{"id":220078,"date":"2007-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-07-30T01:49:06","modified_gmt":"2015-07-29T20:19:06","slug":"i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n        IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                    DATED : 05.10.2007\n                            \n                          CORAM\n                            \n     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n                           and\n          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI\n                            \n     W.P. Nos.8618 of 2006 and 4950, 8624 & 8625 of 2007 ,\n     W.P.M.P. Nos.9583 of 2006 in W.P. No.8618 of 2006 ,\n     M.P. No.1 of 2007 in W.P. No.8624 of 2007 ,\n     M.P. No.1 of 2007 in W.P. No.8625 of 2007 \n     And\n     M.P. Nos.1 to 5 of 2007 in W.P. No.4950 of 2007\n\n\n\nI. T. Uday Kumar               \t\t\t..Petitioner in WP.8618\/2006\n\n\n        Vs.\n\n\n1.  The District Collector\n    Chennai District\n    Singaravelar Maligai\n    Rajaji Salai\n    Chennai 1.\n\n2.  The Tahsildar\n    Mambalam Guindy Taluk\n    K.K. Nagar\n    Chennai 18.\n\n3.  Pandia Raja Raja \n         Sri Maana Veera Vazha Naden Trust\n    Rep. by Hereditary Managing Trustee \n    M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian.  \t\t\t..Respondents in WP.8618\/2006\n\n    ( R3 impleaded as per the order\n      dated  02.11.2006  by KSAJ in\n      W.P.M.P. No.11455 of 2006  in\n      Writ Petition No.8618 of 2006 )\n\n\nII. Ravichandran            \t\t\t..Petitioner in WP.4950\/2007\n\n\n           Vs.\n\n\n1.  The Secretary\n    Housing & Urban Development Department\n    Government of Tamil Nadu\n    Fort. St. George\n    Chennai 9.\n\n2.  The Secretary\n    Public Works Department\n    Fort St. George\n    Chennai 9.\n\n3.  The Secretary\n    Health Department\n    Fort St. George\n    Chennai 9.\n\n4.  The Managing Director\n    Tamil Nadu Housing Board\n    No.493\n    Anna Salai\n    Nandanam\n    Chennai-35.\n\n5.  The Commissioner\n    Corporation of Chennai\n    Rippon Buildings\n    Chennai.\n\n6.  The Member Secretary\n    CMDA\n    Thalamuthu Natrajan Maaligai\n    Egmore\n    Chennai 8.\n\n7.  The Spl. Commissioner and \n           Commissioner of Land Administration\n    Chepauk\n    Chennai-5.\n\n8.  The Collector\n    Chennai Collectorate\n    M.Singaravelar Maaligai\n    Chennai 1.\n\n9.  The District Revenue Officer\n    Chennai District\n    Chennai 1.\n\n10. The Tahsildar\n    Mambalam~Guindy Taluk\n    Taluk Office\n    Bharathidasan Colony\n    K.K. Nagar\n    Chennai 78.\n\n11. T.Uday Kumar\n\n12. A.B.Parthiban\n\n13. A.Chidambaram\n\n14. Archana Shekar\n\n15. A.Kaliswamy\n\n16. B.Sriram\n\n17. Balamurugan Vaiyapuri Krishnan\n\n18. D.Manjula\n\n19. Dinesh Chandran\n\n20. G.Kalaiarasi\n\n21. K.R.Sreepriyan\n\n22. Karthik R. Kalpat\n\n23. M.Mani\n\n24. M.R.Venkatesan\n\n25. M.Shanmugha Sundaram\n\n26. Manikandan Jagadeesan\n\n27. Mujibur Rahiman\n\n28. Nihas Eliasu Kunju\n\n29. P. Babu\n\n30. P.Giridhar\n\n31. P.Kannan\n\n32. P.Muthaiyan\n\n33. P.Narayanaswami\n\n34. P.R.Periyannan\n\n35. P.Sasikumar\n\n36. P.Soundaramourthy\n\n37. P.Venkat Ramana Sarvanam\n\n38. R. Krishna\n\n39. R. Muthaiah\n\n40. R. Ramesh\n\n41. R.Sathish Kumar\n\n42. R.Sridharan\n\n43. R.Vivek  Kalyan\n\n44. Ramamoorthy Sethukumar\n\n45. Ravi Chandran\n\n46. S. Anantha Babu\n\n47. S. Ezhilarasan\n\n48. S.Gopalan Srinivasan\n\n49. S.Karthikeyan\n\n50. S.Ramkumar\n\n51. S.Srikanth\n\n52. S.Subramanian\n\n53. S.Thiruambalam\n\n54. Sharmila Chokkalingam\n\n55. Sivagami Venkatachalam\n\n56. Srinivasu Nimmu\n\n57. Sriram, N.C.\n\n58. Subhadra Padmanaban\n\n59. U.Anto Judes paul Raj\n\n60. V.Sabari Prasad\n\n61. V.Varadharajan\n\n62. Vasanthakumar Murali\n\n63. Vetri Vinayak\n\n64. Vinod Venkatesan        \t\t\t..Respondents in WP.4950\/2007\n\n\n     ( R12 to 64  impleaded   as  per suo motu\n       order  dated 24.07.2007  by FMIKJ & STJ\n       in W.P. Nos.4950, 8624 and 8625 of 2007 )\n\n\n\n\nIII. 1.T.Udayakumar            \t\t\t..Petitioner in WP.8624\/2007\n\nIV. 2.Mr.Kimraj Sakariya          \t\t..Petitioner in WP.8625\/2007\n\n\n             Vs.\n\n\n1.  The Spl. Commissioner and\n         Commissioner of Land Administration\n    Chepuak\n    Chennai 5.\n\n2.  The District Revenue Officer\n    Chennai District\n    Chennai 1.\n\n3.  The Tahsildar\n    Guindy Mambalam Taluk\n    K.K. Nagar\n    Chennai 78.\n\n4.  The Managing Director\n    Tamil Nadu Housing Board\n    Nandanam\n    Chennai 35.\n\n5.  Mr.M.V.V.N.Arumuga Pandian\n \n6.  Mr.T.Chitrarasu\n\n7.  Tmt.N.Saraswathy\n\n8.  Tmt.Vijayalakshmi\n\n9.  T.Nedunchezian\n\n10. V.Tamilselvi\n\n11. A.B.Parthiban\n\n12. A.Chidambaram\n\n13. Archana Shekar\n\n14. A.Kaliswamy\n\n15. B.Sriram\n\n16. Balamurugan Vaiyapuri Krishnan\n\n17. D.Manjula\n\n18. Dinesh Chandran\n\n19. G.Kalaiarasi\n\n20. K.R.Sreepriyan\n\n21. Karthik R. Kalpat\n\n22. M.Mani\n\n23. M.R.Venkatesan\n\n24. M.Shanmugha Sundaram\n\n25. Manikandan Jagadeesan\n\n26. Mujibur Rahiman\n\n27. Nihas Eliasu Kunju\n\n28. P. Babu\n\n29. P.Giridhar\n\n30. P.Kannan\n\n31. P.Muthaiyan\n\n32. P.Narayanaswami\n\n33. P.R.Periyannan\n\n34. P.Sasikumar\n\n35. P.Soundaramourthy\n\n36. P.Venkat Ramana Sarvanam\n\n37. R. Krishna\n\n38. R. Muthaiah\n\n39. R. Ramesh\n\n40. R.Sathish Kumar\n\n41. R.Sridharan\n\n42. R.Vivek  Kalyan\n\n43. Ramamoorthy Sethukumar\n\n44. Ravi Chandran\n\n45. S. Anantha Babu\n\n46. S. Ezhilarasan\n\n47. S.Gopalan Srinivasan\n\n48. S.Karthikeyan\n\n49. S.Ramkumar\n\n50. S.Srikanth\n\n51. S.Subramanian\n\n52. S.Thiruambalam\n\n53. Sharmila Chokkalingam\n\n54. Sivagami Venkatachalam\n\n55. Srinivasu Nimmu\n\n56. Sriram, N.C.\n\n57. Subhadra Padmanaban\n\n58. U.Anto Judes paul Raj\n\n59. V.Sabari Prasad\n\n60. V.Varadharajan\n\n61. Vasanthakumar Murali\n\n62. Vetri Vinayak\n\n63. Vinod Venkatesan                \t\t..Respondents in WP.8624 & 8625\/2007\n\n\t( R11 to R63 impleaded as per suo motu \n\t  order dated 24.7.2007 by FMIKJ & STJ  \n \t  in W.P. No.4950, 8624 & 8625 of 2007 )\n\n\n\n\n\nPrayer in W.P.No.8618 of 2006:\n\n           Writ  Petition filed under the Article 226  of\nthe  Constitution of India to issue a Writ of  Certiorari\ncalling  for  the  records of the impugned order   issued\nby    the    second   respondent   in   her   proceedings\nA1\/3223\/2004\/2004, dated 24.3.2006 and quash the same.\n\n\nPrayer in W.P.No.4950 of 2007:\n\n           Writ petition filed  under the Article 226  of\nthe  Constitution  of India  to issue a Writ of  Mandamus\ndirecting the respondents 1 to 4 hereinto clear, maintain\nand  construct  a General Hospital  in the site earmarked\nfor  Government Peripheral Hospital in T.S.No.14 of Block\nNo.129, Kodambakkam Village,  Mambalam-Guindy Taluk.\n\nPrayer in W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625 of 2007:\n\n           Writ petitions filed under the Article 226  of\nthe  Constitution of India to issue  a Writ of Certiorari\ncalling  for  the records   of the  1st   respondent   in\nproceedings   D.Dis.K4\/23586\/06,  dated   28.2.2007   and\nquash the same.\n\n\n\nFor petitioner in W.P. No.4950 of 2007  :  \n\n\t: \tMr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel, for  Mr.M.S.Ramesh\n\nFor petitioner in W.P. No.8624  of 2007 :  \n\n\t:\tMr.R.Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel, for \n                M\/s.Anand  Abdul and Vinodh Associates\n\nFor petitioner in W.P. No.8625 of 2007 :  \n\n\t:\tMrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for \n\t\tM\/s. Anand Abdul and Vinodh Associates.\n\nFor Respondents No.15 & 17 to 45 in W.P. No.4950 of 2007 :   \n\n\t:\tMr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Jensenan\n\nFor Respondent No.11 in W.P. No.4950 of 2007 :    \n\n\t:\tMr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior counsel for \n\t\tM\/s.Anand Abdul and Vinodh Associates.\n\nFor  Respondents No.1 to 3 in W.P. Nos.8624 and 8625 of 2007 and 4950 of 2007 :\n\n\t:\tMr.R.Viduthalai, Advocate General for \n\t\tMr.M.Dhandapani, Spl. Govt. Pleader (W).\n\nFor Respondents No.48 & 51 :  \n\n\t:\tMr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Mr. Manikandan.\n\nFor Respondent No.16 : \n\n\t:\tMr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.K.Sathish.\n\nFor Respondent No.4 : \n\n\t:\tMr.R.Viduthalai, Advocate General for M\/s.R.Girirajan, T.N.H.B.\n\nFor Respondent No.5 : \n\n\t:\tM\/s.V.Bharathidasan (WP.4950\/2007 for Corporation of chennai)\n\nFor Respondent No.5 : \n\n\t:\tMr.Javier Fliex (WP.8624\/2007)\n\nFor Respondent No.6 : \n\n\t:\tM\/s.V. Ayyadurai\n\nFor Respondent No.48 : \n\n\t: \tM\/s.P.Raja\n\nFor Respondent No.58 and 59 in WP.8624 and 4950 of 2007 :  \n\n\t:\tM\/s. Auxilla Peter\n     \nFor Respondent No.53 :  \n\t\n\t:\tMr.Manoharan\n\nFor Respondent Nos.46 and 49 :  \n\n\t:\tM\/s.T.Meikandan\n\n\n\n\n                         COMMON ORDER\n\n\nF.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
       W.P.No.8618  of  2006   has  been   filed  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner   therein seeking to challenge  the  order  of<\/p>\n
the   second  respondent   therein,  namely,   Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
Mambalam-Guindy  Taluk.  As  per the  said   order,   the<\/p>\n
Writ Petitioner  was  directed  not to proceed  with  any<\/p>\n
constructions  in an extent  of  90 cents   situated   in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1   since  an enquiry  as regards  the  issuance<\/p>\n
of patta was pending.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.  W.P.No.4950  of  2007  is   a  Public  Interest<\/p>\n
Litigation  and  the petitioner therein   seeks  for  the<\/p>\n
issuance   of Writ of Mandamus to direct  the respondents<\/p>\n
1  to 4  in that  writ petition  to clear,  maintain  and<\/p>\n
construct   a  General Hospital   in the  site  earmarked<\/p>\n
for  Peripheral  Hospital in T.S.No.14  of  Block   No.29<\/p>\n
Kodambakkam   Village,   Mambalam-Guindy   Taluk.     The<\/p>\n
T.S.No.14  referred  to  therein   corresponds   to   the<\/p>\n
original S.No.297\/1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.  W.P.Nos.  8624  and 8625 of   2006   have  been<\/p>\n
preferred    by the  petitioners therein challenging  the<\/p>\n
order  of  the  first  respondent  therein,  namely,  the<\/p>\n
Special   Commissioner    and   Commissioner   of    Land<\/p>\n
Administration,    dated   28.2.2007    in    Proceedings<\/p>\n
D.Dis.K4\/23586\/06  in and  by which the order of District<\/p>\n
Revenue  Officer  (hereinafter referred  to  as  D.R.O.),<\/p>\n
Chennai,  dated  15.6.2006  was confirmed.   The  D.R.O.,<\/p>\n
Chennai  had  cancelled the patta  issued  in  favour  of<\/p>\n
Thiru.  Nedunchezian,  Chitrarasu and three  others  vide<\/p>\n
S.D.No.44\/04-05, dated 10.6.2004  as well  as  in  favour<\/p>\n
of   M\/s.Metro  Steel Rolling Mills Pvt.  Ltd.,  in   its<\/p>\n
order    vide    TR.No.199\/05-06,  dated   5.5.2005   and<\/p>\n
restored the same  in the name of  the Tamil Nadu Housing<\/p>\n
Board with immediate effect.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.  The  above  referred  to  pattas,   which  were<\/p>\n
cancelled  and which were restored in the name  of  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu   Housing   Board   were  related  to  the  property<\/p>\n
situated  in  S.No.297\/1   with reference  to  which  the<\/p>\n
petitioner in W.P.No.4950 of 2007 has come forward   with<\/p>\n
the public interest litigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5. As the  issue concerns the property relating  to<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1  and the rights of the  parties,  which  would<\/p>\n
need  detailed  discussion based on the  allegations  and<\/p>\n
counter  allegations  contained in W.P.No.4950  of  2007,<\/p>\n
the  status  of  the parties  would be  referred  to   as<\/p>\n
arrayed in the said writ petition. Respondents 12  to  64<\/p>\n
were  suo  motu  impleaded  as party  respondents  by  an<\/p>\n
order,  dated 24.7.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.  In order to appreciate the controversy involved<\/p>\n
in  these  writ  petitions, a brief  history  has  to  be<\/p>\n
narrated:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.  An  extent  of  land measuring  5.90  acres  in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1  of Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk<\/p>\n
belonged  to one  Mr.Velu Mudaliar, who settled the  same<\/p>\n
in   favour   of  his  wife  Mrs.Rajalakshmi  Ammal.   By<\/p>\n
G.O.Ms.No.4729,  dated 25.10.1961,   the   Government  of<\/p>\n
Tamil  Nadu acquired the aforesaid  5.90 acres   of  land<\/p>\n
for  development  of  schemes formulated   by  the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu   Housing  Board.   Pursuant  to  the   above   said<\/p>\n
notification, an award came to be passed  on 31.7.1964 in<\/p>\n
