. ”
(Emphasis added)
37. A copy of the said reply was also marked to
the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and the Chief
Engineer, P.W.D. and certain others.
38. The above referred to documents cumulatively go
to show that after the initial acquisition and the
subsequent modified award made in 1975, the original
owner Rajalakshmi herself had reconciled to the
position that she had no rights in respect of the lands
to an extent of 4.95 acres in S.No.297/1 and that the
said land absolutely belonged to the State Government and
the Housing Board and if at all any mischief had been
played with reference to the said land it could have
been done by others including her one time power agent
Thiru.C.Mohan.
39. In fact a specific allegation with reference to
the said power agent was to the effect that he might
have created some incriminating documents without
authority and that she was not bound by any such
document.
40. That apart, a perusal of the proceedings of the
Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, dated 19.5.2004, as
well as the connected letters of the D.R.O., dated
8.6.2004, and the Tahsildar also dated 8.6.2004, and the
extract from the Town Survey Register of Kodambakkam,
dated 16.7.2007, makes it clear that after the
acquisition of the subject land situated in S.No.297/1
in an extent of 0.90 acres it stood transferred in the
name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and continue to
remain in the said name till it was transferred in the
name of M/s.T. Neduncheziyan, T.Chitrarasu, V. Thulasi
Doss, N. Saraswathy and Tmt. Vijayalakshmi on 10.6.2004.
For effecting the said transfer, the proceedings referred
to were the Tamil Nadu Housing Board letter, dated
19.1.2001 and the proceedings of the Assistant
Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, dated 31.5.2004, the
exercise of making the transfer in the name of the above
referred to persons appeared to have been made based on
their application, dated 19.5.2004.
41. In this context, one other set of documents to
be referred to are three sale deeds in document
Nos.1416, 1413, and 1415 of 1996, dated 15.3.1996.
These documents by way of sale deed were said to have
been executed by Thiru. C.Mohan in his capacity as
power agent of Tmt. V.Rajalakshmi Ammal in favour of
C.Vijayalakshmi, V. Thulasidoss and Mrs.N. Saraswathy.
As one of the purchasers Thulasidoss was stated to have
subsequently expired, his sons Neduncheziyan,
Chitrarasu, and his daughter V.Tamilselvi joined along
with Vijayalakshmi and Saraswathy, the so-called
purchasers, who applied for the transfer of patta in
their name in their application, dated 19.5.2004.
42. Apparently, the execution of the three sale
deeds, dated 15.3.1996 appeared to have been the
starting point for the attempted change in the status
and character of the subject land situated in
S.No.297/1 in an extent of 0.90 acres. Under the above
referred to three sale deeds an extent of 0.30 acres
each in S.No.297/1 were sought to be transferred in
favour of the purchasers. Therefore, when by virtue of
the land acquisition proceedings culminating in the
award No.5/1974, dated 4.1.1975, the entire extent of
4.95 acres including the extent of 0.90 acres was
acquired and possession was vested with the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board, no one including the erstwhile owner
could have had any hold over the said land for
transferring the same in favour of any one, much less,
the above referred to subsequent purchasers. In fact,
a copy of the reply notice of the original owner
Rajalakshmiammal herself, dated 31.3.1998 makes it amply
clear that even as of the year 1998, she had in an
unambiguous terms made it clear that the subject land
absolutely belonged to the Government and the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board.
43. Once that was the legal status of the subject
land having regard to the documents which prevailed
as on that date which position continue to remain even
as on date and the same was also duly acknowledged by
the original owner herself there was very little scope
for anybody else to meddle with the ownership of the
said lands by creating any document in favour of anybody
else much less the so-called purchasers under the sale
deeds, dated 15.3.1996 through the power agent
Thiru.C.Mohan.
44. As against the above referred to definite
position as regards the ownership of the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board/State over the subject lands, when we
examine the various other materials relied upon by the
11th respondent, we find some of those documents had been
issued at the instance of certain other Government
machineries. The genuineness of such documents have to
be necessarily put to deeper scrutiny as such
documents did not appear to have been issued in the
normal course of the business transaction of the
departments concerned.
45. We will presently refer to the various
instances concerned with those documents which would
fortify our conclusions and impressions which we gained
to the effect that those documents lack genuineness. As
far as the right claimed by the 11th respondent is
concerned, after the sale deeds, dated 15.3.1996,
executed in favour of Saraswathy, Vijayalakshmi and
Thulasidoss, the 11th respondent claimed title based on
the sale deed, dated 1.12.2004, executed by Saraswathy
and four others, through, their power agent M/s. TVS
Finance and Services Ltd., in favour of Metro Steel
Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., T. Udayakumar and Mr.Ramamurthy
Saravanakumar. Subsequently, M/s.Metro Steel Rolling Mill
Pvt. Ltd., transferred its 1/3rd right in favour of
Khimraj Sakariya by a sale deed, dated 19.10.2005.
Similarly, Mr.Ramamurthy Sarvanakumar conveyed his 1/3
right in the subject property in favour of V.
Bhuvaneshwari w/o. the 11th respondent by a sale deed,
dated 28.9.2006. Presently, the 11th respondent
along with Khimraj Sakariya as well as his wife
Bhuvaneshwari claim ownership and the 11th respondent was
stated to have promoted the property under the banner
of “Land Mark Constructions.”
46. As stated earlier, having regard to the very
firm stand of the original owner Rajalakshmi Ammal in
her reply notice dated 31.3.1998 as well as the
cancellation of the power in the deed, dated 28.4.1989
cancelling the power of attorney, dated 28.7.1988 in
favour of Thiru.C.Mohan, the very execution of the sale
deeds, dated 15.3.1996, themselves had no validity in
law.
47. In fact on a perusal of the sale deeds, dated
15.3.1996, we find that it contains a statement that
the purchasers mentioned therein were already in
possession of the schedule property as the vendor
having delivered the vacant possession several years
before.
48. It is quite amazing to note how the property
which was already in the possession of the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board as from the year 1964 and 1975 as
categorically admitted by the so-called vendor herself
in her reply notice, dated 31.3.1998 the said lands could
have remained in the possession of the purchasers of the
sale deeds, dated 15.3.1996 from any period prior to the
said date.
49. In this context, it will be relevant to
mention the averment contained in the counter affidavit
filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in W.P.No.4950 of
2007. In the said counter affidavit, it has been
categorically stated that the entire site meant for
construction for Peripheral Hospital in an extent of
120 grounds 0550 Sq.ft. was handed over to P.W.D. on
28.6.1976 as per letter No.G/II/(3)87387/73, dated
22.5.1976 and on 8.4.1981 as per reference in KKN Dn.
Letter No. E1/ 87387/73, dated 16.2.1981 and letter
No.KKNS/4758/79, dated 20.3.1981 etc. Therefore, the
above referred to communications of the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board for whom the acquisition was made
considered along with the fact that in the revenue
records the necessary name transfer, namely, that the
name of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board having been
incorporated it was abundantly made clear that the
subject land was in the physical and legal possession
of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board after the acquisition
and that the land meant for the construction of
Government Peripheral Hospital from the acquired lands
was duly entrusted with P.W.D. for carrying out the
necessary construction. Therefore, as against the above
documents, which emanated from the office of the
revenue Authorities and the Housing Board authorities
coupled along with the stand of the original owner
herself in her reply notice, dated 31.3.1998 making it
clear that the Housing Board and the Government were
in absolute possession of the subject land, the sale
deeds, dated 15.3.1996 in stating that the very same
lands were in the possession of the original owner was
nothing but a blatant lie.
50. Above all, the further statement contained in
the sale deeds, dated 15.3.1996, that the purchasers
were in possession of the said land long prior to the
execution of the said sale deed can only be considered
as a statement made without any scruples with a view to
play a fraud on the State Government and the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board. When such a conclusion based on the
consideration of the above referred to documents is
inevitable as regards the transaction made in the sale
deeds, dated 15.3.1996, it will have to be held that
any subsequent transaction based on the said sale deeds
will also be absolutely invalid in law and no
credence can be attached to any of the subsequent
transactions based on the above referred to sale deeds.
51. In the said light, when the stand of the 11th
respondent that he was the bona fide purchaser is
considered, here again, we do not find even a
semblance of genuineness in the said claim. In this
context, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
11th respondent as well as other learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents 12 to 64 wanted to place
heavy reliance upon the proceedings emanated from the
Office of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and the
Office of the Deputy Secretary to Government.
