IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.04.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.6082 of 1998 V.Swaminathan ... Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, Public Works Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Chief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3. The Executive Engineer, South Presidency Division, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore possession of the premises No.11, Taluk Office Road, Saidapet Court Campus, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015, to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, Government Advocate O R D E R
The writ petitioner was running a hotel under the name and style of “Taluk Office Canteen” at No.11, Taluk Office Road, Saidapet Court Campus, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 and even before him, his father Mr.P.K.Venkatadhri Aiyer has originally commenced business in the said place in or about 1960. The place is situated within the campus of Saidapet Court, where the Saidapet Taluk Office is also situated. According to the petitioner, he has been paying rent for the land at the rate of Rs.3/- to the Public Works Department (in short ‘P.W.D.’). He has also obtained necessary licence from the various authorities including the police for the purpose of running the canteen and the said canteen has catered to the needs of Advocates in the campus, Magistrates, Judicial Officers including large number of litigants apart from the general public and no objections were raised by the P.W.D. for the construction made by the father of the petitioner.
2. On 29.03.1998, the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. along with some other officials and police have broke down the locks of the said canteen and have taken away all the belongings, demolished the super structure in spite of objection by the Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. When a police complaint was given to the Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station, an enquiry was made by the police stating that the demolition was at the instance of the P.W.D. When asked for any written order for the purpose of demolition there was no such order shown and it was done by the high-handed act of the police. The value of the items removed from the place is worth more than Rs.25,000/- apart from the demolition of the super structure put up by the petitioner. He has also filed a suit in O.S.No.4391 of 1997 for declaration that he is the lawful tenant of the Public Works Department and also for an injunction. In the said suit, the stand taken by the Public Works Department was that the property belongs to them and the Department has never authorised the petitioner and there was no agreement between the petitioner and their Department. It was also stated that the building has to be demolished in order to put up the construction for 32 Judicial Officers Quarters as per G.O.Ms.No.726, Home Department, dated 13.05.1996.
3. In the said suit, it appears that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has filed a Report and according to the petitioner, the Advocate Commissioner found that the petitioner was in possession. Even though the interim application was dismissed and an appeal was filed, ultimately the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 14.10.2005 issuing declaration in favour of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the Public Works Department has been dismissed. In the meantime, since the respondents have already demolished the entire structure put up by the petitioner, in which the petitioner and his father has been carrying on business earlier for the benefit of the court, the present writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to restore the possession of the premises at No.11, Taluk Office Road, Saidapet Court Campus, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is the specific stand of the respondents that the entire place was required for the purpose of constructing quarters for 32 Judicial Officers and while it is the case of the petitioner that he had been carrying on business only with the permission of the Public Works Department, according to the respondents the same is unauthorised.
5. The filing of the suit, the decree of the Civil Court and the dismissal of the appeal is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It is as per G.O.Ms.No.748, Housing and Urban Development, dated 27.08.1993, the Government had instructed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to construct Quarters for Judicial Officers and in such circumstances, it is not possible to permit the petitioner to have the restoration of possession of the property. It is also not in dispute that factually after the writ petition was filed, wherein there was an order of status quo, the said portion in occupation of the petitioner is kept vacant even though the entire super structure is demolished. It is also stated that the construction of the Judicial Officers’ Quarters has been completed and in spite of the completion, the place wherein the petitioner’s canteen was demolished remains vacant.
6. Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one other occupant on the eastern portion of the Court campus was running a hotel under the name and style of “Hotel Purushothaman” and the portion in his occupation was also demolished for the purpose of constructing Judicial Officers Quarters and after construction of the same, he has been given alternate accommodation in the same campus on certain conditions on his filing W.P.No.13789 of 1995, by order dated 04.04.1996.
7. When this matter was taken up for final disposal, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the Judicial Officers’ Quarters have already been constructed and other persons have been restored possession on certain conditions, the claim of the petitioner may also be directed to be considered by the respondents. It was under those circumstances, this Court has directed the Chief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department to inspect the Judicial Officers Quarters and file a Report to find out as to whether there is any possibility of granting a portion to the petitioner for the purpose of running the canteen, since running of the canteen is for the benefit of the Advocates, Judicial Officers and also for the large number of litigants who visit the court everyday.
8. Pursuant to the said direction, the Chief Engineer (Buildings) has filed a detailed Report. At the end of the Report, he has very clearly stated as follows:
“Pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2008 of the Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.6082/98, the Site in question was inspected on 28.03.2008 by me, the Chief Engineer (Buildings), PWD., Chennai. It is seen that the site wherein the petitioner had already put up the bunk could be given to the petitioner after construction of a compound wall separating the Saidapet Court Complex and the Judicial Officers Quarters. The parking of vehicles near the site should also be regulated and earmarked in order to prevent any misunderstanding among the advocates and the litigant public.”
9. The petitioner has been in possession of 1200 sq. ft. of the vacant land wherein he was running a canteen, which is reflected in the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.Nos.4675 and 4391 of 1997. Even though in the decree obtained by the petitioner, the extent of land is stated as 1200 sq. ft., the Report of the Chief Engineer (Buildings) does not disclose any extent of the land kept vacant but, it is clearly stated that the place where the petitioner has already put up bunk could be given to him.
10. The specific Report by the Chief Engineer (Buildings) that the site wherein the petitioner has already put up the bunk could be given to him after construction of a compound wall separating the Saidapet Court Complex and the Judicial Officers’ Quarters is recorded with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to act as per the Report of the Chief Engineer (Buildings) and give possession of the portion to the petitioner as stated in the Report after putting up of the compound wall as per the terms and conditions available with the Public Works Department, expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.
abe
To :
1. The Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Fort. St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Chief Engineer (Buildings),
Public Works Department,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3. The Executive Engineer,
South Presidency Division,
Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