Award  No.14\/64 and the possession of  entire  extent  of<\/p>\n
5.90  acres was also taken and vested with the Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing    Board.    Subsequently,  on  31.10.1973,    by<\/p>\n
G.O.Ms.No.1031, an extent of 0.95 acres in S.No.297\/2 was<\/p>\n
excluded   from  the  land  acquisition  proceedings   in<\/p>\n
exercise of  the powers conferred under Section 48(1)  of<\/p>\n
the  Land Acquisition Act. By virtue of  such  exclusion,<\/p>\n
the  acquisition was restricted to 4.95 acres.   Further,<\/p>\n
while the acquired land was retained  in S.No.297\/1,  the<\/p>\n
excluded  extent of 0.95 acres  was sub-divided and shown<\/p>\n
under S.No.297\/2. After exclusion,  a revised award  also<\/p>\n
came to be passed in Award No.5\/74, dated 4.1.1975.<\/p>\n
     8. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board utilised  the extent<\/p>\n
of   4.95 acres  in S.No.297\/1 for construction of flats,<\/p>\n
named  as   Bharathi Dasan Colony and  handed  over   120<\/p>\n
grounds   and    0550   Sq.ft.   of   land    meant   for<\/p>\n
construction   of  Government   Peripheral  Hospitals  to<\/p>\n
P.W.D. on 8.4.1981.  The area of  120 grounds  and   0550<\/p>\n
Sq.ft.   would  cover an extent of 1.97  acres.    While,<\/p>\n
the  Tamil  Nadu  Housing Board  along  with  P.W.D.  was<\/p>\n
proceeding   after the acquisition to fulfil the  purpose<\/p>\n
of   such  acquisition,  namely,   for  construction   of<\/p>\n
Housing  Board  flats,  Peripheral  Hospital  and   other<\/p>\n
allied   activities,   it appeared  that   the  erstwhile<\/p>\n
owner   Tmt.  Rajalakshmi  Ammal  executed  a  Power   of<\/p>\n
Attorney,  dated  28.7.1988,  which  was   registered  as<\/p>\n
document  No.143\/4  on the file of  the  Sub  Registrar’s<\/p>\n
Office   Guduvancheri, in favour of one  Mr.C.Mohan,  for<\/p>\n
the purpose of seeking  allotment  of the acquired  lands<\/p>\n
in  her  favour  under the ex-owner category.  But  by  a<\/p>\n
subsequent  deed,  dated  28.4.1989,  she  cancelled  the<\/p>\n
Power  of Attorney, dated 28.7.1988  and the cancellation<\/p>\n
deed  was  also  registered as  document  No.101\/1988  on<\/p>\n
the  file  of  the Sub Registrar’s Officer, Guduvancheri.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the said Thiru.C.Mohan, in  his capacity as<\/p>\n
Power Agent, stated to have executed three sale deeds  on<\/p>\n
15.3.1996,  which were registered  as document  Nos.1416,<\/p>\n
1413   and   1415  of  1996   in  favour   of  one   Tmt.<\/p>\n
P.Vijayalakshmi, Thiru. Thulasidas and Tmt.N.  Saraswathi<\/p>\n
and   each of the sale deeds conveyed  30 cents  of  land<\/p>\n
in S.No.297\/1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.  Subsequently, there was a communication,  dated<\/p>\n
19.1.2001 purported to have been issued  by the Executive<\/p>\n
Engineer  of the Tamil Nadu  Housing Board  stating  that<\/p>\n
the Housing Board  had no objection  for Tmt. Rajalakshmi<\/p>\n
Ammal   to continue  to enjoy  her ownership  in  respect<\/p>\n
of   0.90  acres  of  land   in S.No.297\/1.   Later,   on<\/p>\n
10.6.2004,  patta  was  granted   in  favour  of   Thiru.<\/p>\n
Neduncheziyan   and  Chitrarasu,   who   are   sons    of<\/p>\n
V.Thulasidas,    and   three  others  in  S.D.No.44\/04-05<\/p>\n
apparently   based   on  the  purported   letter,   dated<\/p>\n
19.1.2001,  which was stated to have been issued  by  the<\/p>\n
Executive   Engineer   of   Tamil  Nadu  Housing   Board.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, by a subsequent sale deed, dated   1.12.2004,<\/p>\n
the  purchasers of the document, dated 15.3.1996, namely,<\/p>\n
Tmt.  N.Saraswathi  and four others  sold the 0.90  acres<\/p>\n
of  land   to  M\/s. Metro Steel Rolling Mill  Pvt.  Ltd.,<\/p>\n
(hereinafter  referred  to  as  MSRMP  Ltd.),  the   11th<\/p>\n
respondent   herein  and one Thiru. Ramamoorthy  Saravana<\/p>\n
Kumar.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     10. Later on, by a  registered sale deed,  M\/s.Metro<\/p>\n
Streel  Rolling  Mill  Pvt. Ltd.,   represented   by  its<\/p>\n
Director  Mr.Mahendra Kumar Jain conveyed its 1\/3rd share<\/p>\n
in  favour  of   one Mr.Khimraj Sakariya,  petitioner  in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.8625\/2007.  The other  1\/3rd shareholder,  namely,<\/p>\n
Mr.   Ramamoorthy  Saravanakumar   was   stated  to  have<\/p>\n
conveyed   his  share  in favour of the wife of the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent (i.e.) Mrs.U. Bhuvaneswari.<\/p>\n
      11.  By a joint patta  in  C.A.No.450\/05-06,  dated<\/p>\n
9.5.2005,  the patta, dated 10.6.2004 was stated  to have<\/p>\n
been  transferred  and issued in the name  of   M\/s.Metro<\/p>\n
Steel   Rolling   Mill  Pvt.  Ltd.,   and   Mr.Ramamurthy<\/p>\n
Saravanakumar.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12. One Mr.M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian   also  claimed<\/p>\n
certain  rights   in  respect of  the  land  situated  in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1  and had filed   a number of suits  and   writ<\/p>\n
petitions  questioning the rights of the 11th  respondent<\/p>\n
and  also  moved the  District Revenue Officer,  the  9th<\/p>\n
respondent  herein,  for the cancellation  of the  patta,<\/p>\n
dated   10.6.2004 and  9.5.2005 which were issued in  the<\/p>\n
name of  Tmt. Saraswathy  and others  and later in favour<\/p>\n
of   Ms.Metro Steel Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd.  and others.<\/p>\n
     13. In the meanwhile, the 11th respondent approached<\/p>\n
the   6th respondent  C.M.D.A.   for reclassification  of<\/p>\n
the  0.90  acres of land  situated   in S.No.297\/1   from<\/p>\n
institutional  zone  to  residential  zone.     The   6th<\/p>\n
respondent   issued   a  notification    dated  14.7.2005<\/p>\n
calling   for  objections.  The  C.M.D.A.,  subsequently,<\/p>\n
published   a  notification,  dated  9.11.2005   in   the<\/p>\n
Government  Gazette reclassifying the  said   land   from<\/p>\n
“institutional zone”  to “residential zone”.  Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the   11th   respondent  issued   an   advertisement   on<\/p>\n
13.11.2005   in the newspapers  for launching  a  Housing<\/p>\n
Project to provide  for  residential flats.<\/p>\n
      14.  It  is  stated  that  pursuant  to  the   said<\/p>\n
advertisement  54 flats   were sold out.  Thereafter,  it<\/p>\n
is claimed  that  necessary  plan was also sanctioned  by<\/p>\n
the   6th   respondent    C.M.D.A.   on   20.6.2006   for<\/p>\n
construction of the flats  in the said S.No.297\/1.<\/p>\n
      15.  At  that point of time,  the 10th  respondent,<\/p>\n
Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk issued a  notice,  dated<\/p>\n
24.3.2006   directing the 11th respondent not to  proceed<\/p>\n
with  the  constructions   since  the issue  relating  to<\/p>\n
cancellation  of   patta, dated  10.6.2004  and  9.5.2005<\/p>\n
was  pending  consideration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      16.  Challenging  the same,   the  11th  respondent<\/p>\n
filed   W.P.No.8618 of 2006  and  pending disposal of the<\/p>\n
writ petition  obtained an order of  interim stay  of the<\/p>\n
notice     issued    by   the  10th   respondent,   dated<\/p>\n
24.3.2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     17. The Corporation of Chennai,  the  5th respondent<\/p>\n
was  also  stated  to  have  accorded  sanction   to  the<\/p>\n
building  plan submitted by the 11th respondent   in  its<\/p>\n
order   dated 5.4.2006.  The  11th respondent  is  stated<\/p>\n
to  have commenced  construction of  flats   on 10.5.2006<\/p>\n
and completed the same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      18. It is in the above stated background,  the  9th<\/p>\n
respondent   passed  orders on 15.6.2006  cancelling  the<\/p>\n
patta issued  on 10.6.2004 and 9.5.2005, which came to be<\/p>\n
confirmed     by   the   7th  respondent,   the   Special<\/p>\n
Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration,  in<\/p>\n
his order, dated  28.2.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      19.  At  that  point  of time the  public  interest<\/p>\n
litigation  came  to  be filed  in W.P.No.4950  of  2007.<\/p>\n
While  ordering  notice    to  the   11th  respondent  on<\/p>\n
13.2.2007,  an  order  of interim injunction  restraining<\/p>\n
the   11th   respondent    from   proceeding   with   the<\/p>\n
construction   was also made in the said  writ  petition.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, at the instance of the 11th respondent,  by<\/p>\n
order,  dated   20.2.2007 the Division  Bench,  permitted<\/p>\n
him   to   continue  the construction, at the same  time,<\/p>\n
however,  made  it clear  that no third party  should  be<\/p>\n
inducted and possession should not be parted. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
challenging   the orders of the 7th and  9th  respondents<\/p>\n
cancelling the joint patta, dated 10.6.2004 and 9.5.2005,<\/p>\n
W.P.Nos.  8624 and 8625 of 2006  were filed, which  along<\/p>\n
with  W.P.No.8618  of 2006 were also  tagged  along  with<\/p>\n
W.P.No.4950  of   2007.   When the above  writ  petitions<\/p>\n
were  taken  up  for   hearing  on   24.7.2007,   it  was<\/p>\n
brought   to the notice of this Court about the  sale  of<\/p>\n
the  residential flats to 54 persons and therefore,   suo<\/p>\n
motu  orders  were passed  impleading   them   as   party<\/p>\n
respondents    in  the above writ petitions.   They  were<\/p>\n
accordingly,   impleaded  as  respondents  12  to  64  in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.4950  of  2007  and as respondents  11  to  63  in<\/p>\n
W.P.Nos.8624  and  8625 of 2007.   After  notice  to  the<\/p>\n
newly  impleaded respondents, different counsel   entered<\/p>\n
appearance on their behalf.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      20.  That apart, one Thiru.M.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian<\/p>\n
at  whose  instance  the 9th  respondent   D.R.O.  passed<\/p>\n
his  order, dated 15.6.2006 cancelling the  joint  patta,<\/p>\n
dated   10.6.2004   and 9.5.2005 came   forward  with  an<\/p>\n
application to get himself  impleaded  in W.P.No.4950  of<\/p>\n
2007.  Since it  was a  public  interest litigation,   he<\/p>\n
was  also  permitted to make  his  say as an  interloper.<\/p>\n
Moreover,   he  has  already  been   arrayed    as    5th<\/p>\n
respondent  in W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625 of  2007 and he  was<\/p>\n
also heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      21.  In  these writ petitions, the Pro Bono Publico<\/p>\n
would contend that  the land which was acquired   by  the<\/p>\n
State  Government  to be  used  for  a   public   purpose<\/p>\n
of   construction  of  Peripheral  Hospital  as  part  of<\/p>\n
Housing   Board  Scheme  and  possession was vested  with<\/p>\n
the  State Government  and the Housing Board no one, much<\/p>\n
less,  the  11th respondent or respondents 12 to 64   can<\/p>\n
be  permitted  to  claim   ownership  of  the  land   and<\/p>\n
allowed  to grab the Government land  and  make  personal<\/p>\n
gain out of it by putting  up construction in the form of<\/p>\n
residential flats. It is, therefore,  claimed on the  one<\/p>\n
hand that  such an illegality should  not be  allowed  to<\/p>\n
be  perpetrated    and  therefore, the  land,  should  be<\/p>\n
restored   by   directing  the Government   to  construct<\/p>\n
Peripheral   Hospital  as originally scheduled   at   the<\/p>\n
time  of  acquisition.  On  the  other  hand,   the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent  would contend   that he  was    a  bona  fide<\/p>\n
purchaser having regard to  the valid sale deeds executed<\/p>\n
in his favour,  as well as,  the  proceedings  issued  by<\/p>\n
the  State  Government, C.M.D.A., and Urban Land  Ceiling<\/p>\n
authorities  and certain  orders of this Court confirming<\/p>\n
such    proceedings  and  based  on  the   above    valid<\/p>\n
proceedings,   he had  promoted   the land  by  investing<\/p>\n
several crores of rupees which had also resulted  in  the<\/p>\n
respondents   12 to 64 to make huge investments  for  the<\/p>\n
construction of the residential flats, equity demands the<\/p>\n
protection  of  the  rights of the  11th  respondent   by<\/p>\n
permitting him to retain  the properties along with   the<\/p>\n
respondents   12 to 64.   Supporting the  stand   of  the<\/p>\n
11th  respondent,  respondents 12 to 64   also  contended<\/p>\n
that   they  were  all  bona  fide   purchasers  of   the<\/p>\n
respective flats  by borrowing  heavy  amounts from Banks<\/p>\n
and  financial  institutions and since the petitioner  in<\/p>\n
the   public  interest  litigation  as well as  the   5th<\/p>\n
respondent  Arumuga Pandian in W.P.Nos.8624 and  8625  of<\/p>\n