52. In the first place, when we consider the stand
of the 11th respondent based on the sale deed, dated
1.12.2004, it will be worthwhile to refer to certain
recitals and particulars contained in the said sale
deed. Unlike, the earlier sale deed, dated 15.3.1996,
where there is no reference to the prior title
except a deed of settlement, dated 6.12.1967 in favour
of Rajalakshmiammal, in the sale deed, dated 1.12.2004
for the first time, we find reference to the ownership
in respect of the entire 5.90 acres in S.No.297 as
originally owned by one Mr.K. Shanmugasundara
Mudaliar. He is stated to have bequeathed the property
in favour of his wife Mrs. Sowbhagyammal in his last
registered will, dated 16.10.1927 registered as
document No.92/1927 in the Office of the Sub Registrar,
West Madras. After the ownership of Mrs.Sowbhagyammal,
it is stated that since she had no issues, the
property reverted to the brothers of Shanmugasundara
Mudaliar, namely, Sivanandan Mudaliar, Sivalingam
Mudaliar, and Somasundara Mudaliar. Thereafter, there
was a civil suit in O.S.No.43/51 on the file of the
Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, in which a
compromise was entered on 28.2.1953 pursuant to which
the property came to be possessed by Somasundara
Mudaliar and Velu Mudaliar. Subsequently, there was a
partition between Somasundara Mudaliar and Velu Mudaliar
on 3.3.1954 by way of a registered document No.527/54
in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet. It is based
on the said partition deed, Velu Mudaliar was stated to
have owned the property, who in turn executed the
settlement deed, dated 6.12.1967 registered as document
No.3490/67 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, T. Nagar
in favour of his wife Rajalakshmi Ammal.
53. Apart from tracing the above title, there
were two other references in the sale deed, dated
1.12.2004. There was also a reference to award No.14/64,
dated 31.7.1964 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.1031,
dated 31.10.1973 in and by which exemption of 0.95
acres was made from the acquisition. There is one
other reference in the said sale deed which reads as
under:-
“Whereas the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
subsequently acquired an extent of only
4.05 acres out of 5.90 acres in S.No.297
of Kodambakkam Village in award No. 5/74,
dated 4.1.1974 and due to encroachment
an extent of 0.90 acres, i.e., A, B and C
Schedule mentioned property was also
excluded from the revised award No.5/74
ad it remain in possession of Mrs. V.
Rajalakshmi Ammal.”
54. The above referred to recitals in the said
document are not supported by either the award
No.5/74, dated 4.1.1974 or by the statement of the
original owner Mrs. Rajalakshmiammal herself. In
fact, the extent mentioned as 4.05 acres in the said
paragraph is quite misleading. When we refer to the award
No.5/74, dated 4.1.1975, we find that the extent
mentioned therein is 4.95 acres in S.No.297. The xerox
copy of the said document, dated 1.12.2004 disclose
that the same had been signed by the authorised
signatory of Power Agent M/s.TVS Finance & Services
Ltd., as well as the three purchasers mentioned in that
document. The sale consideration was a total sum of
Rs.3,05,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores and Five Lakhs
only).
55. It is quite shocking to note that such a
valuable consideration running to more than rupees three
crores was paid by the 11th respondent and others
without even verifying the correctness of the statement
that the extent was only 4.05 acres or 4.95 acres in
the award No.5/74. It is not known whether due
verification was made by the 11th respondent and the
other purchasers as to the veracity of the statement
contained in the said paragraph. When award No.5/74
clearly mentions the extent of land as 4.95 acres, we
can only state that the mentioning of the said extent
in the said award as 4.05 acres was nothing but a
deliberate mis-statement made either to satisfy the
vendor or the purchaser or as directed by either of
them. Certainly, we are unable to comprehend the
intention or the purpose for which such a deliberate
mis-statement was made in the sale deed with reference
to the extent of the land in as much as the extent of
the land was the crucial aspect in the said sale deed as
otherwise, no valid title would pass on to the
purchaser. Therefore, we are constrained to comment
upon the lack of truthfulness as regards the said
recitals. Apart from the mis-statement about the extent
of land, one other statement mentioning that an extent of
0.90 acres in the schedule A, B and C properties was
excluded in the award No.5/74, dated 4.1.1975 due to
the encroachment, which is also not a true one or
correct statement.
56. In fact on a reading of the order, dated
31.10.1991, in W.P.No.1172/1985, the only encroachment
noted was in S.No.297/2, and because of the said
encroachment, it was stated that G.O.Ms.No.1031
Housing, dated 31.10.1973 came to be made excluding
those lands. There was a specific reference in the
said order to the effect that those excluded lands were
not in the possession of the original owner since she
had laid out those lands as plots and sold them to
17 persons.
57. Except the above reference contained in the
said proceedings, in no other proceedings or was there
any other document which has been placed before us to
show that there was any noted encroachment by anyone
much less, the purchasers in the sale deeds, dated
15.3.1996 or any one claiming through them. Thereafter,
the said recital as regards the 0.90 cents in Award
No.5/74 was another deliberate incorrect and false
statement made with a view to play a fraud against the
State as well as the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to grab
their lands.
58. From the above discussion, we can safely
conclude that neither based on sale deeds, dated
15.3.1996, nor the sale deed, dated 1.12.2004 any
person, much less, the 11th respondent and the other so-
called purchasers derived any valid title in respect
of the 0.90 acres falling under S.No.297/1. On the other
hand, the said lands, as already stated by us continue
to be owned and in the possession of the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board right from the date of the award No.5/74,
dated 4.1.1975 and there was no scope for any one to
claim possession other than the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board.
59. The other materials relied upon to claim
possession and consequential ownership are the
proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling authorities. As
far as the said claim is concerned, the initial
document is the notification, dated 7.2.1996 under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1978. The extent mentioned therein is
0.36.50 in S.No.297/1C part. The notification also
states that it was owned by Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal. As
per the notification, the said land deemed to have
acquired by the State Government on and from 1.3.96 by
virtue of Section 11(1) of the 1978 Act.
60. With reference to the said notification,
significantly there was no proceedings initiated at
the instance of Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal, at any point of
time, prior to the filing of the Writ Petition in
W.P.No.20552 of 2003. The said writ petition came to be
filed in the year 2003 contending that since the 1978
Act had been repealed and since the petitioner
continue to remain in possession, the impugned
acquisition under the 1978 Act stood abated. It is
true that the said writ petition came to be ordered on
19.12.2003 in favour of the petitioner based on a
communication, produced by the learned Special
Government Pleader, which was said to have been issued
by one Thiru. R.M.Rajendran, Assistant Commissioner,
Urban Land Tax, dated 15.12.2003 confirming that the
physical possession of the land continue to remain with
the land owner.
61. The writ petition was filed by none other than
the Rajalakshmi herself. In the first place, it is
quite shocking to note that Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal,
who had taken a firm stand in her reply notice, dated
31.3.1998 which also contains her signature that no part
of the land in S.No.297/1 remain in her possession but
on the other hand, entirety of the said land had
already been possessed by the State Government and the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board can come forward with the
statement in that writ petition that she continue to
remain in possession for the purpose of defeating the
notification, dated 7.2.1996 issued under the
provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978.
62. Having regard to our earlier conclusion, based
on the reply notice, dated 31.3.1998 by Rajalakshmi
Ammal herself read along with various other
proceedings that after the acquisition in award No.5/74
no part of the land in S.No.297/1 was in her
possession, it will have to be held that the said
claim made by her in W.P.No.20552/2003 was totally a
false one. Merely because the order came to be passed
in the said writ petition based on a representation
made by the learned Special Government Pleader based
on a communication issued by the Assistant Commissioner
of Urban Land Tax, it cannot be concluded that the
order by itself establish the possession of the
erstwhile land owner as of 2003. In fact the revenue
records, namely, Town Survey Register extract of which
has been placed before us, which was dated 16.7.2007
disclose that only on 10.6.2004, the transfer came to
be effected in the name of T.Nedunchezian and four
others and prior to the said date the lands in
S.No.297/1 stood only in the name of the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board. The said extract from the Town Survey
Register is part of the set of documents furnished by
the office of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities.
63. In this connection, the set of documents filed
on behalf of the 11th respondent as contained in Vol.5
disclose that the contents contained therein were of
slippery in nature. There is a communication, dated
5.9.1996, from the Special Deputy Collector(LA), Tamil
Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Madras-35, addressed to the
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In the last
part of that letter a recommendation has been made that
the claim of Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal for exclusion of 0.90
acres in S.No.297/1 deserve consideration.
64. It will have to be stated that the Special
Deputy Collector(LA) of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes
had no authority to make such a recommendation. Along
with the said letter, a rough sketch has been prepared
to make it appear as though the subject land was left
out. There were certain other sketches prepared in the
Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax,
Kunrathur making it appear as though the S.No.297/1 was
further sub-divided as S.Nos. 297/1A, 297/1B and 297/1C.
For making such a reference to the various sub
divisions, there was no supporting revenue records.
There was one other communication, dated 31.5.2004 which
came to be issued after the order of this Court, dated
19.12.2003 passed in W.P.No.20552 of 2003. The said
letter was addressed by the very same R.M.Rajendran,
Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, who is stated to
have instructed the learned Special Government Pleader
in writing to make a statement in W.P.No.20552 of 2003
that possession continue to remain with Tmt.
Rajalakshmi Ammal, the petitioner in that writ petition.
By this communication, dated 31.5.2004 addressed to the
Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, wanted the
Tahsildar to carry out necessary changes in the Taluk
and Village accounts in the name of Rajalakshmi Ammal
and report compliance so as to enable him to send a
report to the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of
Land Reforms.