2007   were   not  bona  fide   in  their  approach    in<\/p>\n
questioning    the  rights of the  11th  respondent   and<\/p>\n
through   him  the   respondents 12 to  64,   the  public<\/p>\n
interest litigation  should  be rejected  and  it  should<\/p>\n
be  left  to  the decision of the  State  Government   to<\/p>\n
decide   as to in what other equitable manner the  rights<\/p>\n
can be safeguarded.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      22.  As against the above, on behalf of the   State<\/p>\n
Government,   it  is  contended that  since,  after   the<\/p>\n
acquisition  in  the year 1964,  as well  as  after   the<\/p>\n
modified  award  in the year 1975 the possession  of  the<\/p>\n
land   in  S.No.297\/1  in  an extent  of  4.95 acres  was<\/p>\n
validly  acquired  and vested  with  the State and  later<\/p>\n
continue to remain  with the Housing Board   unless there<\/p>\n
had   been  a  valid  reconveyance  ordered    under  the<\/p>\n
provisions  of the Land Acquisition Act,   no  one,  much<\/p>\n
less,  the respondent 11 and  other respondents 12 to  64<\/p>\n
can   claim  any equitable right based on their   illegal<\/p>\n
encroachment  of the land in question.   Therefore,   the<\/p>\n
State  Government would  contend that  there is no  scope<\/p>\n
for   any   equity   to  be  considered   in  favour   of<\/p>\n
respondents  11 to 64 and that   it is  the obligation of<\/p>\n
the  State Government  to fulfil  the purport  and intent<\/p>\n
of  the  acquisition by  restoring the land  and put  the<\/p>\n
same into the use  for  which it was originally intended.<\/p>\n
       23.   On   behalf   of  the  Pro   Bono   Publico,<\/p>\n
Mr.A.L.Somayaji,  learned Senior  Counsel  addressed  his<\/p>\n
arguments.  The learned Senior Counsel in his submissions<\/p>\n
contended  that   a   rank fraud was played   by  several<\/p>\n
parties   either at the instance  of the  original  owner<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmi  Ammal  or  the  subsequent   purchasers   in<\/p>\n
order  to make  it  appear as though an extent  of   0.90<\/p>\n
acres   in  S.NO.297\/1  was withdrawn from  the  original<\/p>\n
acquisition  and  in  that pursuit, the process  of  this<\/p>\n
Court  was also  abused  to  certain extent and  in  such<\/p>\n
circumstances,   having regard to the   decision  of  the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble  Supreme  Court, reported in  (2007)  4  SCC  221<\/p>\n
(A.V.  Papayya Sastry and Others  Vs. Govt. of  A.P.  and<\/p>\n
Others)  JT  2000  SC 218 (M\/s. Prestige Lights  Ltd. Vs.<\/p>\n
State  Bank  of  India)  and AIR  1996  SC  253  (Dr.G.N.<\/p>\n
Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority   and<\/p>\n
others)   there can  be no  consideration on  equity   in<\/p>\n
favour of  respondents  11 to 64.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      24.  The  learned Senior Counsel   brought  to  our<\/p>\n
notice,  the recitals  in the sale deed, dated  15.3.1996<\/p>\n
said   to  have  been  executed   by  the   Power   Agent<\/p>\n
Mr.C.Mohan  on  behalf of Rajalakshmi Ammal,  which  when<\/p>\n
compared  with  her  own stand as  stated  in  her  reply<\/p>\n
notice,  dated  31.3.1998 to one  of  the  parties,  with<\/p>\n
copies marked to various other parties including some  of<\/p>\n
the respondents herein, were wholly inconsistent  and the<\/p>\n
above  documents would show how a calculated  fraud   was<\/p>\n
played   to  grab  the Government  land  for   making   a<\/p>\n
personal gain.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     25. According to the learned Senior Counsel when the<\/p>\n
said  parent documents did not establish any valid  title<\/p>\n
to  the  subject  land covered  by S.No.297\/1,  the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent,  who  seeks  to claim  title  by  way  of   a<\/p>\n
purchase effected  on  1.12.2004,  cannot be heard to say<\/p>\n
that  he  was  a  bona  fide purchaser   and   now  claim<\/p>\n
equitable   relief   on that basis.  The  learned  Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel  could also brought to our notice various   other<\/p>\n
discrepancies in different documents to demonstrate   how<\/p>\n
the  bona fide  claim and equitable  rights  claimed   by<\/p>\n
respondents  11 to 64  cannot be considered.<\/p>\n
       26.   As  against  the  above  submissions,   M\/s.<\/p>\n
R.Krishnamurthy  and   T.R.  Rajagopalan,   the   learned<\/p>\n
Senior Counsel appearing for the 11th respondent and M\/s.<\/p>\n
G.Masilamani,  T.V.Ramanujam and  R.Muthukumarasamy,  the<\/p>\n
learned   Senior  Counsel  appearing  for   the   various<\/p>\n
respondents,  who  were  purchasers  of  the   individual<\/p>\n
flats,  namely,  the respondents 12 to 64  would  contend<\/p>\n
that    since  at  the  time of  purchase  by  the   11th<\/p>\n
respondent   on  1.12.2004 along with others, there  were<\/p>\n
certain   documents  issued by the  Urban  Land   Ceiling<\/p>\n
Authorities  as well as  by an authority  in the rank  of<\/p>\n
Deputy Secretary which confirm to very large extent  that<\/p>\n
the original  owner Rajalakshmi Ammal  continue to retain<\/p>\n
ownership   in   respect  of the subject  land  and  with<\/p>\n
reference to those Government documents, even as on date,<\/p>\n
as  there  is no dispute as to  its  existence,  it  will<\/p>\n
have  to be held that   the 11th respondent  was  a  bona<\/p>\n
fide  purchaser.  The learned Senior Counsel,  therefore,<\/p>\n
contended  that  in  spite  of  such   valid   Government<\/p>\n
documents,   if  anyone  wanted to question  either  such<\/p>\n
valid  documents  or  the ownership rights  of  the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent as well as respondents 12 to 64,  they  should<\/p>\n
approach the appropriate Civil Court  and not this  Court<\/p>\n
by way of  a public interest litigation.<\/p>\n
      27. The learned Senior Counsel  would  contend that<\/p>\n
the various Government  proceedings,  in particular,  the<\/p>\n
orders  of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities as well  as<\/p>\n
the   letter of the Deputy Secretary   were all documents<\/p>\n
which  persuaded  the 11th respondent    to  believe  the<\/p>\n
lawful  ownership of the original owner and applying  the<\/p>\n
doctrine of “Promissory Estoppel”  the  State  Government<\/p>\n
is bound to  protect  the  rights of the  11th respondent<\/p>\n
as  well  as the  subsequent purchasers of the individual<\/p>\n
flats,  namely,   the  respondents 12  to  64  and  their<\/p>\n
possession cannot be interfered with.<\/p>\n
      28. Reliance was placed upon the decisions reported<\/p>\n
in  (2001) 6 SCC 512 ( Kewal Chand Mimani (D) by Lrs. Vs.<\/p>\n
S.K.Sen  and  others), (2005) 3 SCC 91 (R & M  Trust  Vs.<\/p>\n
Koramangala  Residents Vigilance Group and  others),  AIR<\/p>\n
1979  SC 621 (M\/s.Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.  Ltd.,<\/p>\n
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others), (1996) II SCC<\/p>\n
501   (Municipal  Corporation  of  Greater  Bombay    Vs.<\/p>\n
Industrial  Development Investment  Co.  Pvt.  Ltd.,  and<\/p>\n
Others),  (1997) 2 SCC 627 (C.Padma and  Others  Vs.  Dy.<\/p>\n
Secretary  to the Government of  Tamil Nadu and  others),<\/p>\n
1998  (1)  MLJ  314 (The  Senior Superintendent  of  Post<\/p>\n
Offices,  Coimbatore Division Vs. The Coimbatore  Diocese<\/p>\n
Society  represented  by its Procurator,  Coimbatore  and<\/p>\n
others),  (1985) 4 SCC 369 (Union of India   Vs.  Godfrey<\/p>\n
Philips  India Ltd.), (2004) 6 SCC 465  (State of  Punjab<\/p>\n
Vs. Nestle India Ltd., and another) and  (2007) 5 MLJ 436<\/p>\n
(SC)-(Amey Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and  Another<\/p>\n
Vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others).<\/p>\n
      29. At the outset, we wish to deal  with the public<\/p>\n
interest  litigation  in  the  first   instance   as  the<\/p>\n
disposal  of the  said  writ petition  would   in  effect<\/p>\n
find   a  solution  for the disposal of the  other   writ<\/p>\n
petitions.  In the public interest litigation, the  issue<\/p>\n
that  looms  large   is  as  to “whether  the  so  called<\/p>\n
ownership   rights  claimed  by the 11th  respondent  and<\/p>\n
through   him  the other respondents   12 to  64   should<\/p>\n
prevail  or  the  status of the subject property  as  the<\/p>\n
Government   land   should   be   maintained   and    the<\/p>\n
consequential   directions to be issued.”   In  order  to<\/p>\n
ascertain  the stand of the  State Government  that   the<\/p>\n
subject   land   is  the property  of  the   State,   the<\/p>\n
relevant    documents which are to be examined   are   as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\nS.NO   \tDATE             PARTICULARS          AVAILABLE AT
\n                                              WHICH VOL.&
\n                                                 PAGE
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n1 \t31.7.196  \tAward NO.14\/1964.                  \tVI – 1
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n2 \t31.10.19  \tG.O.Ms.No.1031, Housing.            \tII – 1
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n3   \t4\/1\/75 \t\tCopy of the revised Award           \tVI – 15
\n             \t\tNo.5\/74.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n4 \t13.3.198  \tOrder, dated 13.3.1981 of the       \tV – 17
\n             \t\tSubordinate Judge, Chengalpattu
\n             \t\tin CROP No.145 of 1976 for
\n             \t\tdisbursement of  the
\n             \t\tcompensation payable in respect
\n             \t\tof  the land  acquired  under
\n             \t\taward No.5\/1974, dated
\n             \t\t4.1.1975
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n5 \t28.7.198  \tGeneral Power of Attorney           \tVII – 1
\n             \t\texecuted  by V. Rajalakshmi
\n             \t\tAmmal in favour of C.Mohan.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n6 \t28.4.198  \tCopy of  cancellation of            \tVII – 8
\n             \t\tGeneral Power of Attorney by
\n             \t\tRajalakshmi, dated 28.7.1988.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n7 \t31.10.19  \tOrder in W.P.No.1172 of 1985,        \tVII – 14
\n            \t\tin the Writ Petition filed by
\n             \t\tVelu Mudaliar and Rajalakshmi.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n8 \t24.3.199  \tNotice issued  by the                 \tII – 256
\n             \t\tTahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy
\n             \t\tTaluk to the 11th
\n             \t\tRespondent.(Impugned order in
\n             \t\tW.P. No.8618 of 2006)
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n9 \t31.3.199  \tReply by Rajalakshmi to the         \tVII – 20
\n             \t\tlegal notice issued by
\n             \t\tVilvijayan  and Anandakumar,
\n             \t\tdated 20.2.1998.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n10 \t14.1.200  \tCopy of the letter purported         \tI – 4
\n             \t\tto have been issued by  the
\n             \t\tExecutive Engineer  and
\n             \t\tAdministrative Officer,
\n             \t\tK.K.Nagar Division of  Tamil
\n             \t\tNadu Housing Board.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n11 \t19.5.200  \tProceedings of the Tahsildar,       \tVI – 25
\n             \t\tMambalam-Guindy Taluk.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n12   \t8\/6\/04 \t\tLetter of the D.R.O. to the         \tVI – 30
\n             \t\tTahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy
\n             \t\tTaluk.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n13   \t8\/6\/04 \t\tReply  by the Tahsildar,            \tVI – 30
\n             \t\tMambalam-Guindy Taluk  to
\n             \t\tD.R.O., Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n14           \t\tExtracts  from the Town Survey       \tVI – 64
\n\t                Register  in respect of the
\n        \t     \tproperty situated  in
\n        \t     \tS.No.297\/1 containing   the
\n\t             \toriginal entry in the name of
\n             \t\tTamil Nadu Housing Board and
\n             \t\tthe change of such entry  dated
\n             \t\t10.6.2004 in favour of
\n\t\t        T.Neduncheziyan, and  others
\n             \t\tand subsequent change  made by
\n             \t\tproceedings, dated 5.5.2005 in
\n             \t\tfavour of M\/s.Metro Steel
\n             \t\tRolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and
\n             \t\tothers
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n15 \t29.3.200  \tNotice issued  by the DRO to         \tVI – 48
\n             \t\tM.V.V.N. Arumuga Pandian,
\n             \t\tNeduncheziyan, Chitrarasu,
\n             \t\tThulasidas, Saraswathy and
\n             \t\tC.Vijayalakshmi for hearing to
\n             \t\tbe held on 31.3.2006 at 3.00 p.m.