65. The land delivery receipt is also found in
Vol.V to state that the land was handed over by the
Urban Land Tax Authorities to the Revenue Inspector of
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk. Thereafter, the very same
R.M.Rajendran, the Assistant Commissioner, in his
communication addressed to the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner (ULC & ULT), dated 8.4.2004, reported that
the order of this Court, dated 19.12.2003 in
W.P.No.20552 of 2003 can be accepted based on a legal
opinion.
66. Having regard to the discussions with reference
to the above documents, we hold that none of the
statements contained in the above referred to documents
contained in Vol.5 were supported by any legally
acceptable basic revenue records to hold that there
was any change in the character of the land from that
of, namely, as possessed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
after the award No.5/74, dated 4.1.1975 to have lawfully
transferred back to the original owner Rajalakshmi
Ammal in order for the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities
to initiate any proceedings for acquisition under Section
11(1) of the 1978 Act and thereafter, for the original
owner to claim retention of the land after the repeal
of the 1978 Act. We can only conclude that the
proceedings emanated from the Office of the Urban Land
Ceiling Authorities were one other set of documents,
which might have been designedly made with a view to
support other fraudulent transactions, which were
perpetrated from the date of execution of the sale deeds,
dated 15.3.1996. Here again, we want to stress upon the
stand of the original owner Rajalakshmi Ammal in her
reply notice, dated 31.3.1998 in having stated in no
uncertain terms that after the acquisition under award
No.5/74, the possession of the lands in S.No.297/1
changed hands, i.e. in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board and thereafter, she was never put back in
possession of those lands.
67. When the notification, dated 7.2.1996 is
considered along with the subsequent proceedings of the
Urban Land Ceiling Authorities, it has not been
disclosed as to whether there was any consideration
about the land acquisition proceedings which culminated
in the award No.5/1974, dated 4.1.1975 and the change of
name of ownership from that of Rajalakshmi Ammal to
that of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. For the Urban Land
Ceiling Authorities to initiate proceedings for
acquisition of excess land, the basic information as
to the ownership would have been only from the land
revenue authorities, namely, the concerned Tahsildar
under whose jurisdiction, the record of ownership is
maintained. The issuance of the notification, dated
7.2.1996, mentioning the name of Rajalakshmi Ammal as
owner of the property creates serious doubts as to
whether at all any such notification was issued, after
duly ascertaining the ownership of the lands in
question. In any event, when as a matter of fact, the
ownership in respect of the land situated in
S.No.297/1, vested with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
after the award dated 4.1.1975, in award No.5/74, the
notifications issued in the year 1996 under the
provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1975 would
definitely be of no consequence as that would not in
any way change the character of ownership from that
of Tamil Nadu Housing Board to that of Tmt.
Rajalakshmiammal.
68. Further, when Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal
having denounced her rights in respect of the land
situated in S.No.297/1, as could be seen from the reply
notice, dated 31.3.1998, the attempted challenge to the
notification, dated 7.2.1996 in the year 2003 was yet
another deliberate attempt to hoodwink the authorities
and to manipulate the proceedings in order to grab the
Government land by some hook or crook.
69. Since W.P.No.20552 of 2003 challenging
the notification, dated 7.2.1996 has been filed by
Tmt.Rajalakshmi Ammal by swearing to an affidavit as
verified by us from the original papers of that writ
petition, we can only state that the said attempt of
Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal was a deliberate fraudulent
attempt to regain ownership with reference to the land
situated in S.No.297/1 which had been lawfully acquired
by the State Government under award No.5/74, dated
4.1.1975. The filing of the said writ petition was a
clear case of abuse of process of this Court, in as much
as in that writ petition, this Court had no opportunity
to examine the correctness of the ownership claimed by
Tmt.Rajalakshmi Ammal since unfortunately, the
Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling himself
reported to the learned Special Government Pleader in
writing asserting as though Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal was
the owner and that she continue to remain in
possession.
70. In the light of such statement placed
before this Court, the order came to be passed in
W.P.No.20552 of 2003 on 19.12.2003, holding that the
Urban Land Ceiling Proceedings in the notification,
dated 7.2.1996 abated after the repeal of the 1978
Act. The conduct of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban
Land Ceiling in having made such a report in writing to
the learned Special Government Pleader creates serious
doubts as to whether there was diligent discharge of
duties in having made such a report before this Court.
Merely because, the said authority was functioning
under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, it
did not mean that he was not expected to ascertain
the correct position as regards ownership of any property
before making any such statement in writing in this
Court. The minimum that was expected of an authority
of that level, namely, the Assistant Commissioner, was
to have ascertained from the Town Survey Register which
definitely contained an entry as regards the lands in
S.No.297/1 to the effect that it belonged to the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board. In fact, from the records placed
before us by the 11th respondent as contained in
Volume III page 4, we find a copy of the village sub
divisions statement of Kodambakkam Division with
reference to the S.No.297/1 in which after the name of
the original owner Velu Mudaliar, the name of the Tamil
Nadu Government has been recorded. The said statement has
been attested by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land
Tax, T.Nagar. The said statement apparently was issued
long prior to the order passed in W.P.No.20552 of 2003,
dated 19.12.2003. Therefore, the Urban Land Ceiling
Authorities cannot be heard to say that in spite of the
said record maintained in the Office of the Tahsildar,
Mambalam, Guindly Taluk, the Urban Land Ceiling
Authorities were still able to state that Tmt.
Rajalakshmiammal was the owner of the property in
respect of S.No.297/1.
71. Therefore, no reliance can be placed
upon the proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling
Authorities in order to state that the purchase made by
the 11th respondent on 1.12.2004 was made after
ascertaining the ownership of the predecessors in title,
namely, M/s. Neduncheziyan and others and prior to them
Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal herself. Therefore, we have to
necessarily reject any submission made based on the
proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities in
order to state that the 11th respondent was bona fide
mislead, while ascertaining the ownership of the lands
in S.No.297/1 and consequently, the subsequent purchase
of flats by other respondents 12 to 64.
72. It will also be appropriate to mention at this
juncture that the transfer of ownership recorded in
the Town Survey Register on 10.6.2004 appeared to have
been made based on two proceedings, namely, one dated
19.1.2001 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the one
dated 31.5.2004 by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban
Land Tax Authorities. We have discussed at length as to
how the proceedings of the Urban Land Tax Authorities
cannot be given any credence to ascertain the
ownership of the land as claimed by Rajalakshmi Ammal.
As far as the proceedings, dated 19.1.2001 issued by
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, we wish to refer to the
letter subsequently issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board itself, dated 30.6.2005 addressed to the Collector
of Chennai.
73. A perusal of the said communication makes
it clear that after the award No.5/1974, dated
4.1.1975 and also G.O.Ms.No.1031, dated 31.10.1973, the
land to an extent of 4.95 acres was in the possession of
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and there was no further
change in the extent of the land which was already in
the possession of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. There is
also a categorical statement contained in the said
letter, dated 30.6.2005 which reads as under:
“The letter No.KKNS/4174/97,
dated 19.1.2001 has not been issued by the
Executive Engineer and Administrative
Officer, R.A.Nagai Division Office.”
74. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the
proceedings dated 19.1.2001 stated to have been issued
by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was one other fraudulent
manipulation in the creation of records at the instance
of the parties, who wanted to gain a hold over the land
in S.No.297/1. Since the starting point for the the 11th
respondent to claim title in respect of the subject land
in S.No.297/1 in an extent of 0.90 cents is the sale
deeds, dated 15.3.1996, it will have to be stated that
the attempt of the parties concerned to grab the
Government land must have emanated in and around that
date, namely, 15.3.1996, since it is claimed in the
sale deed, dated 15.3.1996 that the purchasers were
already in possession, it only goes to show that every
attempt was made to de-fraud the State by manipulating
the government records to snatch away the valuable land
and make some unlawful gains.
75. In the above said background, the impugned
order of the DRO, dated 15.6.2006, is perused. His
conclusions that records were manipulated and
documents were fabricated to suit the needs of the
parties to unlawfully grab the land were perfectly
justified.
76. One other set of documents on which
reliance was placed upon by the 11th respondent to
support his claim was the reclassification ordered by
the C.M.D.A., and the subsequent notification issued
by the State Government reclassifying the land from one
of “institutional zone” to “residential zone”. The
C.M.D.A., issued a notification No.R1/3/2005 by way of
paper publication both in an English daily and a Tamil
daily. In the said notification, the C.M.D.A. has
referred to various requests made by different parties
for reclassification of lands in use and the details
of the same. In Serial No.14, the name of the applicant
has been mentioned as Thiru. Ramamoorthy and others
with reference to T.S.No.14/2, Block No.129 of
Kodambakkam Village. The site address has been mentioned
as Bharathidasan Salai, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. The
extent has been shown as 0.36.7 in the column and the
use as per first master plan, it is mentioned as
“institutional use zone”. In the column change of land
use requested by the applicant, it is mentioned as
“Primary Residential use zone for construction of
residential building”. At the bottom of the
notification, it is stated that the land use maps
relating to all the above reclassification requests are
available for inspection in their office between 10.00
A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on any working day. Thereafter,
there was a gazette notification, dated 22.2.2006
wherein, after referring to the power delegated by the
Government of Tamil Nadu, the C.M.D.A. made the following
variation in the master plan by way of an explanatory
note, which was stated as under:
“T.S.No.14/2, (old S.No.279
part), Block 129, Chennai District
classified as “institutional” use zone
is now reclassified as “primary
residential” use zone as per this
Notification.”