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n16 \t28.4.200  \tCopy of the letter issued  by       \tII – 270
\n             \t\tthe Deputy Secretary  to
\n             \t\tThiru.MVVN. Arumuga Pandian,
\n             \t\tdated  28.4.2006
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n17 \t15.6.200  \tOrder of the District Revenue       \tI – 16
\n             \t\tOfficer, Chennai District.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n18 \t22.6.200  \tCopy of the hearing notice           \tII – 272
\n             \t\tissued  by the Special
\n             \t\tCommissioner and Commissioner
\n             \t\tof Administration.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n19 \t30.6.200  \tCopy of  the letter  issued  by      \tI – 6
\n             \t\tthe Assistant Secretary (LA) to
\n             \t\tTamil Nadu Housing Board.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n20 \t28.7.200  \tLetter  issued  by the Tamil         \tI – 26
\n             \t\tNadu Housing Board to MVVN.\n<\/p>\n
             \t\tArumuga Pandian furnishing the
\n             \t\tland usage details of
\n             \t\tS.No.297\/1  of  Kodambakkam
\n             \t\tVillage, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n21 \t12\/12\/06 \tProceedings of the Special          \tI – 26
\n             \t\tCommissioner and Commissioner
\n             \t\tof  Land Administration,
\n             \t\tgranting stay  of  the order of
\n             \t\tthe DRO, dated 15.6.2006 and
\n             \t\talso posting  the main revision
\n             \t\tfor hearing on 21.1.2007 at
\n             \t\t11.00 a.m.
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n22   \t1\/2\/07 \t\tCopy of the hearing notice          \tII – 272
\n             \t\tissued  by the Special
\n             \t\tCommissioner  and Commissioner
\n             \t\tof Land Administration,
\n             \t\tposting the hearing.\n<\/p>\n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n23 \t23.2.200  \tLetter from the Managing            \tVI – 64
\n             \t\tDirector, Tamil Nadu Housing
\n             \t\tBoard to the Special
\n             \t\tCommissioner and Commissioner
\n             \t\tof Land Administration, dated
\n             \t\t23.2.2007
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\n24  \t28.2.200    \tCopy of the Order of the      \t\tVI – 66
\n                \tSpecial Commissioner and
\n                   \tCommissioner of Land
\n               \t\tAdministration confirming the
\n                \torder of the D.R.O., dated
\n                        15.6.2006
\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n
     30. When we peruse the above documents, we find that<\/p>\n
the  starting  point  is the award No.14 of  1964   dated<\/p>\n
31.7.1964.  In  the  said award,  acquisition  of   16.05<\/p>\n
acres,  which   were lying  in different  survey  numbers<\/p>\n
including  S.No.297 which covered  5.90 acres, was  made.<\/p>\n
The  said  property  then stood in the name  of    S.Velu<\/p>\n
Mudaliar.   Subsequently,  in  G.O.Ms.No.1031,   Housing,<\/p>\n
dated   31.10.1973,  the  extent  of   0.95  acres    was<\/p>\n
withdrawn   from the acquisition  and in the Schedule  to<\/p>\n
the   said   G.O.,   the  boundaries   were  specifically<\/p>\n
mentioned.   In fact,  by virtue of the withdrawal   made<\/p>\n
in the said G.O.,  S.No.297 was sub-divided  as 297\/1 and<\/p>\n
2.   The  acquired  land, namely,  the  4.95  acres   was<\/p>\n
stated  to have  situated  in S.No.297\/1.   The left  out<\/p>\n
land,  namely,   the  0.95 acres situated   in  the  sub-<\/p>\n
divided  S.No.297\/2 standing in the name S.Velu  Mudaliar<\/p>\n
and Rajammal  surrounded  on the North  by  297\/1 East by<\/p>\n
S.No.294, South by  298  and West  by  S.Nos.300 and 299.<\/p>\n
      31.  In the revised award No.5\/74, dated  4.1.1975,<\/p>\n
the  extent  of  acquired land in  S.No.297\/1   has  been<\/p>\n
specifically  mentioned  as 4.95 acres.  In  the  revised<\/p>\n
award,   one  other  land situated  in S.No.340\/2  in  an<\/p>\n
extent  of   0.18  acres   has also been  mentioned.   In<\/p>\n
fact,   in the descriptive part of  the award  the extent<\/p>\n
of    4.95  acres  in  S.No.297\/1  and  0.18  acres    in<\/p>\n
S.No.340\/2   and  the total extent  of  5.13  acres   has<\/p>\n
been clearly  mentioned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     32. The above referred to documents, therefore, make<\/p>\n
it  clear  that  while original acquisition  was  in  the<\/p>\n
composite  S.No.297  for the total extent  of 5.90 acres,<\/p>\n
after  the  exemption   granted   in  G.O.Ms.1031,  dated<\/p>\n
31.10.1973,   the  acquired  land got reduced   to   4.95<\/p>\n
acres,  which  fell in S.No.297\/1, whereas  the  exempted<\/p>\n
extent  of 0.95 acres  fell in S.No.297\/2. With reference<\/p>\n
to  the  above statement of facts,  there could not  have<\/p>\n
been  any dispute  at  all by anyone.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      33. In fact, after the above said acquisition,  the<\/p>\n
original  owner   Rajalakshmi  Ammal   aspired   for  the<\/p>\n
allotment   of  plots  in her favour   from  the  Housing<\/p>\n
Board under the ex-owner category.   With that view,  she<\/p>\n
executed a  Power of Attorney, dated  28.7.1988 in favour<\/p>\n
of  one Thiru.C.Mohan, s\/o. Late  V.L.Chellappa.<\/p>\n
     34. A perusal of the said Power of Attorney disclose<\/p>\n
that  the  purport  of the power was  to  correspond  and<\/p>\n
negotiate  with  the Housing Board   or  with  the  other<\/p>\n
appropriate authorities to get the allotment of the  land<\/p>\n
or   flats  under ex-owners category scheme by virtue  of<\/p>\n
the   acquisition.   However,   by   a  document,   dated<\/p>\n
28.4.1989,  the said Rajalakshmi Ammal,  wife   of   Velu<\/p>\n
Mudaliar    cancelled  the  Power  of   Attorney,   dated<\/p>\n
28.7.1988, which was registered  as document   No.101  of<\/p>\n
1989 in  the Office of  the Sub Registrar, Guduvancheri.<\/p>\n
     35. The recitals of the said document disclose  that<\/p>\n
the Power Agent was indulging  in dishonest  and  illegal<\/p>\n
activities    and  therefore,   she  did  not   want   to<\/p>\n
continue   the power  granted   in favour of  her  agent,<\/p>\n
namely, Thiru. C.Mohan.  Prior to the execution   of  the<\/p>\n
power,   the  said  Rajalakshmi  Ammal   along  with  her<\/p>\n
husband   Velu  Mudaliar had filed  a  writ  petition  in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.1172 of 1985 seeking for the issuance of   a  Writ<\/p>\n
of  Mandamus  to direct the  Tamil Nadu Housing Board  to<\/p>\n
allot   necessary  flats   under  the  ex-owner  category<\/p>\n
scheme framed  under Section 12 of the  Tamil Nadu  State<\/p>\n
Housing Board Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      36. A perusal of the said order disclose that   the<\/p>\n
very  same prayer  was earlier  rejected  by the  Housing<\/p>\n
Board,  by order, dated  21.9.1984.  Further,  after  the<\/p>\n
initial acquisition made under  award No.14 of 1964,  the<\/p>\n
exclusion  of  0.90  acres itself came  to  be  made   in<\/p>\n
G.O.Ms.No.1031, dated  31.10.1973.   On finding that  the<\/p>\n
said  lands  were not in the possession of  the  original<\/p>\n
owners   Rajalakshmi Ammal  and Velu Mudaliar and   since<\/p>\n
they  have  laid  out those plots and  sold  them  to  17<\/p>\n
persons,   ultimately,  this Court  declined the   prayer<\/p>\n
of  the original  owners  for the allotment  of necessary<\/p>\n
plots   under  the ex-owner category scheme.  Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the  original owner Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal  sent a  reply<\/p>\n
to   legal  notice, dated 20.2.1998  issued on behalf  of<\/p>\n
M\/s.  Vilvijayan  and C. Anandakumar. The reply  of  Tmt.<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmiammal  was  dated   31.3.1998.   Some  of  the<\/p>\n
statements   contained in the reply  are   very  relevant<\/p>\n
for   our present  purpose  which requires extraction and<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “A perusal  of the contention of
\n       the   notice  under reference  will  reveal
\n       that   a  rank  one  forgery  committed  by
\n       certain   vested  interested  persons   who
\n       conspired   among themselves  in  order  to
\n       swallow the Government property, which  was
\n       acquired  by the Government  in 1963 itself
\n       for  the  development   of  the  area    as
\n       Kodambakkam Pudur neighbourhood scheme  and
\n       taken   over   possession   also  from  the
\n       erstwhile land owners late S. Velu Mudaliar
\n       and  a  portion  of the  extent   of   land
\n       excluded   from  the  said  acquisition  in
\n       G.O.Ms.No.1031,   Housing,   dt.31.10.1973,
\n       which  was  under  the occupation   of  the
\n       encroachers,  had  also been  conveyed   in
\n       their favour by the erstwhile landowners by
\n       means    of     registered   sale    deeds.
\n       ……………………………In     any
\n       stretch   of even imagination  neither  the
\n       erstwhile   landowner  late  Velu  Mudaliar
\n       nor  Tmt. Rajalakshmi would not have joined
\n       as  party   in  the alleged sale  agreement
\n       because the said  piece  of land in  Survey
\n       No.297(Part)    was   acquired    by    the
\n       Government along with a larger  extent   of
\n       other properties belonging to them in  1963
\n       itself.   The  statement  of  your  clients
\n       that  they  have   put up   compound   wall
\n       around  the suit property  together with an
\n       asbestos  sheet shed  and  a thatched  shed
\n       therein  is curious  and self servient   as
\n       it   is  a  fertile imagine one for setting
\n       up  of a case in their favour, because  the
\n       said alleged property  has been under   the
\n       effective  possession   and  enjoyment   of
\n       Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   …………….The  said  Velu
\n       Mudaliar  died   on  7.4.1988.   After  his
\n       death   so  far as C.Mohan  is   concerned,
\n       he  was  a  power of Attorney   Agent   for
\n       Tmt.Rajalakshmi  for getting  allotment  of
\n       land  from the  Government  under  ex-owner
\n       category   towards   the  lands   measuring
\n       more than 5.95 acres of  land  acquired  by
\n       Government  and the said Power of  Attorney
\n       was  given  in 1988  and the same was  also
\n       cancelled  by means a registered   deed  in
\n       1989   as he misused  the power  and  could
\n       not get  the  said allotment  and the Power
\n       of  Attorney  was given only   to  approach
\n       the  concerned  authorities to get eligible
\n       extent of ex-owner  category  land from the
\n       Government.  The  said  Mohan   might  have
\n       created    some   incrimination   documents
\n       without  authority. Which will not  in  any
\n       way bind the  said Tmt. Rajalakshmi  as the
\n       same would  not  have executed by her.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            …………………She is not in any
\n       way   concerned   with the said suit  since
\n       the  property  involved   is  a  Government
\n       property   and  she  is  not  having    any
\n       manner of right interested  and title  over
\n       the same. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      37. A copy of the said reply  was also  marked   to<\/p>\n
the  Chairman,  Tamil Nadu  Housing Board,  and the Chief<\/p>\n
Engineer, P.W.D.  and  certain others.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     38. The above referred to documents cumulatively  go<\/p>\n
to  show  that   after the initial  acquisition and   the<\/p>\n
subsequent  modified award  made in  1975,  the  original<\/p>\n
owner    Rajalakshmi  herself  had   reconciled   to  the<\/p>\n
position that  she had no rights  in respect of the lands
\nto an extent of  4.95 acres   in S.No.297\/1 and that  the<\/p>\n
said land absolutely belonged to the State Government and<\/p>\n
the  Housing Board  and  if  at all any mischief had been<\/p>\n
played   with  reference to the said land it  could  have<\/p>\n
been  done by others  including  her one time power agent<\/p>\n
Thiru.C.Mohan.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     39. In fact a specific allegation with reference  to<\/p>\n
the  said  power agent was to the effect  that  he  might<\/p>\n
have   created   some  incriminating  documents   without<\/p>\n
authority  and  that  she was  not   bound  by  any  such<\/p>\n
document.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      40. That apart, a perusal of the proceedings of the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar,  Mambalam-Guindy Taluk,  dated  19.5.2004,  as<\/p>\n
well  as  the  connected letters  of  the  D.R.O.,  dated<\/p>\n
8.6.2004, and the Tahsildar also dated 8.6.2004, and  the<\/p>\n
extract  from  the Town Survey Register  of  Kodambakkam,<\/p>\n
dated   16.7.2007,  makes  it  clear  that    after   the<\/p>\n
acquisition of the subject  land situated  in  S.No.297\/1<\/p>\n
in  an  extent of 0.90 acres it stood transferred in  the<\/p>\n
name  of   the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and continue   to<\/p>\n
remain   in the said name till it was transferred in  the<\/p>\n
name  of  M\/s.T. Neduncheziyan, T.Chitrarasu, V.  Thulasi<\/p>\n
Doss,  N. Saraswathy and Tmt. Vijayalakshmi on 10.6.2004.<\/p>\n
For effecting the said transfer, the proceedings referred<\/p>\n
to  were  the  Tamil  Nadu Housing  Board  letter,  dated<\/p>\n
19.1.2001   and   the  proceedings   of   the   Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner,  Urban  Land  Tax,  dated   31.5.2004,  the<\/p>\n
exercise of making the transfer in the name of the  above<\/p>\n
referred  to persons appeared to have been made based  on<\/p>\n
their application, dated  19.5.2004.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      41. In this context, one other  set of documents to<\/p>\n
be   referred  to  are   three  sale  deeds  in  document<\/p>\n
Nos.1416,  1413,   and  1415 of  1996, dated   15.3.1996.<\/p>\n
These  documents by way of  sale deed  were said to  have<\/p>\n
been  executed  by Thiru. C.Mohan  in his   capacity   as<\/p>\n
power agent   of  Tmt. V.Rajalakshmi Ammal  in favour  of<\/p>\n
C.Vijayalakshmi,  V. Thulasidoss and  Mrs.N.  Saraswathy.<\/p>\n
As  one of the purchasers Thulasidoss was stated to  have<\/p>\n
subsequently    expired,   his    sons     Neduncheziyan,<\/p>\n
Chitrarasu,  and his daughter  V.Tamilselvi joined  along<\/p>\n
with   Vijayalakshmi  and   Saraswathy,   the   so-called<\/p>\n
purchasers,  who applied for the transfer  of  patta   in<\/p>\n
their name in their application, dated  19.5.2004.<\/p>\n
      42.  Apparently, the execution of  the  three  sale<\/p>\n
deeds,  dated   15.3.1996  appeared  to  have  been   the<\/p>\n
starting  point for the attempted change in   the  status<\/p>\n
and   character   of  the  subject  land    situated   in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1 in an extent of  0.90 acres. Under  the  above<\/p>\n
referred  to   three sale deeds an extent of  0.30  acres<\/p>\n
each  in  S.No.297\/1  were sought to  be  transferred  in<\/p>\n
favour of the purchasers.  Therefore,  when by virtue  of<\/p>\n
the  land  acquisition proceedings  culminating   in  the<\/p>\n
award  No.5\/1974, dated  4.1.1975,  the entire extent  of<\/p>\n
4.95  acres   including  the extent  of  0.90  acres  was<\/p>\n
acquired  and possession was vested with the  Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing  Board,  no  one including the  erstwhile   owner<\/p>\n
could  have   had  any  hold   over  the  said  land  for<\/p>\n
transferring the same in favour of   any one,  much less,<\/p>\n
the  above referred to  subsequent purchasers.   In fact,<\/p>\n
a  copy  of  the   reply notice  of the  original   owner<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmiammal herself, dated  31.3.1998 makes it amply<\/p>\n
clear  that   even  as of the year  1998,  she  had in an<\/p>\n
unambiguous  terms  made it clear that  the subject  land<\/p>\n
absolutely  belonged to the Government and the Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing Board.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      43.  Once that was the legal status of the  subject<\/p>\n
land    having regard to the  documents  which  prevailed<\/p>\n
as  on that date which position continue  to remain  even<\/p>\n
as  on  date and the same was also duly acknowledged   by<\/p>\n
the  original owner herself  there was very little  scope<\/p>\n
for  anybody else  to meddle with the  ownership  of  the<\/p>\n
said  lands by creating any document in favour of anybody<\/p>\n
else  much less the so-called purchasers  under the  sale<\/p>\n
deeds,   dated   15.3.1996  through   the   power   agent<\/p>\n
Thiru.C.Mohan.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      44.  As  against  the  above referred  to  definite<\/p>\n
position  as  regards the ownership  of  the  Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing   Board\/State  over the subject  lands,  when  we<\/p>\n
examine the various other  materials relied upon  by  the<\/p>\n
11th respondent, we find some of those documents had been<\/p>\n
issued    at  the instance   of  certain other Government<\/p>\n
machineries. The genuineness of such documents   have  to<\/p>\n
be   necessarily   put  to  deeper  scrutiny   as    such<\/p>\n
documents   did  not appear to have been  issued  in  the<\/p>\n
normal  course   of  the  business  transaction   of  the<\/p>\n
departments concerned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       45.   We  will  presently  refer  to  the  various<\/p>\n
instances   concerned  with those documents  which  would<\/p>\n
fortify our  conclusions and impressions which we  gained<\/p>\n
to the effect that  those documents lack genuineness.  As<\/p>\n
far  as  the  right claimed   by the 11th respondent   is<\/p>\n
concerned,   after   the  sale  deeds,  dated  15.3.1996,<\/p>\n
executed  in  favour  of  Saraswathy,  Vijayalakshmi  and<\/p>\n
Thulasidoss, the 11th respondent claimed title  based  on<\/p>\n
the  sale  deed, dated 1.12.2004, executed  by Saraswathy<\/p>\n
and  four  others, through, their power agent   M\/s.  TVS<\/p>\n
Finance  and  Services Ltd.,  in favour of   Metro  Steel<\/p>\n
Rolling  Mill  Pvt. Ltd., T. Udayakumar and Mr.Ramamurthy<\/p>\n
Saravanakumar. Subsequently, M\/s.Metro Steel Rolling Mill<\/p>\n
Pvt.  Ltd., transferred  its  1\/3rd  right  in favour  of<\/p>\n
Khimraj  Sakariya   by  a sale deed,  dated   19.10.2005.<\/p>\n
Similarly,  Mr.Ramamurthy Sarvanakumar conveyed  his  1\/3<\/p>\n
right  in  the   subject  property   in  favour  of    V.<\/p>\n
Bhuvaneshwari w\/o. the 11th respondent by  a  sale  deed,<\/p>\n
dated    28.9.2006.   Presently,   the   11th  respondent<\/p>\n
along   with  Khimraj  Sakariya  as  well  as  his   wife<\/p>\n
Bhuvaneshwari claim ownership and the 11th respondent was<\/p>\n
stated  to have  promoted  the property  under the banner<\/p>\n
of “Land Mark Constructions.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      46.  As stated earlier,  having  regard to the very<\/p>\n
firm  stand  of the original owner Rajalakshmi Ammal   in<\/p>\n
her   reply  notice  dated  31.3.1998   as  well  as  the<\/p>\n
cancellation   of the power in the deed, dated  28.4.1989<\/p>\n
cancelling  the  power of attorney, dated  28.7.1988   in<\/p>\n
favour of  Thiru.C.Mohan, the very execution of the  sale<\/p>\n
deeds,  dated  15.3.1996, themselves had no  validity  in<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      47.  In fact  on a perusal of the sale deeds, dated<\/p>\n
15.3.1996,   we find that  it contains  a statement  that<\/p>\n
the   purchasers  mentioned  therein   were  already   in<\/p>\n
possession   of  the  schedule property  as  the   vendor<\/p>\n
having  delivered  the vacant possession   several  years<\/p>\n
before.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      48.  It  is quite amazing to note how  the property<\/p>\n
which  was already  in the possession  of the Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing  Board  as  from  the  year  1964  and  1975   as<\/p>\n
categorically admitted  by the so-called  vendor  herself<\/p>\n
in her reply notice, dated 31.3.1998 the said lands could<\/p>\n
have remained in the possession of the purchasers of  the<\/p>\n
sale deeds, dated  15.3.1996 from any period prior to the<\/p>\n
said date.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      49.  In  this  context,  it  will be  relevant   to<\/p>\n
mention the averment  contained in the  counter affidavit<\/p>\n
filed  by the  Tamil Nadu Housing Board in W.P.No.4950 of<\/p>\n
2007.   In  the  said  counter affidavit,   it  has  been<\/p>\n
categorically  stated that   the entire site   meant  for<\/p>\n
construction  for Peripheral Hospital   in an  extent  of<\/p>\n
120 grounds  0550 Sq.ft.  was handed over  to P.W.D.   on<\/p>\n
28.6.1976   as  per   letter  No.G\/II\/(3)87387\/73,  dated<\/p>\n
22.5.1976  and on 8.4.1981 as per reference  in  KKN  Dn.<\/p>\n
Letter  No.  E1\/ 87387\/73, dated  16.2.1981   and  letter<\/p>\n
No.KKNS\/4758\/79, dated 20.3.1981 etc.    Therefore,   the<\/p>\n
above  referred  to  communications  of  the  Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing   Board  for  whom  the  acquisition   was   made<\/p>\n
considered  along   with the  fact that  in  the  revenue<\/p>\n
records  the necessary name transfer, namely,   that  the<\/p>\n
name   of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board  having  been<\/p>\n
incorporated  it  was  abundantly made  clear  that   the<\/p>\n
subject  land   was in the physical and legal  possession<\/p>\n
of  the  Tamil Nadu Housing Board  after the  acquisition<\/p>\n
and   that  the  land  meant  for  the  construction   of<\/p>\n
Government  Peripheral Hospital  from the acquired  lands<\/p>\n
was  duly  entrusted  with P.W.D. for carrying  out   the<\/p>\n
necessary construction. Therefore, as against the   above<\/p>\n
documents,   which  emanated   from  the  office  of  the<\/p>\n
revenue  Authorities and  the Housing  Board  authorities<\/p>\n
coupled   along  with  the stand of  the  original  owner<\/p>\n
herself  in her reply notice, dated  31.3.1998 making  it<\/p>\n
clear   that  the Housing Board and the Government   were<\/p>\n
in   absolute  possession of the  subject land,  the sale<\/p>\n
deeds,  dated  15.3.1996 in stating that  the  very  same<\/p>\n
lands  were in the possession  of the original owner  was<\/p>\n
nothing  but a blatant lie.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      50. Above all,  the further statement  contained in<\/p>\n
the  sale  deeds, dated  15.3.1996, that  the  purchasers<\/p>\n
were  in possession of the  said land  long prior to  the<\/p>\n
execution  of  the said sale deed can only be  considered<\/p>\n
as a statement  made without any scruples  with a view to<\/p>\n
play  a  fraud  on the State Government   and  the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu Housing Board.  When such a conclusion  based on the<\/p>\n
consideration   of the above referred  to  documents   is<\/p>\n
inevitable   as regards the transaction made  in the sale<\/p>\n
deeds,  dated  15.3.1996, it will have to be   held  that<\/p>\n
any subsequent  transaction  based on the said sale deeds<\/p>\n
will  also  be  absolutely   invalid   in  law   and   no<\/p>\n
credence   can  be  attached  to any  of  the  subsequent<\/p>\n
transactions based on the  above referred to  sale deeds.<\/p>\n
      51.  In the said light,  when the stand of the 11th<\/p>\n
respondent   that  he was the bona fide   purchaser    is<\/p>\n
considered,  here  again,   we  do  not  find   even    a<\/p>\n
semblance  of   genuineness in the said claim.   In  this<\/p>\n
context,   the learned Senior Counsel appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
11th respondent  as well as  other learned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the  respondents 12 to 64  wanted to  place<\/p>\n
heavy  reliance upon the proceedings  emanated  from  the<\/p>\n
Office  of the  Urban Land  Ceiling Authorities  and  the<\/p>\n
Office of the Deputy Secretary to Government.<\/p>\n
     52. In the first place,  when we consider the  stand<\/p>\n
of  the   11th respondent  based on the sale deed,  dated<\/p>\n
1.12.2004,   it will be  worthwhile to  refer to  certain<\/p>\n
recitals  and  particulars  contained in  the  said  sale<\/p>\n
deed.  Unlike,  the earlier sale deed, dated   15.3.1996,<\/p>\n
where  there  is  no   reference   to  the   prior  title<\/p>\n
except   a deed of settlement, dated 6.12.1967  in favour<\/p>\n
of  Rajalakshmiammal, in the sale deed, dated   1.12.2004<\/p>\n
for  the  first time, we find reference to  the ownership<\/p>\n
in  respect  of the entire  5.90 acres  in  S.No.297   as<\/p>\n
originally   owned     by   one   Mr.K.   Shanmugasundara<\/p>\n
Mudaliar. He is stated  to have  bequeathed  the property<\/p>\n
in  favour of his wife  Mrs. Sowbhagyammal   in his  last<\/p>\n
registered    will,  dated   16.10.1927  registered    as<\/p>\n
document  No.92\/1927 in the Office of the Sub  Registrar,<\/p>\n
West  Madras.  After  the ownership of Mrs.Sowbhagyammal,<\/p>\n
it  is  stated   that   since  she  had  no  issues,  the<\/p>\n
property   reverted   to the brothers of  Shanmugasundara<\/p>\n
Mudaliar,   namely,   Sivanandan  Mudaliar,    Sivalingam<\/p>\n
Mudaliar,  and  Somasundara Mudaliar.  Thereafter,  there<\/p>\n
was  a  civil suit  in O.S.No.43\/51  on the file  of  the<\/p>\n
Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu,  in  which  a<\/p>\n
compromise was entered on  28.2.1953  pursuant  to  which<\/p>\n
the  property  came  to  be  possessed   by   Somasundara<\/p>\n
Mudaliar   and Velu Mudaliar.  Subsequently,  there was a<\/p>\n
partition between Somasundara Mudaliar  and Velu Mudaliar<\/p>\n
on  3.3.1954  by way of  a registered document  No.527\/54<\/p>\n
in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Saidapet. It is based<\/p>\n
on the  said partition deed,  Velu Mudaliar was stated to<\/p>\n
have   owned   the  property, who in turn   executed  the<\/p>\n
settlement deed, dated  6.12.1967 registered as  document<\/p>\n
No.3490\/67 in the Office of the Sub Registrar,  T.  Nagar<\/p>\n
in favour of  his wife Rajalakshmi Ammal.<\/p>\n
      53.  Apart  from  tracing  the above title,   there<\/p>\n
were  two  other  references  in  the  sale  deed,  dated<\/p>\n
1.12.2004.  There was also a reference to award No.14\/64,<\/p>\n
dated  31.7.1964  and   the   subsequent  G.O.Ms.No.1031,<\/p>\n
dated  31.10.1973  in and by which  exemption   of   0.95<\/p>\n
acres   was  made from the acquisition.   There   is  one<\/p>\n
other  reference  in the said sale deed  which  reads  as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “Whereas the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
\n       subsequently  acquired an  extent  of  only
\n       4.05 acres  out of  5.90 acres  in S.No.297
\n       of   Kodambakkam Village in award No. 5\/74,
\n       dated   4.1.1974  and  due to  encroachment
\n       an extent of  0.90 acres, i.e.,  A, B and C
\n       Schedule   mentioned  property   was   also
\n       excluded   from the revised award   No.5\/74
\n       ad   it   remain in possession of  Mrs.  V.