77. By referring to the above two documents,
it was contended on behalf of the respondents 11 to 64
that when necessary steps were taken by issuing the above
notification for reclassification of the lands from
“institutional zone” to “primary residential zone” if
really any one much less, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
or the State Government, had any concern for the
subject land in S.No.297/1, the same should have been
raised in the form of objections or representations to
the C.M.D.A., in response to the above notification
which was issued on 22.2.2006.
78. The submission was that since none were
interested in the property as lawful owner other than
the predecessor in title from whom the property was
purchased by the 11th respondent and others, it was too
late in the day for the Pro Bono Publico and for
anybody else to interfere with the lawful rights of the
11th respondent and the respondents 12 to 64 through
him. We are not able to appreciate the submission of
the respective counsel based on the above referred to
proceedings of the C.M.D.A. After all, the C.M.D.A.,
issued a Notification No.R1/3/05, combining various
applications seeking for reclassification of several
lands, which also called for objections from whomsoever
interested in those lands. It will have to be
remembered that the C.M.D.A. was not concerned with
the correctness or otherwise of the ownership rights
when somebody applied to it seeking for
reclassification. The C.M.D.A. is not the authority
concerned to decide ownership right of any party
concerned. Since because it called for objections as
regards the reclassification of the lands as a statutory
authority, it cannot be taken to mean that by itself
created a valid right in favour of the applicant who
sought for the re-classification. The ownership right
in respect of any immovable property by anyone has to be
established by unimpeachable title deeds, tracing such
title from the date of its origin. Unless such title
is traced without any ambiguity, viz., the immovable
property concerned, merely because one applied for
reclassification to a statutory authority, namely, the
C.M.D.A., and that such authority, subsequently,
accepted the application and notified the
reclassification cannot be taken to mean that on that
score a valid title came to be established in favour
of the concerned applicant and on that basis, the
rights of the original owner, in the case on hand, the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board/State Government would
automatically cease to exist. The submission made on
behalf of the respondents 11 to 64 on the above
referred to documents can only be stated as a feeble
attempt to retain possession of the Government land
which possession as claimed from the sale deed, dated
15.3.1996 was illegal and was nothing but an attempt
by way of deliberate land grabbing. Therefore, we
reject the submissions made by referring to the
above proceedings of C.M.D.A.
79. One other aspect to be examined is the
grievance of the 11th respondent and the other
petitioner in W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625 of 2007 where
they have challenged the orders of the 7th and 9th
respondents, namely, the Special Commissioner and
Commissioner of Land Administration and the DRO, dated
28.2.2007 and 15.2.2006.
80. One of the grievances of the petitioner
was that the 9th respondent, namely, D.R.O., passed his
orders levelling very many mala fide and derogatory
remarks both against the 11th respondent and his
predecessor in title and very many statutory authorities
and that such serious remarks came to be made
without giving proper opportunity to the 11th
respondent. In other words, even without any notice
to the 11th respondent, the DRO, passed his orders,
dated 15.6.2006, which was confirmed by the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration
without passing a reasoned order.
81. To buttress the above stand, it was
contended on behalf of the State that the 11th
respondent was issued with a notice, dated
24.3.2006, wherein, while directing him not to proceed
with the construction, he was informed about the
pending proceedings as regards the grant of patta in
the Office of the District Collector. It was therefore,
contended that since specific intimation was given to
him as regards the patta proceedings, he cannot be heard
to say that he had no notice. However, when we examine
the various records placed before us, even the
original records, culminating in the order of DRO,
dated 15.6.2006, we were not able to find any specific
notice having been issued to the 11th respondent
calling upon him to attend any enquiry before the
D.R.O., for cancellation of patta. In the order, dated
15.6.2006, the D.R.O. himself has mentioned that
enquiry was conducted on various dates, between
14.6.2005 and 31.3.2006 and one Thiru. Chitrarasu one of
the respondents appeared for the enquiry only on
9.8.2005, 13.10.2005 and 28.2.2006.
82. It is also stated that despite
information to Thiru.MahendrakumarJain, Thiru.Udhayakumar
and Thiru. Ramamoorthy Saravanakumar representing Metro
Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., they did not appear for the
enquiry and that the respondent Thiru. T.Chitrarasu
claimed that he represented other respondents
including Mahendra Kumar Jain and others. However, the
fact remains that no specific notice appeared to have
been issued to the 11th respondent or Ramamoorthy
Saravanakumar or Mr.Mahendra Kumar Jain.
83. A copy of the order, dated 15.6.2006 of the
D.R.O. was however, sent to Mahendra Kumar Jain,
Director of Metro Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
through the 11th respondent and Mr.Ramamoorthy
Sarvanakumar. As far as the appellate authority’s
order, dated 28.2.2007, passed by the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration is
concerned, all parties were duly heard. As far as the
said order is concerned, the grievance of the 11th
respondent is that there was total non application of
mind while passing the said order. In fact, on a
perusal of the order, dated 28.2.2007, we find that
the authority has merely referred to various documents
in the major part of his order and in the penultimate
para of the order, he reached an abrupt conclusion that a
perusal of the entire records disclosed that the suit
lands in S.No.297/1 covered by award No.5/74, dated
4.1.1975 was handed over to P.W.D. for construction of
Government Peripheral Hospital and therefore, the order
of the D.R.O., dated 15.6.2006 does not call for
interference. Though such infirmities as regards
service of notice did exist in respect of the above
referred to orders of the D.R.O., and the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, we
feel that on that score also there is no need to call
upon those authorities to renew the proceedings.
Since whatever grievance the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625 of 2007, wanted to urge before
those authorities were elaborately addressed before us,
we feel that there would be no point in directing those
authorities to reopen those proceedings since we have
considered all the above referred to submissions in
detail and have reached a conclusion that the
petitioner, namely, the 11th respondent in W.P.No.8624
of 2007 and the other petitioner in W.P.No.8625 of
2007 have no valid right in respect of 0.90 cents in
S.No.297/1 for the reasons we have adduced in this
order. Those orders of the D.R.O., and the Special
Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration,
dated 15.6.2006 and 28.2.207, respectively, therefore,
do not call for any interference.
84. One other issue raised on behalf of the
11th respondent was the locus standi of the petitioner
and the interloper in filing this Public Interest
Litigation.
85. Submissions were also made on behalf of the
respondents 11 to 64 casting serious aspersions
against the interloper as well as the pro bono publico.
As far as the interloper Mr.Arumuga Pandian was
concerned, it was contended that he himself did not
have valid right in respect of the lands in S.No.297/1
and that he made every attempt to grab the land by
resorting to various litigations and that since he
failed in some of the proceedings filed in this Court,
he wanted to wreak revenge on the 11th respondent by
setting up the pro bono publico under the garb of
public interest litigation.
86. As far as the petitioner in Public
interest litigation is concerned, we were taken through
certain newspaper representations and certain alleged
telephonic conversation made by the said petitioner,
wherein, he attempted to blackmail the 11th
respondent by threatening to resort to this
litigation.
87. At the outset, we are not inclined to go
into the details of very many litigations perpetrated
by the interloper Mr. Arumuga Pandian since we have
come to a definite conclusion based on the various
materials placed before us that the subject land in
S.No.297/1 absolutely belonged to the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board and nobody else has got any right in
respect of the said property. When we come to such a
definite conclusion as regards the subject land, the
litigations perpetrated by the interloper are of no
consequence. In other words, the said conclusion of
ours as regards the subject land would operate not only
as against the 11th respondent and the respondents 12
to 64 but also against the interloper Arumuga Pandian
himself. In the Public Interest Litigation, the role of
the petitioner or anyone supporting the petitioner
would be only to bring to the notice of the Court the
predominant public interest involved and thereafter,
it is for the Court to examine whether any real public
interest is involved or not in the PIL. In the event of
the Court finding a predominant public interest, which
required to be safeguarded, the Court will take every
effort to safeguard such interest and in that
process, there is no scope for anyone to gain any
personal advantage much less by the petitioner concerned
or anyone supporting the petitioner.