\n       Rajalakshmi Ammal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/p>\n
      54.  The  above referred to recitals  in  the  said<\/p>\n
document     are  not  supported  by  either  the   award<\/p>\n
No.5\/74,   dated   4.1.1974  or by the statement  of  the<\/p>\n
original   owner   Mrs. Rajalakshmiammal   herself.    In<\/p>\n
fact,   the extent  mentioned  as 4.05 acres in the  said<\/p>\n
paragraph is quite misleading. When we refer to the award<\/p>\n
No.5\/74,  dated  4.1.1975,   we  find  that   the  extent<\/p>\n
mentioned therein is  4.95 acres in S.No.297.  The  xerox<\/p>\n
copy  of  the   said  document, dated 1.12.2004  disclose<\/p>\n
that   the  same  had  been  signed   by  the  authorised<\/p>\n
signatory   of  Power Agent  M\/s.TVS Finance  &  Services<\/p>\n
Ltd., as well as the  three purchasers  mentioned in that<\/p>\n
document.   The sale consideration was  a  total  sum  of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,05,00,000\/-  (Rupees Three  Crores  and  Five  Lakhs<\/p>\n
only).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      55.  It is quite shocking  to note that    such   a<\/p>\n
valuable consideration running to more than rupees  three<\/p>\n
crores   was  paid  by  the 11th  respondent  and  others<\/p>\n
without even verifying the  correctness  of the statement<\/p>\n
that the extent  was only  4.05 acres  or  4.95 acres  in<\/p>\n
the   award   No.5\/74.  It  is  not  known  whether   due<\/p>\n
verification  was made  by the 11th respondent   and  the<\/p>\n
other  purchasers  as to the veracity  of  the  statement<\/p>\n
contained  in  the  said paragraph.  When  award  No.5\/74<\/p>\n
clearly  mentions the extent of land  as 4.95  acres,  we<\/p>\n
can  only   state that the mentioning of the said  extent<\/p>\n
in  the  said award  as 4.05 acres  was nothing   but   a<\/p>\n
deliberate  mis-statement made   either  to  satisfy  the<\/p>\n
vendor   or  the purchaser or as directed  by  either  of<\/p>\n
them.    Certainly,   we are  unable to  comprehend   the<\/p>\n
intention   or   the purpose for which such a  deliberate<\/p>\n
mis-statement  was made  in the sale deed with  reference<\/p>\n
to  the extent of the land  in as much as the extent   of<\/p>\n
the land was the crucial aspect in the said sale deed  as<\/p>\n
otherwise,    no  valid  title   would  pass  on  to  the<\/p>\n
purchaser.  Therefore,  we are  constrained   to  comment<\/p>\n
upon   the  lack  of  truthfulness as regards  the   said<\/p>\n
recitals.   Apart from the mis-statement about the extent<\/p>\n
of land, one other statement mentioning that an extent of<\/p>\n
0.90  acres   in the schedule  A, B and C properties  was<\/p>\n
excluded  in the award No.5\/74, dated 4.1.1975   due   to<\/p>\n
the   encroachment, which is also not   a  true  one   or<\/p>\n
correct statement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          56. In fact  on a reading  of the order,  dated<\/p>\n
31.10.1991,  in  W.P.No.1172\/1985, the only  encroachment<\/p>\n
noted  was   in  S.No.297\/2,  and  because  of  the  said<\/p>\n
encroachment,    it  was  stated    that   G.O.Ms.No.1031<\/p>\n
Housing,  dated   31.10.1973 came to  be  made  excluding<\/p>\n
those  lands.   There was  a specific reference   in  the<\/p>\n
said  order to the effect that those excluded lands  were<\/p>\n
not  in  the possession of the original owner since   she<\/p>\n
had  laid out  those lands  as plots  and  sold them   to<\/p>\n
17 persons.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      57.  Except  the above reference contained  in  the<\/p>\n
said  proceedings, in no other proceedings  or  was there<\/p>\n
any other  document  which has been  placed before us  to<\/p>\n
show  that  there was  any noted encroachment  by  anyone<\/p>\n
much  less,  the  purchasers in  the  sale  deeds,  dated<\/p>\n
15.3.1996  or any one  claiming through them. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the  said  recital  as regards the 0.90 cents   in  Award<\/p>\n
No.5\/74  was  another  deliberate  incorrect  and   false<\/p>\n
statement made  with a view to play  a fraud  against the<\/p>\n
State  as well as the Tamil Nadu Housing Board   to  grab<\/p>\n
their lands.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      58.  From  the  above discussion,   we  can  safely<\/p>\n
conclude   that  neither  based  on  sale  deeds,   dated<\/p>\n
15.3.1996,  nor  the  sale  deed,  dated  1.12.2004   any<\/p>\n
person, much less,  the 11th respondent and the  other so-<\/p>\n
called  purchasers  derived  any valid  title  in respect<\/p>\n
of  the 0.90 acres falling under S.No.297\/1. On the other<\/p>\n
hand,   the said lands,  as already stated by us continue<\/p>\n
to  be  owned  and in the possession of  the  Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing Board  right from the date  of the award No.5\/74,<\/p>\n
dated   4.1.1975 and there was no scope for  any one   to<\/p>\n
claim  possession   other  than the  Tamil  Nadu  Housing<\/p>\n
Board.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      59.  The  other  materials relied   upon  to  claim<\/p>\n
possession     and  consequential   ownership   are   the<\/p>\n
proceedings  of the  Urban Land Ceiling authorities.   As<\/p>\n
far  as  the  said  claim  is  concerned,   the   initial<\/p>\n
document is the notification, dated  7.2.1996  under  the<\/p>\n
provisions  of  the  Tamil Nadu Urban Land  (Ceiling  and<\/p>\n
Regulation) Act, 1978.  The extent mentioned therein   is<\/p>\n
0.36.50   in  S.No.297\/1C   part. The  notification  also<\/p>\n
states that  it was owned  by Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal.  As<\/p>\n
per  the   notification, the said land   deemed  to  have<\/p>\n
acquired  by the State Government   on and from 1.3.96 by<\/p>\n
virtue of Section 11(1) of the 1978 Act.<\/p>\n
      60.  With  reference   to  the  said  notification,<\/p>\n
significantly  there was  no  proceedings  initiated   at<\/p>\n
the instance  of  Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal, at any point of<\/p>\n
time,   prior  to  the filing of the   Writ  Petition  in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.20552 of 2003.  The  said writ petition came to be<\/p>\n
filed  in  the year 2003 contending that  since  the 1978<\/p>\n
Act    had   been  repealed  and  since   the  petitioner<\/p>\n
continue   to   remain   in  possession,   the   impugned<\/p>\n
acquisition  under  the 1978 Act stood  abated.    It  is<\/p>\n
true that the said writ petition  came to be ordered   on<\/p>\n
19.12.2003  in  favour  of the  petitioner   based  on  a<\/p>\n
communication,   produced    by   the   learned   Special<\/p>\n
Government  Pleader, which was said to have  been  issued<\/p>\n
by   one  Thiru.  R.M.Rajendran, Assistant  Commissioner,<\/p>\n
Urban  Land  Tax,  dated 15.12.2003 confirming  that  the<\/p>\n
physical possession of the land continue  to remain  with<\/p>\n
the land owner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      61.  The writ petition was filed by none other than<\/p>\n
the  Rajalakshmi  herself.  In the first  place,   it  is<\/p>\n
quite  shocking   to note that   Tmt. Rajalakshmi  Ammal,<\/p>\n
who  had  taken  a firm stand in her reply notice,  dated<\/p>\n
31.3.1998 which also contains her signature that no  part<\/p>\n
of the land   in S.No.297\/1 remain in her possession  but<\/p>\n
on  the  other  hand,  entirety of  the  said  land   had<\/p>\n
already  been possessed  by the State Government and  the<\/p>\n
Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board can  come  forward  with  the<\/p>\n
statement  in that writ petition  that  she continue   to<\/p>\n
remain  in possession for the purpose  of  defeating  the<\/p>\n
notification,   dated    7.2.1996    issued   under   the<\/p>\n
provisions  of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978.<\/p>\n
      62. Having regard to our earlier conclusion,  based<\/p>\n
on  the  reply   notice, dated  31.3.1998 by  Rajalakshmi<\/p>\n
Ammal   herself   read   along  with     various    other<\/p>\n
proceedings that  after the acquisition  in award No.5\/74<\/p>\n
no   part  of  the  land   in  S.No.297\/1   was  in   her<\/p>\n
possession,  it  will have to be   held  that   the  said<\/p>\n
claim    made by her  in W.P.No.20552\/2003 was totally  a<\/p>\n
false  one. Merely because  the  order  came to be passed<\/p>\n
in  the  said  writ  petition  based on a  representation<\/p>\n
made   by the learned Special Government Pleader    based<\/p>\n
on  a  communication issued by the Assistant Commissioner<\/p>\n
of  Urban  Land  Tax, it cannot be concluded   that   the<\/p>\n
order   by  itself   establish  the  possession  of   the<\/p>\n
erstwhile  land owner as of  2003.  In fact  the  revenue<\/p>\n
records, namely,  Town Survey  Register  extract of which<\/p>\n
has  been  placed before us,  which was dated   16.7.2007<\/p>\n
disclose  that only  on 10.6.2004,  the transfer came  to<\/p>\n
be  effected   in the name of  T.Nedunchezian   and  four<\/p>\n
others  and   prior  to  the  said  date  the  lands   in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1   stood  only in the name of  the  Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing  Board.  The said  extract from the  Town  Survey<\/p>\n
Register  is part of the set of documents  furnished   by<\/p>\n
the office of the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities.<\/p>\n
      63. In this connection,  the set of documents filed<\/p>\n
on  behalf of the 11th respondent  as contained in  Vol.5<\/p>\n
disclose  that   the contents contained therein  were  of<\/p>\n
slippery  in  nature.  There  is a  communication,  dated<\/p>\n
5.9.1996,  from  the Special Deputy Collector(LA),  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu Housing Board Schemes, Madras-35,  addressed to  the<\/p>\n
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In the  last<\/p>\n
part  of that letter a recommendation has been made  that<\/p>\n
the claim of Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal for exclusion of 0.90<\/p>\n
acres in S.No.297\/1  deserve consideration.<\/p>\n
      64.  It  will have to be  stated that  the  Special<\/p>\n
Deputy Collector(LA) of  Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes<\/p>\n
had  no  authority to make such a recommendation.   Along<\/p>\n
with  the  said letter,  a rough sketch has been prepared<\/p>\n
to  make it appear  as though the subject land  was  left<\/p>\n
out.  There were certain other sketches prepared  in  the<\/p>\n
Office  of the  Assistant Commissioner,  Urban Land  Tax,<\/p>\n
Kunrathur making it appear as though the S.No.297\/1   was<\/p>\n
further  sub-divided as S.Nos. 297\/1A, 297\/1B and 297\/1C.<\/p>\n
For   making   such  a  reference   to  the  various  sub<\/p>\n
divisions,  there  was  no supporting   revenue  records.<\/p>\n
There  was one other communication, dated 31.5.2004 which<\/p>\n
came  to  be issued after the order of this Court,  dated<\/p>\n
19.12.2003  passed  in  W.P.No.20552 of  2003.  The  said<\/p>\n
letter  was  addressed  by the very  same  R.M.Rajendran,<\/p>\n
Assistant Commissioner,  Urban Land Tax, who is stated to<\/p>\n
have  instructed  the learned Special Government  Pleader<\/p>\n
in writing  to make  a statement  in W.P.No.20552 of 2003<\/p>\n
that   possession    continue  to  remain     with   Tmt.<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmi Ammal, the petitioner  in that writ petition.<\/p>\n
By  this communication,  dated 31.5.2004 addressed to the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar,   the  Assistant  Commissioner,   wanted   the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar   to carry out necessary changes  in the  Taluk<\/p>\n
and  Village  accounts in the name of  Rajalakshmi  Ammal<\/p>\n
and  report compliance   so as to  enable  him to send  a<\/p>\n
report to the Special Commissioner  and  Commissioner  of<\/p>\n
Land Reforms.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      65. The land  delivery  receipt  is also found   in<\/p>\n
Vol.V   to state that the land  was  handed over  by  the<\/p>\n
Urban Land Tax Authorities  to the Revenue Inspector   of<\/p>\n
Mambalam-Guindy   Taluk.  Thereafter,   the   very   same<\/p>\n
R.M.Rajendran,  the  Assistant   Commissioner,   in   his<\/p>\n
communication  addressed to the Special Commissioner  and<\/p>\n
Commissioner (ULC & ULT), dated  8.4.2004, reported  that<\/p>\n
the   order   of   this  Court,  dated   19.12.2003    in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.20552 of 2003  can be accepted  based on  a  legal<\/p>\n
opinion.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     66. Having regard to the discussions  with reference<\/p>\n
to  the  above  documents, we  hold  that   none  of  the<\/p>\n
statements contained   in the above referred to documents<\/p>\n
contained  in  Vol.5   were supported   by  any   legally<\/p>\n
acceptable  basic revenue records  to hold   that   there<\/p>\n
was   any change  in the character of the land from  that<\/p>\n
of, namely, as possessed by the  Tamil Nadu Housing Board<\/p>\n
after the award No.5\/74, dated  4.1.1975 to have lawfully<\/p>\n
transferred  back  to  the  original  owner   Rajalakshmi<\/p>\n
Ammal   in order for the Urban Land  Ceiling  Authorities<\/p>\n
to initiate any proceedings for acquisition under Section<\/p>\n
11(1)  of  the 1978 Act and thereafter,  for the original<\/p>\n
owner  to claim  retention of the  land  after the repeal<\/p>\n
of   the   1978  Act.  We  can  only  conclude  that  the<\/p>\n
proceedings emanated  from the Office of the  Urban  Land<\/p>\n
Ceiling  Authorities  were one other  set  of  documents,<\/p>\n
which  might have been designedly made  with a  view   to<\/p>\n
support   other  fraudulent   transactions,  which   were<\/p>\n
perpetrated from the date of execution of the sale deeds,<\/p>\n
dated 15.3.1996.  Here again,  we want to stress upon the<\/p>\n
stand   of the original owner Rajalakshmi Ammal   in  her<\/p>\n
reply  notice, dated 31.3.1998  in having stated   in  no<\/p>\n
uncertain  terms that after the  acquisition under  award<\/p>\n
No.5\/74,  the  possession  of the  lands   in  S.No.297\/1<\/p>\n
changed  hands, i.e. in favour of the  Tamil Nadu Housing<\/p>\n
Board   and  thereafter,  she  was  never  put  back   in<\/p>\n
possession of those lands.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           67.  When the notification, dated 7.2.1996  is<\/p>\n
considered along with the subsequent proceedings  of  the<\/p>\n
Urban   Land  Ceiling  Authorities,   it  has  not   been<\/p>\n
disclosed   as  to  whether  there was any  consideration<\/p>\n