88. Viewed in that angle, we hold that when in
the public interest litigation, the issue related to
protection of the State owned housing board lands from
the clutches of the land grabbers and once this Court
is able to ascertain the status of the subject
property as the property of the Housing Board and
appropriate orders can be issued for protecting the
status of the property, viz, the Housing Board, then it
will be a wasteful exercise if the allegations and
counter allegations as between the petitioner, the
interloper and the 11th respondent are seriously
discussed in this order. Therefore, we reiterate that
such allegations and counter allegations which are to
very large extent personal as between the petitioner in
the public interest litigation, the interloper and the
11th respondent they are not germane to the real public
interest to be protected and therefore sans of those
allegations, we wish to save the land of the Housing
Board and protect its possession in the interest of
public at large.
89. As far as the petitioner was concerned,
as stated by us earlier, it was contended that he
claimed ransom for not raising this issue and since the
11th respondent refused to budge to his demand with a
view to wreak vengence, he has come forward with this
Public Interest Litigation.
90. As far as the interloper, Thiru. Arumuga
Pandian is concerned, it was contended that he
himself was one of the encroachers and in order to
restore his unlawful possession, he perpetrated several
litigations and since he could not secure any
orders in any of those proceedings, he set up the
petitioner by furnishing all the materials to file
this litigation.
91. We reiterate that we are not inclined to
go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations
levelled against the petitioner in the PIL., or the
interloper since based on the materials placed before
us, both by the petitioner as well as the respondents,
we are convinced that the 11th respondent himself was
not legally entitled to remain in possession, inasmuch
as the subject land belongs to the State and the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board. As per various proceedings
issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the subject land
was allotted for the construction of a peripheral
hospital in a Housing Board colony. On this aspect, we
also wish to refer to few decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, where the scope of the PIL has been
elaborately dealt with and guidelines have been given
to deal with such litigations. The said decisions are
reported in 2004(3) SCC 349 Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs.
West Bengal, 2004(3) SCC 363 and 2004 (5) CTC 748.
92. In 2004 (3) SCC 349, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has succinctly stated the position in pargraph 12.
The said position was reiterated in 2004 (3) SCC 363.
In the said decision in paragraphs 4, 14 and 15, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained how to handle such
public interest litigation which reads as under:-
“4. ………………There must
be real and genuine public interest
involved in the litigation and concrete or
credible basis for maintaining a cause
before court and not merely an adventure
of a knight errant borne out of wishful
thinking. It cannot also be invoked by
a person or a body of persons to further
his or their personal causes or satisfy
his or their personal grudge and enmity.
Courts of justice should not be allowed
to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
resorting to the extraordinary
jurisdiction. The credibility of such
claims or litigations should be adjudged
on the creditworthiness of the materials
averred and not even on the credentials
claimed of the person moving the courts in
such cases. ………
14. The Court has to be
satisfied about: (a) the credentials of
the applicant; (b) the prima facie
correctness or nature of information
given by him; and (c) the information
being not vague and indefinite. The
information should show gravity and
seriousness involved. Court has to strike
a balance between two conflicting
interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to
indulge in wild and reckless allegations
besmirching the character of others; and
(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to
avoid mischievous petitions seeking to
assail, for oblique motives, justifiable
executive actions.” …………….
15. Courts must do justice by
promotion of good faith, and prevent law
from crafty invasions. Courts must
maintain the social balance by
interfering where necessary for the sake
of justice and refuse to interfere where
it is against the social interest and
public good. (See State of Maharashtra Vs.
Prabhu and A.P. State Financial Corpn. V.
Gar Re-Rolling Mills.)”
93. When we apply the above standards
prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the case on
hand and having regard to the caution outlined by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, we made a detailed reference to
the various materials in order to ensure that under
the guise of PIL anyone’s private interest should not be
allowed to be seriously impaired.
94. In our considered opinion, the materials
placed before the Court disclose that if the issue
raised in the PIL, is not probed into, then it may
result in a public wrong or public injury, on the
other hand, the issue if probed into, then it would
result in redressal of a genuine public wrong.
Further, eschewing the alleged antecedents of the
petitioner as well as the interloper, having regard
to the voluminous documents placed before us, we were
able to sift the materials and ascertain the
correctness of the information furnished by the
petitioner and the interloper and we were able to find
out that such informations were not vague or
indefinite. That apart, in our conclusion, based on such
materials and the information, we could assess the
gravity and the seriousness of the issue involved.
95. In that process, we could notice that
very valuable land to an extent of 0.90 cents located
in a very prime locality surrounded by a Housing Board
Colony occupied by several thousands of citizens have
been deprived of full-fledged peripheral hospital being
set up by a calculated move to grab the said land by
twisting and creating records to suit the purpose of
such land grabbing attempt.
96. Therefore, though it was shown to us that
adjacent to the subject land, peripheral hospital has
been located and is functioning, it will have to be
held that it is not for the 11th respondent or for that
matter any other encroacher to state where and how any
land allotted for a public purpose should be
utilised. When the subject land was specifically
earmarked by the State Government for the construction of
a hospital to cater to the welfare of the public at
large, it cannot lie in the mouth of an encroacher to
state that a hospital with some facilities has been
set up in the adjacent land and therefore, the
encroached land which was also meant for the
construction of a hospital should be left out to be
enjoyed by the encroacher sacrificing the need of the
public at large. We are not in a position to appreciate
such a stand put forth on behalf of the 11th
respondent.
97. All the above factors would go to show that
irrespective of the allegations against the petitioner
and the interloper having regard to the gravity of the
issue highlighted and brought to our notice which in our
considered opinion is in the interest of the public at
large, we are convinced that necessary orders should be
passed in this PIL to ensure that no one is permitted
to grab the Government land earmarked for the development
of such land for the welfare of the public at large.
98. In such a situation, when the 11th respondent
wants to rely upon the orders of this Court passed in
W.P.No.20552 of 2003, dated 19.12.2003, the order dated
19.4.2005 in W.P.No.5630 of 2005 and confirmation of the
said order in W.A.No.420 of 2006, dated 3.4.2006 and
the interim order, dated 28.3.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.9583 of
2006 in W.P.No.8618 of 2006 and the order dated
10.8.2006 passed in W.P.No.24456 of 2006, we wish to be
guided by a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 221 (A.V.
PAPAYYA SASTRY AND OTHERS VS. GOVT. OF A.P. AND
OTHERS). The principles set out by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in paragraphs 21-26 are very relevant, which
are extracted hereunder:
“21. Now, it is well-settled
principle of law that if any judgment or
order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be
said to be a judgment or order in law.
Before three centuries, Chief Justice
Edward Coke proclaimed:
“Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal.”
22. It is thus settled proposition
of law that a judgment, decree or order
obtained by playing fraud on the court,
tribunal or authority is a nullity and
non est in the eye of the law. Such a
judgment, decree or order – by the first
court or by the final court – has to be
treated as nullity by every court,
superior or inferior. It can be
challenged in any court, at any time, in
appeal, revision, writ or even in
collateral proceedings.
23. In the leading case of Lazarus
Estates Ltd., V. Beasley Lord Denning
observed: (ALL ER p. 345 C)“No judgment of a court, no order of a
Minister, can be allowed to stand if it
has been obtained by fraud.”
24. In Duchess of Kingstone,
Smith’s Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p.644,
explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey,
C.J. Stated that though a judgment
would be res judicata and not impeachable
from within, it might be impeachable from
without. In other words, though it is
not permissible to show that the court
was “mistaken”, it might be shown that it
was “misled”. There is an essential
distinction between mistake and
trickery. The clear implication of the
distinction is that an action to set
aside a judgment cannot be brought on
the ground that it has been decided
wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the
decision was one which should not have
been rendered, but it can be set aside, if
the court was imposed upon or tricked
into giving the judgment.
25. It has been said: fraud and
justice never dwell together (fraus et just
nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit
ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus
nemini patrocinari debent).
26. Fraud may be defined as an act
of deliberate deception with the design of
securing some unfair or undeserved benefit
by taking undue advantage of another. In
fraud one gains at the loss of another.
Even most solemn proceedings stand
vitiated if they are actuated by fraud.
Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act
which vitiates all judicial acts, whether
in rem or in personam. The principle of
“finality of litigation” cannot be
stretched to the extent of an absurdity
that it can be uitlised as an engine of
oppression by dishonest and fraudulent
litigants.
99. The above principles set out by the Hon’ble
Supreme court squarely apply to the facts of this case.
When the judgment came to be passed in W.P.No.20552 of
2003 by applying the repealing Act of the Tamil Nadu
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978, this
Court had no occasion to examine the nature of
possession as claimed on behalf of the erstwhile owner
Rajalakshmi Ammal. Unfortunately, the Assistant
Commissioner of Urban Land Tax also supported the
petitioner in that Writ Petition by written instruction
to the learned Special Government Pleader to the effect
that she was still in possession irrespective of the
proceedings which were available in his office in the
form of an extract from the revenue records of Guindy-
Mambalam Taluk which specifically disclosed that the
property in S.No.297/1 was transferred in the name of
Tamil Nadu Government from the erstwhile ownership of
Velu Mudaliar/Rajalakshmi Ammal.
100. In the said circumstances, none of the above
Court orders can be relied upon by the 11th respondent
as those orders would in no way support his claim.
Further, the order passed in W.P.No.20552 of 2003
cannot be relied upon by the 11th respondent, since
without disclosing the true, complete and correct facts,
the Court based on the representation of the Special
Government Pleader passed the order.
101. In that context, reliance placed upon by the
petitioner in the decision reported in JT 2007 (10)
SC 218 (M/s. Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of
India) is quite apposite. Paragraph 34 of the said
judgment is very relevant for our purpose which reads as
under:
“It is well settled that a
prerogative remedy is not a matter of
course. In exercising extraordinary
power, therefore, a Writ Court will
indeed bear in mind the conduct of the
party who is invoking such jurisdiction.
If the applicant does not disclose full
facts or suppresses relevant materials
or is otherwise guilty of misleading the
Court, the Court may dismiss the action
without adjudicating the matter. The
rule has been evolved in larger public
interest to deter unscrupulous litigants
from abusing the process of Court by
deceiving it. The very basis of the writ
jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true,
complete and correct facts. If the
material facts are not candidly stated or
are suppressed or are distorted, the very
functioning of the writ courts would
become impossible.”
102. Equally, the claim made on behalf of the 11th
respondent that the subject land has been developed by
him at a very huge cost advanced by the respondents 12
to 64 cannot also be accepted.
103. When once it is found that the right claimed
by the 11th respondent in respect of the subject land
situated in S.No.297/1 in an extent of 0.90 cents was
illegal and was not supported by any valid title and
that the said land belonged to the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board and the State Government, such pleas put forward
by the 11th respondent and the respondents 12 to 64
cannot in any way mitigate against the lawful ownership
of the State Government and the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board.
104. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 253 (DR. G. N.
KHAJURIA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND OTHERS) can be usefully referred to. Paragraph 8 of
the said judgment is relevant for our purpose which
reads as under:
“We therefore, hold that the land
which was allotted to respondent No.2 was
part of a park. We further hold that it
was not open to the DDA to carve out any
space meant for park for a nursery school.
We are of the considered view that the
allotment in favour of respondent No.2
was misuse of power, for reasons which
need not be adverted. It is, therefore, a
fit case, according to us, where the
allotment in favour of respondent No.2
should be cancelled and we order
accordingly. The fact that respondent
No.2 has put up some structure stated to
be permanent by his counsel is not
relevant, as the same has been done on a
plot of land allotted to it in
contravention of law. As to the
submission that dislocation from the
present site would cause difficulty to
the tiny tots, we would observe that
the same has been advanced only to get
sympathy from the Court inasmuch as
children, for whom the nursery school is
meant, would travel to any other nearby
place where such a school would be set up
either by respondent No.2 or by any other
body.”
105. On behalf of the 11th respondent, reliance was
placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 91 (R & M TRUST
VS. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP AND OTHERS).
Specific reliance was placed upon paragraphs 34 to 36
of the said judgment which read as under:
“34. There is no doubt that delay is
a very important factor while exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution. We cannot disturb
the third-party interest created on
account of delay. Even otherwise also why
should the Court come to the rescue of a
person who is not vigilant of his rights?
35. We are of the opinion that delay
in this case is equally fatal, the
construction already started by the
appellant in 1987 and building had come
up to three floors. Thereafter, it was
stopped in 1988 and in March 1991 it
resumed after permission was granted.
The writ petition was filed in November
1991 meanwhile construction was almost
complete. Therefore, delay was fatal in
the present case and learned Single Judge
rightly held it to be so. It was also
brought to our notice that 46 multi-storey
buildings have come up in this area.
Learned counsel has produced photographs
to show that buildings more than three
and four floors have been constructed
in and around this area.
36. However, we are satisfied that
there is no prohibition under the
provisions of the Act and Rules putting
the ceiling on construction of the multi-
storey building. We are also satisfied
that the delay is also fatal in the present
case.”
106. That case related to the rights of the
individual flat owners as against the promoter. It was
in that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the belated approach to the Writ Court cannot be
entertained inasmuch as the subsequent development by
way of constructions made by the promoter deprived of
other occupants to claim any relief in the writ
petition as against the equitable rights of the
promoter. The said decision, therefore, does not help
the 11th respondent in the present case.
107. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of
the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 512 (KEWEL CHAND MIMANI (D) BY LRS., VS. S.K. SEN
AND OTHERS), in particular in paragraph 27, where it
has been stated as under:
“27. ……………… it is
on this score that Mr. Nariman, the
learned Senior Advocate appearing for one
of the respondents very strongly contended
that the statute has created an
enforceable obligation and question of
acting contra to the provisions of law
does not and cannot arise. It is on this
score, the issue of complete justice
between the parties has been brought to our
notice. It is trite knowledge that
presently, the law courts are being guided
by a justice-oriented approach, since
the concept of justice is the call of the
day and the need of the hour. Justice is
the goal of jurisprudence –
processual/procedural, as much as
substantive. Puritan approach has lost its
significance in the present-day context;
since justice ought to be end product of
equity and go to the roots. It is this
complete justice between the parties which
stands statutorily recognised in
Section 108 (A) as noticed above (please
see the observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in
Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. V. Ramanlal
Govindram).“
108. In the subsequent paragraph, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court also highlighted how the justice-oriented
approach was not of recent origin and was being applied
even four decades ago. However, in the very same
judgment in paragraph 33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has stated how any misplaced indulgence shown and
laxity on the part of the law courts would be an
unauthorised exercise of jurisdiction which would put
a premium on illegal acts. In paragraphs 32 and 33, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated the principles in the
following words :
“32. ……………….There must be
some semblance of right at least and
that right must continue till the judgment
is pronounced, because on the day of the
pronouncement of the judgment, the Court
can pass an appropriate order only in the
event of entitlement of such judgment,
but not otherwise. The Mimanis were in
fact not entitled to obtain the
possession on the date of the judgment
by reason of the expiry of the deed of
lease and how that right can be enforced
by the Court in the event of non-
entitlement thereof - there is no
satisfactory reply thereto. 33.
The principle of justice is an inbuilt
requirement of the justice delivery
system and indulgence and laxity on the
part of the law courts would be an
unauthorised exercise of jurisdiction
and thereby put a premium on illegal acts.”
109. Therefore, the said judgment also goes to
show that where a person is in illegal possession, he
has no right to claim equitable justice.
110. On behalf of the respondents 12 to 64,
reliance was placed upon the decision reported in
(1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 647 (A.P. State Financial
Corporation Vs. M/s.Gar Re-Rolling Mills and Another) in
the context of the orders passed in the Urban Land
Ceiling Proceedings and the order of this Court, dated
19.12.2003 passed in W.P.No.20552 of 2003. Inasmuch as
we have held that the said proceedings were not
genuinely pursued both by the authorities constituted
under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 and that full
facts were not placed before the Court by the petitioner
therein at the time when orders came to be passed in the
said writ petition, we do not find any scope to apply
equitable justice to be rendered under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India as stated in the above
referred to decision.
111. The other decision relied upon by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 12 to
64 is reported in AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 2403 (The
Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board,
Bangalore, Vs. H. Narayanaiah etc., etc.). In fact, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it very clear in para 23,
which is asunder:
“23. ……….. We know the maxim
that “equity follows the law”. We have not
heard of the proposition that some
transcendental Equity should be so used
as to defeat or amend the law as it
stands. Maitland said long ago that
equity came to supplement and not to
supplant the law. We think that if we
were to equate a notification under
Section 18 with the notification under
Section 6 of the Act for purposes of
determining the market value, which is
to be awarded. We would be doing nothing
short of supplanting at least the law
as found clearly laid down in Section 27
of the Bangalore Act read with Section 23
of the Acquisition Act.”
112. Going by the above statement of law declared
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there can be no claim
based on equity in the light of blatant illegality
committed against the State. The other decision relied
upon is the one reported in (2007) 5 MLJ 436 (SC)-(Amey
Co-operatiave Housing Society Ltd. and Another Vs.
Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others. That
was a case where it was alleged in a PIL that a
preferential allotment of Housing Board was secured by
floating a bogus Co-operative Society and that later,
after allotment, it came to light that it was to
favour an individual developer for a commercial
venture. The Bombay High Court after accepting the
case of the Probono Publico issued directions, after
quashing the allotment, to forfeit the constructions
already made and vest it with the Statutory body for
re-allotment. In para-56, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
taking note of the stage of the constructions (i.e.)
beyond 4th floor as well as the alternate prayer in the
PIL for making a revaluation and collect the
difference, chose to take recourse to the alternate
prayer while setting aside the order of the High Court.
In the first blush, though the above decision appear
to support the case of the contesting respondents 11 to
64 on a deeper scrutiny, we are not in a position to
apply the said decision to the facts of this case. In
the first place, that was a case where allotment of
certain flats came to be made by the statutory
Corporation by way of development of the township.
Unlike, the case on hand, where the ownership is now
claimed by resorting to an illegal act of land grabbing.