about  the  land acquisition proceedings which culminated<\/p>\n
in the award No.5\/1974, dated  4.1.1975 and the change of<\/p>\n
name of ownership  from that  of   Rajalakshmi Ammal   to<\/p>\n
that  of   Tamil Nadu Housing Board.  For the Urban  Land<\/p>\n
Ceiling   Authorities   to  initiate  proceedings     for<\/p>\n
acquisition   of excess land, the basic  information   as<\/p>\n
to   the ownership  would  have been only from  the  land<\/p>\n
revenue  authorities,  namely,  the  concerned  Tahsildar<\/p>\n
under  whose   jurisdiction, the record of  ownership  is<\/p>\n
maintained.   The  issuance of  the  notification,  dated<\/p>\n
7.2.1996, mentioning the name of  Rajalakshmi  Ammal   as<\/p>\n
owner  of  the property  creates  serious doubts   as  to<\/p>\n
whether  at all any such notification  was issued,  after<\/p>\n
duly   ascertaining  the  ownership   of  the  lands   in<\/p>\n
question.  In any event,  when as  a matter of fact,  the<\/p>\n
ownership    in   respect  of  the  land   situated    in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1,   vested with  the Tamil Nadu  Housing  Board<\/p>\n
after  the award  dated 4.1.1975, in award No.5\/74,   the<\/p>\n
notifications   issued  in  the  year   1996  under   the<\/p>\n
provisions   of  the Urban Land Ceiling Act,  1975  would<\/p>\n
definitely  be  of  no consequence as that would not   in<\/p>\n
any  way  change the character  of  ownership  from  that<\/p>\n
of    Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board   to  that   of    Tmt.<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmiammal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            68.  Further,  when  Tmt.  Rajalakshmi  Ammal<\/p>\n
having  denounced  her  rights in  respect  of  the  land<\/p>\n
situated in  S.No.297\/1,  as could be seen from the reply<\/p>\n
notice, dated 31.3.1998, the attempted challenge  to  the<\/p>\n
notification, dated  7.2.1996 in the year  2003  was  yet<\/p>\n
another  deliberate attempt to hoodwink  the  authorities<\/p>\n
and  to manipulate the proceedings  in order to grab  the<\/p>\n
Government land  by some hook or crook.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           69.  Since   W.P.No.20552 of 2003  challenging<\/p>\n
the  notification,  dated  7.2.1996  has  been  filed  by<\/p>\n
Tmt.Rajalakshmi  Ammal  by swearing to an  affidavit   as<\/p>\n
verified   by us  from the original papers  of that  writ<\/p>\n
petition,   we can only state that  the said  attempt  of<\/p>\n
Tmt.  Rajalakshmi  Ammal  was  a  deliberate   fraudulent<\/p>\n
attempt  to regain ownership  with reference to the  land<\/p>\n
situated  in S.No.297\/1 which had been lawfully  acquired<\/p>\n
by  the  State  Government  under  award  No.5\/74,  dated<\/p>\n
4.1.1975.  The filing of the said writ petition   was   a<\/p>\n
clear case of abuse of process of this Court, in as  much<\/p>\n
as in that  writ petition, this Court  had no opportunity<\/p>\n
to  examine  the correctness of the ownership claimed  by<\/p>\n
Tmt.Rajalakshmi   Ammal   since    unfortunately,     the<\/p>\n
Assistant  Commissioner of Urban  Land  Ceiling   himself<\/p>\n
reported  to  the learned Special Government  Pleader  in<\/p>\n
writing asserting as though Tmt. Rajalakshmi Ammal    was<\/p>\n
the   owner   and  that   she   continue  to  remain   in<\/p>\n
possession.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           70.  In  the  light of such  statement  placed<\/p>\n
before  this  Court,  the order came  to  be  passed   in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.20552  of 2003  on 19.12.2003, holding  that   the<\/p>\n
Urban  Land  Ceiling  Proceedings  in  the  notification,<\/p>\n
dated   7.2.1996 abated  after the repeal   of  the  1978<\/p>\n
Act.  The conduct of the Assistant Commissioner  of Urban<\/p>\n
Land Ceiling  in having made such a report  in writing to<\/p>\n
the  learned Special Government Pleader creates   serious<\/p>\n
doubts   as to whether there was diligent  discharge   of<\/p>\n
duties  in having  made such a report  before this Court.<\/p>\n
Merely  because,   the said authority   was   functioning<\/p>\n
under the provisions  of the Urban Land Ceiling Act,   it<\/p>\n
did  not  mean   that he was not  expected  to  ascertain<\/p>\n
the correct position as regards ownership of any property<\/p>\n
before  making   any such statement  in writing  in  this<\/p>\n
Court.   The minimum  that was  expected of an  authority<\/p>\n
of  that level, namely,  the Assistant Commissioner,  was<\/p>\n
to have ascertained from the  Town Survey  Register which<\/p>\n
definitely  contained an entry as regards  the  lands  in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1 to the effect  that  it belonged to the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu  Housing Board. In fact,   from the records   placed<\/p>\n
before  us    by  the 11th respondent   as  contained  in<\/p>\n
Volume  III  page 4, we find  a copy of the  village  sub<\/p>\n
divisions  statement   of   Kodambakkam  Division    with<\/p>\n
reference  to the S.No.297\/1 in which after the  name  of<\/p>\n
the  original owner Velu Mudaliar, the name of the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu Government has been recorded. The said statement has<\/p>\n
been  attested  by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land<\/p>\n
Tax,  T.Nagar. The said statement apparently  was  issued<\/p>\n
long  prior to the order passed in W.P.No.20552 of  2003,<\/p>\n
dated   19.12.2003.  Therefore,  the Urban  Land  Ceiling<\/p>\n
Authorities cannot be heard to say that  in spite of  the<\/p>\n
said  record  maintained  in the Office of the Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
Mambalam,   Guindly   Taluk,  the  Urban   Land   Ceiling<\/p>\n
Authorities   were  still  able  to   state   that   Tmt.<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmiammal   was  the owner  of  the  property   in<\/p>\n
respect of S.No.297\/1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           71.  Therefore,  no reliance   can  be  placed<\/p>\n
upon   the   proceedings   of  the  Urban  Land   Ceiling<\/p>\n
Authorities in order to state  that  the purchase made by<\/p>\n
the   11th  respondent   on  1.12.2004  was   made  after<\/p>\n
ascertaining the ownership of the predecessors  in title,<\/p>\n
namely,  M\/s. Neduncheziyan and others and prior to  them<\/p>\n
Tmt.  Rajalakshmi Ammal  herself. Therefore,  we have  to<\/p>\n
necessarily  reject  any submission  made  based  on  the<\/p>\n
proceedings  of  the Urban Land Ceiling  Authorities   in<\/p>\n
order to state   that  the  11th respondent was bona fide<\/p>\n
mislead, while  ascertaining the  ownership of the  lands<\/p>\n
in  S.No.297\/1 and consequently, the subsequent  purchase<\/p>\n
of    flats    by   other   respondents   12    to    64.\n<\/p>\n
72.  It  will  also be  appropriate to mention   at  this<\/p>\n
juncture  that the transfer of  ownership   recorded   in<\/p>\n
the  Town Survey  Register on 10.6.2004 appeared to  have<\/p>\n
been  made  based on two proceedings, namely,  one  dated<\/p>\n
19.1.2001  of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board  and  the  one<\/p>\n
dated  31.5.2004 by the Assistant Commissioner  of  Urban<\/p>\n
Land  Tax Authorities. We have discussed at length as  to<\/p>\n
how   the  proceedings  of the Urban Land Tax Authorities<\/p>\n
cannot    be  given   any  credence   to  ascertain   the<\/p>\n
ownership  of the land  as claimed  by Rajalakshmi Ammal.<\/p>\n
As  far  as the proceedings, dated  19.1.2001 issued   by<\/p>\n
the  Tamil  Nadu Housing Board, we wish to refer  to  the<\/p>\n
letter  subsequently issued  by the  Tamil  Nadu  Housing<\/p>\n
Board  itself, dated 30.6.2005 addressed to the Collector<\/p>\n
of Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           73.  A perusal of the said communication makes<\/p>\n
it   clear  that   after  the  award  No.5\/1974,    dated<\/p>\n
4.1.1975 and also  G.O.Ms.No.1031, dated 31.10.1973,  the<\/p>\n
land to an extent of  4.95 acres was in the possession of<\/p>\n
the  Tamil  Nadu  Housing Board and there was no  further<\/p>\n
change  in  the extent of the land  which was already  in<\/p>\n
the possession of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. There  is<\/p>\n
also  a  categorical  statement  contained  in  the  said<\/p>\n
letter, dated  30.6.2005 which reads as under:<\/p>\n
                   “The   letter  No.KKNS\/4174\/97,
\n       dated  19.1.2001 has not been issued by the
\n       Executive   Engineer   and   Administrative
\n       Officer, R.A.Nagai Division Office.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           74. Therefore,  it is quite apparent that  the<\/p>\n
proceedings   dated 19.1.2001 stated to have been  issued<\/p>\n
by the  Tamil Nadu Housing Board was one other fraudulent<\/p>\n
manipulation  in the creation of  records at the instance<\/p>\n
of the parties, who wanted to gain a hold  over the  land<\/p>\n
in S.No.297\/1.  Since the starting point for the the 11th<\/p>\n
respondent to claim title  in respect of the subject land<\/p>\n
in  S.No.297\/1 in an extent of  0.90 cents  is  the  sale<\/p>\n
deeds,  dated 15.3.1996, it will have to be  stated  that<\/p>\n
the   attempt  of  the  parties  concerned  to  grab  the<\/p>\n
Government land  must have emanated  in and around   that<\/p>\n
date,  namely,  15.3.1996,  since  it is claimed  in  the<\/p>\n
sale  deed,  dated  15.3.1996 that the   purchasers  were<\/p>\n
already  in possession,  it only goes to show that  every<\/p>\n
attempt  was made to de-fraud the State  by  manipulating<\/p>\n
the  government records  to snatch away the valuable land<\/p>\n
and make some  unlawful gains.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           75. In the above said background, the impugned<\/p>\n
order  of  the  DRO, dated 15.6.2006,  is   perused.  His<\/p>\n
conclusions    that   records  were   manipulated     and<\/p>\n
documents   were  fabricated  to suit  the needs  of  the<\/p>\n
parties   to  unlawfully  grab  the land  were  perfectly<\/p>\n
justified.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           76.  One  other  set  of  documents  on  which<\/p>\n
reliance  was  placed  upon by the  11th  respondent   to<\/p>\n
support  his claim  was the reclassification ordered   by<\/p>\n
the   C.M.D.A.,  and the subsequent notification   issued<\/p>\n
by the State Government reclassifying the land  from  one<\/p>\n
of  “institutional  zone”   to  “residential  zone”.  The<\/p>\n
C.M.D.A., issued a notification  No.R1\/3\/2005 by  way  of<\/p>\n
paper  publication  both in an English daily  and a Tamil<\/p>\n
daily.   In  the  said notification,   the  C.M.D.A.  has<\/p>\n
referred to  various requests  made  by different parties<\/p>\n
for  reclassification  of lands   in use  and the details<\/p>\n
of the same.  In Serial No.14,  the name of the applicant<\/p>\n
has  been  mentioned  as  Thiru. Ramamoorthy  and  others<\/p>\n
with   reference   to  T.S.No.14\/2,   Block   No.129   of<\/p>\n
Kodambakkam Village. The site address has been  mentioned<\/p>\n
as  Bharathidasan  Salai,   Ashok  Nagar,  Chennai.   The<\/p>\n
extent  has been shown as  0.36.7 in the  column  and the<\/p>\n
use   as  per   first  master  plan, it is mentioned   as<\/p>\n
“institutional use zone”.  In the column change  of  land<\/p>\n
use   requested   by the applicant, it  is  mentioned  as<\/p>\n
“Primary   Residential  use  zone  for  construction   of<\/p>\n
residential   building”.    At   the   bottom    of   the<\/p>\n
notification,  it  is  stated that   the  land  use  maps<\/p>\n
relating to all the above reclassification requests   are<\/p>\n
available for  inspection  in their office between  10.00<\/p>\n
A.M.   to  1.00  P.M.   on any working  day.  Thereafter,<\/p>\n
there   was    a  gazette notification, dated   22.2.2006<\/p>\n
wherein,  after referring to the power delegated  by  the<\/p>\n
Government of Tamil Nadu, the C.M.D.A. made the following<\/p>\n
variation  in  the master plan by way of  an  explanatory<\/p>\n
note,  which  was stated  as  under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “T.S.No.14\/2,   (old   S.No.279
\n       part),    Block   129,   Chennai   District
\n       classified   as  “institutional”  use  zone
\n       is    now    reclassified     as   “primary
\n       residential”   use  zone    as   per   this
\n       Notification.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           77.  By referring to the above  two documents,<\/p>\n
it  was contended on behalf  of the respondents 11 to  64<\/p>\n
that when necessary steps were taken by issuing the above<\/p>\n
notification  for  reclassification  of  the  lands  from<\/p>\n
“institutional  zone” to “primary residential  zone”   if<\/p>\n
really  any one much less,  the Tamil Nadu Housing  Board<\/p>\n
or  the  State  Government,  had  any  concern   for  the<\/p>\n
subject  land  in S.No.297\/1, the same should  have  been<\/p>\n
raised in the form of   objections or representations  to<\/p>\n
the  C.M.D.A.,  in  response to the   above  notification<\/p>\n
which  was issued on  22.2.2006.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           78. The submission was that  since   none were<\/p>\n
interested  in the property as lawful owner   other  than<\/p>\n
the  predecessor  in  title from whom  the  property  was<\/p>\n
purchased  by the 11th respondent  and others, it was too<\/p>\n
late  in  the  day   for  the Pro Bono  Publico  and  for<\/p>\n
anybody else  to interfere with the  lawful rights of the<\/p>\n
11th  respondent and the respondents 12  to  64   through<\/p>\n
him.  We are not able to appreciate  the  submission   of<\/p>\n
the  respective counsel  based on the above referred   to<\/p>\n
proceedings  of the C.M.D.A.   After all,  the  C.M.D.A.,<\/p>\n
issued  a  Notification  No.R1\/3\/05,  combining   various<\/p>\n
applications    seeking for reclassification  of  several<\/p>\n
lands,  which also called for objections from  whomsoever<\/p>\n
interested  in  those   lands.   It  will  have   to   be<\/p>\n
remembered   that  the C.M.D.A.  was not  concerned  with<\/p>\n
the  correctness  or otherwise  of the ownership   rights<\/p>\n
when    somebody    applied    to   it     seeking    for<\/p>\n
reclassification.   The C.M.D.A. is  not  the   authority<\/p>\n
concerned  to  decide ownership    right   of  any  party<\/p>\n
concerned.  Since  because it called  for  objections  as<\/p>\n
regards the  reclassification of the lands as a statutory<\/p>\n
authority,  it  cannot be  taken to mean that  by  itself<\/p>\n