Therefore, there is no semblance of any right in the
11th respondent, as against the above referred to
decision, where initial allotment was made in a lawful
manner by a Statutory Corporation. That apart, in that
Public Interest Litigation, there was an alternate prayer
made to the effect that there should be a direction for
revaluation since one of the allegations was that the
land was undervalued while making the allotment.
Further, the land was meant for allotment to a Co-
operative Society for construction of housing, as
against the case on hand, where the allotment of the
subject land for a welfare purpose, viz., for
construction of a peripheral hospital. When there is
large scale attempt to grab the public land by making
encroachments by resorting to other illegal means even
by way of manipulation of government records, we are of
the view that the application of the above decision to
the case on hand will not be appropriate.
113. Arguments were also addressed on behalf of
the 11th respondent as well as respondents 12 to 64
based on the principle of Promissory Estoppel and the
availability of the said doctrine even against the
Government actions.
114. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondents 11 as well as 12 to 64, relied upon certain
decisions based on the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.
As far as the said doctrine is concerned, it has been
explained in P. Ramanatha Aiyer’s Law Lexicon in the
following words.
“Estoppel, promissory. That which
arises when there is a promise which
promisor should reasonably expect to induce
action or forbearance of a definite and
substantial character on part of promisee,
and which does induce such action or
forbearance and such promise is binding
if injustice can be avoided only by
enforcement of promise.”
115. For the application of the said doctrine in
so far as, it is related to public bodies or the
Government, it is well settled that the same will not
apply if such promise or representation is contrary to
law or which is outside their authority or power. The
doctrine also cannot be invoked if it is found to
be inequitable or unjust in its enforcement. When we
apply the above principles to the case on hand, in the
first place, we are unable to find any definite promise
extended either by the State Government or the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board to anyone, much less, the 11th
respondent, who wants to assert his title to the
subject land.
116. In fact, if the origin of the title claimed by
the 11th respondent is examined, it is traceable from
the sale deeds, dated 15.3.1996. As far as the said
document is concerned, after a detailed analysis of
the various materials, we have held that the said
document came into existence as part of a fraudulent
creation at the instance of the erstwhile Rajalakshmi
Ammal or her so-called power agent Thiru.Mohan. We have
also referred to the written statement of the said
Rajalakshmi Ammal, in her reply notice, dated 31.3.1998,
i.e., after the execution of the so-called sale deeds,
dated 15.3.1996 to the categorical effect that the
subject lands situated in S.No.297/1 ceased to be her
property and that the State Government/Tamil Nadu Housing
Board was the owner of the above said property.
Therefore, if at all any promise is to be claimed now on
behalf of respondents 11 to 64 such promise should have
been extended by the State Government or the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board only to the said erstwhile owner
Rajalakshmi Ammal. In the light of the various factors
discussed above there could have been no scope at all
for any such promise being extended in the manner so
claimed and therefore, the very application of the
doctrine does not arise.
117. If the respondents 11 to 64 want to rely on the proceedings
of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities, for the
application of the said doctrine, hereagain, it will
have to be stated that the said authorities were not
concerned with the title or ownership of the subject
lands. We have already pointed out that there were
total lack of bona fides in the issuance of the
proceedings by the said authorities inasmuch as in
their own records, the Mambalam-Guindy Taluk revenue
proceedings was very much in existence to disclose
that at no point of time after the entry of the name
of the Government as owner in respect of the land in
S.No.297/1, nobodyelse’ name was recorded in the revenue
register. In such circumstances, any contrary proceedings
issued not in consonance with the revenue register
relating to the ownership of the subject property cannot
be relied upon in order to claim any promise on the part
of the authorities of the State in order to apply the
doctrine of Promissory Estoppel as against the State
Government.
118. Though in some of the proceedings issued by the Urban Land Ceiling
Authorities, it is stated that S.No.297/1 was further
classified as S.Nos.297/1A, 1B and 1C, there were no
such sub divisions said to be in existence in the parent
records of the Town and Country Planning Department to
support the above proceedings. Therefore, any such
proceedings issued by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling
Authorities can only be considered as proceedings
which was contrary to law and were outside their
authority or jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no scope
for applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel on
this ground as well.
119. In fact, the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel is reported in AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT
1285 (M/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others Vs. The State
of Haryana and another), in paragraph 39, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has summed up the scope of application of
the doctrine against the Government in the following
words:-
“39. The scope of the plea of
doctrine of promissory estoppel against
the Government may be summed up as
follows:
(1) The plea of promissory estoppel
is not available against the exercise
of the legislative functions of the
State.
(2) The doctrine cannot be invoked
for preventing the Government from
discharging its functions under the law.
(3) When the officer of the
Government acts outside the scope of his
authority, the plea of promissory estoppel
is not available. The doctrine of ultra
vires will come into operation and the
Government cannot be held bound by the
unauthorised acts of its officers.
(4) When the officer acts within the
scope of his authority under a scheme and
enters into an agreement and makes a
representation and a person acting on that
representation puts himself in a dis-
advantageous position, the Court is
entitled to require the officer to act
according to the scheme and the agreement
or representation. The Officer cannot
arbitrarily act on his mere whim and
ignore his promise on some undefined and
undisclosed grounds of necessity or
change the conditions to the prejudice of
the person who had acted upon such
representation and put himself in a
disadvantageous position.
(5) The officer would be justified
in changing the terms of the agreement to
the prejudice of the other party on
special considerations such as difficult
foreign exchange position or other matters
which have a bearing on general interest
of the State.”
120. Applying the above restrictions stated in the
said decision to the case on hand, we are unable to
countenance the plea of the respondents 11 to 64 based
on the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.
121. In the light of our above conclusion on the
application of the doctrine promissory estoppel, the
other decisions relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel reported in AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 621 (
M/s.Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The State
of Uttar Pradesh and others), (1985) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 369 (Union of India and others Vs. Godfrey Philips
India Ltd.), (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 465 (State of
Punjab Vs. Nestle India Ltd. and Another) are also not
helpful to the respondents 11 to 64.
122. Having realised the position that no valid
title passed on to the 11th respondent, a submission
was also made to claim equity by contending that in the
light of the fact that the subject land was promoted
by the 11th respondent by investing huge sum of
rupees, viz., three crores by way of the cost of the
land, apart from the investments made by the
respondents 12 to 64 by borrowing heavy sums from banks
and financial institutions, it was submitted that a
huge structure consisting of 54 flats have been put
up which have been now sold out by 11th respondent to
the respondents 12 to 64 by way of residential flats.
123. It was contended that since the respondent
state remained as mute spectators till the completion of
the construction, it will not be equitable at this stage
for the State Government and the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board to merely state that the lands were acquired in
award No.5/74, dated 4.1.1975 and on that basis,
deprive the respondents 11 to 64 to enjoy the fruits of
promotion of the property by investing several crores of
rupees. It was, therefore, contended that equity
demands some order to be passed sustaining the rights of
the respondents 11 to 64 to retain their possession by
passing some equitable orders.
124. In the first place, though the submission
looks highly persuasive, we are not in a position to
countenance such a submission having regard to our
conclusion that the Government land was illegally
occupied by certain persons with deliberate intention to
grab the said land knowing full well that the property
belonged to the State. The respondents 11 to 64 cannot
be heard to plead ignorance of the earliest award in
Award No.14/64 or the subsequent Award No.5/74, dated
4.1.1975 as well as Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1031,
dated 31.10.1973. It was a futile attempt on the part
of the 11th respondent to contend that in the Award
No.5/74, dated 4.1.1975, the extent of land mentioned
was only 4.05 acres and not 4.95 acres. If at all
anything is to be said about the said contention, it
can only be said that it is a myth like statement, which
was wholly incorrect. The contention of the 11th
respondent that he was unaware of the real ownership of
the State over the subject land can never be believed.
Even though in the earlier sale deeds, dated 15.3.1996,
there was no reference to the prior ownership of the
0.90 cents conveyed under those documents, at least when
the sale deed, dated 1.12.2004, was drafted, which was
sought to be conveyed by the individual parties through
the Power of Attorney, namely, M/s. TVS Finance &
Services Ltd., the ownership even prior to Velu
Mudaliar and Rajalakshmi Ammal was traced and there was
also a specific reference to the awards, namely, award
Nos.14/64 and 5/74 and when the 11th respondent wanted
to invest a huge sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, it is hard to
believe that he did not even bother to verify with the
relevant authorities, namely, the concerned revenue
authorities and the Town and Country Planning
Authorities, where the record of ownership is being
kept and in which records the ownership of the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board/State Government has been duly
mentioned even as on the date of the execution of the
sale deed, dated 1.12.2004.
125. The various other proceedings issued by the
Urban Land Ceiling Authorities on which heavy reliance
was sought to be placed was only a vain attempt on the
part of the 11th respondent to cover up his own
misdeeds. Apparently, in collusion with certain
other parties, who appeared to have
perpetrated the fraud by engineering the execution of the
sale deeds, dated 15.3.1996 the subsequent transaction
must have been emanated. As we have no doubt to conclude
that the whole attempt was designedly made as a
paramount exercise of land grabbing activity and
in that process to make a monetary gain by involving
gullible purchasers, namely, the respondents 12 to 64,
we are not in a position to accede to the plea of
exercise of equitable jurisdiction in favour of either
the 11th respondent or the respondents 12 to 64.
Though on behalf of the 11th respondent, it was
suggested that he was even now prepared to pay a sum
of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only) to the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board for conveying the subject land
in favour of the respondents 12 to 64, we are of the
view that countenancing the said prayer would only
give a wrong signal to the land grabbers to indulge in
such land grabbing activity by adopting all unlawful
tactics and by involving gullible purchasers and
ultimately come forward with such a plea and create an
impression that after carrying out all fraudulent
activities one can escape from all woe-full consequence
by getting the seal of approval of the Court under the
garb of exercise of equitable jurisdiction. Our
endeavour is to ensure that no one indulging in such
fraudulent attempt of land grabbing activity can get
away with it by seeking the sympathy of the Court on
the ground of equitable principles involving others
who were not directly involved in the fraudulent
activities designedly made.
126. As far as the respondents 12 to 64 are
concerned, though it is claimed on their behalf that
their loan transactions were scrutinised by very many
banks and financial institutions, after a detailed
analysis of the various documents, and they being
innocent purchasers of the flats, they should not be
deprived of their right to hold the flats which would
cause very serious prejudice to them inasmuch as
they have parted with the cost of construction of the
flats to the 11th respondent by making heavy
borrowings and that irrespective of they being
allowed to enjoy the possession of the flats, they
will be forced to repay the loans borrowed by them
to the banks and financial institutions. Such a plea
put forth on behalf of the respondents 12 to 64
looks quite appealing. In the first place, when their
claim is considered in the light of the rank fraud
played against the State Government, as Court of
Justice, we are bound to maintain solemnity by restoring
the property to the State which was earmarked for
extending much more greater welfare measures to the
entire public at large, who live in and around the
subject land.
127. It will have to be remembered that 0.90 cents
of land was part of other extent of lands adjacent to it
for the construction of peripheral hospital at the time
when the acquisition was made during the period, namely,
1964-1974. When a huge housing colony was proposed to
be set up, the construction of a peripheral hospital
with all facilities available in the Government General
Hospital was thought of so that the residents of the
housing colony being set up by the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board can avail the medical services of every kind in
that peripheral hospital to be set up. When the above
said land was acquired by the State and earmarked by
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the lofty purpose of
setting up a peripheral hospital, the action of the 11th
respondent in his attempt to gain a hold over the said
land under the guise of promoting a project cannot be
permitted to succeed and equally the claim made by the
respondents 12 to 64 through the 11th respondent that
they have made huge investment in the project cannot also
be countenanced in their favour as that would deprive
of a greater welfare activity for the benefit of the
public at large which would otherwise get defeated.
Therefore, the claims of the respondents 12 to 64 when
pitted against the entire public at large who would
otherwise avail the medical services in the event of
the peripheral hospital being set up would virtually
veto the claim of the latter. We are not, therefore,
inclined to apply the plea of equity put forth on
behalf of the respondents 12 to 64 as well in order to
permit the 11th respondent to pay back a sum of
Rs.3,00,00,000/- to the Housing Board and allow the
respondents 12 to 64 to take possession of the flats
constructed in the subject land. Further, it will also
be appropriate to mention that when there is a long
waiting list for allotment of housing board plots/flats
to the low income group and middle income group people,
who cannot afford to compete in the private real estate
market to own a residence or flat, it will be wholly
unjustified if such land grabbers are shown any sympathy
or mercy on the ground that the land was developed
after its grabbing and therefore, they should be allowed
to retain possession. It will be a misplaced sympathy if
such prayers are to be countenanced, viz., the common
men, who are waiting in the long queue with the fond
hope that one day or other, he will get allotment in his
favour by the State. Of late, when owning of a piece of
land by ordinary people is becoming a dream and most of
the families are drowning in the process of buying plots
and construction of houses, it will be wholly inequitable
to consider the claim of 11th respondent and respondents
12 to 64 to recognize their illegal holding.
128. In our considered view, mere promotion of the
subject land by way of construction of so many flats by
itself need not stand in the way of restoration of the
land to the State Government as we feel the interest of
respondents 12 to 64 can to some extent obviated by
suggesting some other alternatives. We wanted to be firm
and ensure that the ownership of the land of the
State/Tamil Nadu Housing Board is restored from the
clutches of any encroachers and in the case on hand,
from the 11th respondent at this point in order to
send a clear message that no one who indulge in such
land grabbing activity can never be successful in
their attempt and that at one point of time, the long
arms of the Court will ensure that such attempts are
dethroned with a firm hand.
129. Having regard to our conclusions, we pass the
following order:
“a. The respondents 1 to 4 are
directed to take possession of the land
situated in S.No.297/1 along with the
superstructure forthwith free from any
encumbrance from the respondent 11 as well
as 12 to 64.
b. The respondents 1 to 4 are
further directed to examine the scope of
using the construction now put up on
the subject land in S.No.297/1 in an
extent of 0.90 cents for putting the same
to the best use as part of peripheral
hospital said to have been already set up
in the rest of the land earmarked for that
purpose, if necessary, by making any
alterations required. In the event of the
respondents 1 to 4 not able to use the
building for the activities of the
peripheral hospital, it is open to the
fourth respondent to bring those flats
constructed therein for sale in public
auction and appropriate the same.
c. The 11th respondent is
directed to refund the value of purchase
money paid by respondents 12 to 64 for
the purchase of flats, along with
undivided share of the property promoted
in S.No.297/1, with interest at 6% p.a.
from the date of payment of such purchase
money within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. After
making the refund to respondents 12 to
64, it will be open to the 11th respondent
to claim the value of cost of construction
made in the subject land in S.No.297/1
from the 4th respondent, if so advised. It
is for the 11th respondent to work out
his claim as against the 4th respondent
and it is open to the 4th respondent to
deal with the said claim, if made, in
accordance with law.
d. The respondents 1 to 4 and 8
are directed to place all the
documents, concerning the subject land
right from award No.14/1964 till the so-
called transfer of patta stated to have
been made in favour of the 11th
respondent and two others, dated
10.6.2004 and 5.5.2005 including the Urban
Land Ceiling Proceedings, before the CBCID
Authorities to cause an investigation and
in the event of prima facie case being
made out, every endeavour to book the
culprits, be it the Government Authorities
or the 11th respondent or the erstwhile
owner Rajalakshmi Ammal or her so-called
power agent Thiru.Mohan or the purchaser of
the sale deed, dated 15.3.1996 or their
Power of Attorney M/s.TVS Finance &
Services Ltd. or any other person involved
in manipulation of any of the records.
The records should be handed over within
one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
e. Having regard to the magnitude
of the scandal relating to the Government
property and since a considerable time of
this Court had to be devoted in this
litigation, we feel it appropriate to
impose exemplary costs on the 11th
respondent and the 11th respondent is
directed to pay costs of Rs.50000/-. Out
of the said sum of Rs.50000/-, a sum of
Rs.35000/- shall be paid to the Tamil Nadu
Mediation and Conciliation Centre, a sum of
Rs.5000/- to the Indian Red Cross Society,
Tamil Nadu Branch and the balance sum of
Rs.10000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal
Services Authority. The costs should be
paid within four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
f. It is also made clear and
declared that none of the other parties,
either the petitioner or the interloper
Arumuga Pandian or anybody else have got
any right in respect of the land situated
in S.No.297/1. Apart from the construction
made by the 11th respondent, if there are
any other encroachments in the said survey
number, it is open to the respondents 1 to
4 as well as the respondents 8, 9 and 10
to take necessary lawful action for
removing such encroachments.
g. The Fourth respondent is
directed to ensure the compliance of the
directions contained in paras (a), (b),
(d) and (f) of this order within six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order and file a report in proof of
such compliance into the Registry.
h. W.P.No.4950 of 2007 is
allowed with the above directions.
W.P.No.8624 and 8625 of 2007 are
dismissed confirming the orders of the
D.R.O., dated 15.6.2006 and the order of
the Special Commissioner and Commissioner
of Land Administration, dated 28.2.2007
and W.P.No.8618 of 2006 is also dismissed.
All connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. Costs
as directed in sub-para (e) of this order.
RNB
To
1. The Secretary
Housing & Urban Development Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort. St. George
Chennai 9.
2. The Secretary
Public Works Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 9.
3. The Secretary
Health Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 9.
4. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
No.493
Anna Salai
Nandanam
Chennai 35.
5. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Rippon Buildings
Chennai.
6. The Member Secretary
CMDA
Thalamuthu Natrajan Maaligai
Egmore
Chennai 8.
7. The Spl. Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk
Chennai 5.
8. The Collector
Chennai Collectorate
M.Singaravelar Maaligai
Chennai 1.
9. The District Revenue Officer
Chennai District
Chennai 1.
10. The Tahsildar
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk
Taluk Office
Bharathidasan Colony
K.K. Nagar
Chennai 78.