created   a valid  right in favour of the  applicant  who<\/p>\n
sought  for the re-classification.  The ownership   right<\/p>\n
in respect of  any immovable property by anyone has to be<\/p>\n
established  by unimpeachable title deeds, tracing   such<\/p>\n
title   from the date of its origin.  Unless  such  title<\/p>\n
is  traced   without  any ambiguity, viz., the  immovable<\/p>\n
property  concerned,  merely  because  one  applied   for<\/p>\n
reclassification  to a statutory authority,  namely,  the<\/p>\n
C.M.D.A.,    and   that   such  authority,  subsequently,<\/p>\n
accepted      the   application    and   notified     the<\/p>\n
reclassification  cannot be taken to mean  that  on  that<\/p>\n
score   a valid title   came  to be established in favour<\/p>\n
of  the    concerned applicant  and on that   basis,  the<\/p>\n
rights  of  the original owner, in the case on hand,  the<\/p>\n
Tamil   Nadu   Housing   Board\/State   Government   would<\/p>\n
automatically  cease to exist. The submission   made   on<\/p>\n
behalf  of  the   respondents  11  to  64  on  the  above<\/p>\n
referred  to documents can only be  stated  as  a  feeble<\/p>\n
attempt    to  retain  possession of the Government  land<\/p>\n
which  possession  as claimed from the sale  deed,  dated<\/p>\n
15.3.1996  was  illegal and was nothing  but  an  attempt<\/p>\n
by  way  of   deliberate  land grabbing.   Therefore,  we<\/p>\n
reject   the   submissions  made  by   referring  to  the<\/p>\n
above  proceedings   of C.M.D.A.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           79.  One other aspect  to be examined  is  the<\/p>\n
grievance   of  the  11th   respondent  and  the    other<\/p>\n
petitioner   in  W.P.Nos.8624 and 8625   of  2007   where<\/p>\n
they  have  challenged   the orders  of the 7th  and  9th<\/p>\n
respondents,  namely,   the  Special  Commissioner    and<\/p>\n
Commissioner of  Land Administration and the  DRO,  dated<\/p>\n
28.2.2007  and  15.2.2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           80.  One  of the grievances of the  petitioner<\/p>\n
was that  the 9th respondent, namely,  D.R.O., passed his<\/p>\n
orders  levelling  very many  mala fide  and   derogatory<\/p>\n
remarks   both  against  the 11th  respondent   and   his<\/p>\n
predecessor in title and very many  statutory authorities<\/p>\n
and  that   such   serious   remarks   came  to  be  made<\/p>\n
without   giving   proper   opportunity   to  the    11th<\/p>\n
respondent.  In other words,  even  without   any  notice<\/p>\n
to  the   11th respondent, the DRO,  passed  his  orders,<\/p>\n
dated  15.6.2006,  which was confirmed   by  the  Special<\/p>\n
Commissioner   and  Commissioner of  Land  Administration<\/p>\n
without passing  a reasoned  order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           81.  To  buttress  the above  stand,   it  was<\/p>\n
contended   on  behalf  of  the  State  that   the   11th<\/p>\n
respondent    was   issued    with    a   notice,   dated<\/p>\n
24.3.2006,   wherein, while directing him not to  proceed<\/p>\n
with   the   construction,  he was   informed  about  the<\/p>\n
pending proceedings  as regards the grant  of patta    in<\/p>\n
the  Office  of the District Collector. It was therefore,<\/p>\n
contended that  since  specific intimation  was  given to<\/p>\n
him as regards the patta proceedings,  he cannot be heard<\/p>\n
to  say that  he had no notice. However,  when we examine<\/p>\n
the   various   records   placed  before  us,   even  the<\/p>\n
original  records,  culminating  in the  order  of   DRO,<\/p>\n
dated  15.6.2006, we were not able to  find  any specific<\/p>\n
notice    having  been  issued   to the  11th  respondent<\/p>\n
calling  upon  him  to  attend any  enquiry   before  the<\/p>\n
D.R.O.,  for cancellation of patta.  In the order,  dated<\/p>\n
15.6.2006,   the  D.R.O. himself   has  mentioned    that<\/p>\n
enquiry   was   conducted  on  various   dates,   between<\/p>\n
14.6.2005 and 31.3.2006 and one Thiru. Chitrarasu one  of<\/p>\n
the  respondents   appeared  for  the  enquiry   only  on<\/p>\n
9.8.2005,  13.10.2005  and  28.2.2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            82.   It   is  also   stated   that   despite<\/p>\n
information to Thiru.MahendrakumarJain, Thiru.Udhayakumar<\/p>\n
and  Thiru. Ramamoorthy Saravanakumar representing  Metro<\/p>\n
Steel  Rolling Mills Ltd., they did  not  appear for  the<\/p>\n
enquiry  and  that   the respondent  Thiru.  T.Chitrarasu<\/p>\n
claimed   that    he    represented  other    respondents<\/p>\n
including  Mahendra Kumar Jain and others.  However,  the<\/p>\n
fact  remains that  no specific notice appeared  to  have<\/p>\n
been   issued  to  the  11th  respondent  or  Ramamoorthy<\/p>\n
Saravanakumar  or Mr.Mahendra Kumar Jain.<\/p>\n
          83. A copy of the order, dated 15.6.2006 of the<\/p>\n
D.R.O.  was  however,  sent   to  Mahendra  Kumar   Jain,<\/p>\n
Director  of   Metro  Steel  Rolling  Mills  Pvt.   Ltd.,<\/p>\n
through    the   11th   respondent   and   Mr.Ramamoorthy<\/p>\n
Sarvanakumar.   As  far   as  the  appellate  authority’s<\/p>\n
order,   dated   28.2.2007,  passed    by   the   Special<\/p>\n
Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration  is<\/p>\n
concerned, all parties  were duly heard.  As far  as  the<\/p>\n
said  order  is  concerned,  the grievance  of  the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent  is  that there  was total non application  of<\/p>\n
mind  while  passing  the said order.   In  fact,   on  a<\/p>\n
perusal  of the order, dated  28.2.2007, we   find   that<\/p>\n
the   authority has merely referred to various  documents<\/p>\n
in  the  major  part of his order and  in the penultimate<\/p>\n
para of the order, he reached an abrupt conclusion that a<\/p>\n
perusal  of the  entire records disclosed  that the  suit<\/p>\n
lands   in  S.No.297\/1  covered by award No.5\/74,   dated<\/p>\n
4.1.1975  was handed over  to P.W.D.  for construction of<\/p>\n
Government Peripheral Hospital  and therefore, the  order<\/p>\n
of  the  D.R.O.,  dated  15.6.2006   does  not  call  for<\/p>\n
interference.    Though   such  infirmities  as   regards<\/p>\n
service  of  notice did exist   in respect of  the  above<\/p>\n
referred  to   orders of the  D.R.O.,   and  the  Special<\/p>\n
Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, we<\/p>\n
feel   that  on that score also there is no need to  call<\/p>\n
upon   those  authorities   to  renew   the  proceedings.<\/p>\n
Since    whatever    grievance    the   petitioners    in<\/p>\n
W.P.Nos.8624  and 8625 of 2007,  wanted  to  urge  before<\/p>\n
those  authorities were elaborately addressed before  us,<\/p>\n
we feel that there  would be  no point in directing those<\/p>\n
authorities to reopen  those proceedings   since  we have<\/p>\n
considered   all  the above  referred to  submissions  in<\/p>\n
detail   and  have   reached   a  conclusion   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner, namely,  the 11th respondent  in  W.P.No.8624<\/p>\n
of   2007  and  the other petitioner in  W.P.No.8625   of<\/p>\n
2007   have no valid right   in respect of 0.90 cents  in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1  for  the reasons  we have  adduced   in  this<\/p>\n
order.   Those  orders  of the D.R.O.,  and  the  Special<\/p>\n
Commissioner  and  Commissioner of  Land  Administration,<\/p>\n
dated  15.6.2006  and 28.2.207, respectively,  therefore,<\/p>\n
do not  call  for any interference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           84. One  other  issue raised on behalf of  the<\/p>\n
11th  respondent was the locus standi of  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
and  the  interloper   in  filing  this  Public  Interest<\/p>\n
Litigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          85. Submissions were also made on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondents    11  to  64  casting  serious    aspersions<\/p>\n
against  the interloper as well as the pro bono  publico.<\/p>\n
As   far  as  the  interloper   Mr.Arumuga  Pandian   was<\/p>\n
concerned,   it was contended that   he himself  did  not<\/p>\n
have valid  right  in respect of the  lands in S.No.297\/1<\/p>\n
and  that  he made every attempt   to  grab the land   by<\/p>\n
resorting to various   litigations  and that   since   he<\/p>\n
failed  in some of the proceedings filed  in this  Court,<\/p>\n
he  wanted  to  wreak revenge on the 11th  respondent  by<\/p>\n
setting  up  the   pro bono publico  under  the  garb  of<\/p>\n
public interest litigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           86.  As  far  as  the  petitioner   in  Public<\/p>\n
interest  litigation is concerned, we were taken  through<\/p>\n
certain  newspaper  representations and  certain  alleged<\/p>\n
telephonic  conversation made  by  the  said  petitioner,<\/p>\n
wherein,    he   attempted   to   blackmail    the   11th<\/p>\n
respondent     by   threatening   to  resort    to   this<\/p>\n
litigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           87. At the outset, we  are not inclined to  go<\/p>\n
into  the  details of very many  litigations  perpetrated<\/p>\n
by  the interloper   Mr. Arumuga Pandian  since  we  have<\/p>\n
come  to   a  definite conclusion  based on  the  various<\/p>\n
materials  placed before us that  the  subject  land   in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1   absolutely  belonged  to  the   Tamil   Nadu<\/p>\n
Housing  Board   and nobody else  has got  any  right  in<\/p>\n
respect  of the said property. When  we come  to  such  a<\/p>\n
definite  conclusion  as regards  the subject  land,  the<\/p>\n
litigations  perpetrated by the interloper  are   of   no<\/p>\n
consequence.    In other words,  the said  conclusion  of<\/p>\n
ours as regards the subject land would  operate  not only<\/p>\n
as  against the 11th respondent  and  the respondents  12<\/p>\n
to  64   but also against the interloper Arumuga  Pandian<\/p>\n
himself.   In the Public Interest Litigation, the role of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner  or  anyone  supporting   the  petitioner<\/p>\n
would   be only to  bring to the notice of the Court  the<\/p>\n
predominant  public interest  involved   and  thereafter,<\/p>\n
it  is for the Court  to examine whether any real  public<\/p>\n
interest is involved or not in the PIL.  In the event  of<\/p>\n
the  Court  finding a predominant  public interest, which<\/p>\n
required   to be safeguarded, the Court  will take  every<\/p>\n
effort   to  safeguard    such  interest    and  in  that<\/p>\n
process,   there  is  no scope for  anyone  to  gain  any<\/p>\n
personal  advantage much less by the petitioner concerned<\/p>\n
or anyone supporting the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           88. Viewed in that angle, we hold that when in<\/p>\n
the public  interest  litigation,  the issue  related  to<\/p>\n
protection of the State owned  housing board lands   from<\/p>\n
the  clutches  of the land grabbers and  once  this Court<\/p>\n
is  able  to   ascertain   the  status   of  the  subject<\/p>\n
property  as  the  property of the   Housing  Board   and<\/p>\n
appropriate  orders  can be issued   for  protecting  the<\/p>\n
status  of the property, viz, the Housing Board, then  it<\/p>\n
will  be  a  wasteful  exercise  if the  allegations  and<\/p>\n
counter  allegations   as between  the  petitioner,   the<\/p>\n
interloper  and   the  11th  respondent   are   seriously<\/p>\n
discussed  in  this order. Therefore, we  reiterate  that<\/p>\n
such  allegations and counter  allegations which  are  to<\/p>\n
very large extent personal  as between the petitioner  in<\/p>\n
the  public interest litigation, the interloper  and  the<\/p>\n
11th  respondent they are not germane  to the real public<\/p>\n
interest   to be protected and therefore sans  of   those<\/p>\n
allegations,  we wish  to save the land  of  the  Housing<\/p>\n
Board  and  protect  its possession in  the  interest  of<\/p>\n
public  at large.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           89.  As  far as the petitioner  was concerned,<\/p>\n
as  stated   by us  earlier,  it was contended  that   he<\/p>\n
claimed  ransom for not raising  this issue and since the<\/p>\n
11th respondent  refused to budge to his demand  with   a<\/p>\n
view  to  wreak vengence,  he has come forward  with this<\/p>\n
Public Interest Litigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           90.  As  far as the interloper, Thiru. Arumuga<\/p>\n
Pandian  is  concerned,  it  was   contended   that    he<\/p>\n
himself  was one of  the  encroachers   and  in order  to<\/p>\n
restore  his unlawful possession, he perpetrated  several<\/p>\n
litigations    and  since  he could   not   secure    any<\/p>\n
orders   in  any  of those proceedings, he   set  up  the<\/p>\n
petitioner   by  furnishing  all the materials   to  file<\/p>\n
this litigation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           91. We reiterate  that we are not inclined  to<\/p>\n
go  into the correctness or otherwise  of the allegations<\/p>\n
levelled  against the petitioner  in the  PIL.,  or   the<\/p>\n
interloper   since based on the materials placed   before<\/p>\n
us,  both  by the petitioner  as well as the respondents,<\/p>\n
we are convinced  that  the  11th respondent  himself was<\/p>\n
not   legally entitled to  remain in possession, inasmuch<\/p>\n
as   the  subject  land  belongs to the  State   and  the<\/p>\n
Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board. As per  various  proceedings<\/p>\n
issued  by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the subject land<\/p>\n
was  allotted  for  the  construction  of   a  peripheral<\/p>\n
hospital  in a Housing Board colony.  On this aspect,  we<\/p>\n
also  wish  to  refer to  few decisions  of  the  Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme  Court, where  the scope  of  the PIL   has  been<\/p>\n
elaborately  dealt with  and guidelines have  been  given<\/p>\n
to  deal  with  such litigations. The said decisions  are<\/p>\n
reported   in  2004(3) SCC 349  Ashok Kumar  Pandey   Vs.<\/p>\n
West Bengal,  2004(3) SCC 363 and 2004 (5) CTC  748.<\/p>\n
           92.  In  2004 (3) SCC 349, the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  has succinctly stated the position in pargraph 12.<\/p>\n
The  said  position was reiterated  in 2004 (3) SCC  363.<\/p>\n
In  the  said  decision in paragraphs 4, 14 and  15,  the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court  has explained  how to handle  such<\/p>\n
public interest  litigation  which reads as under:-<\/p>\n
                  “4. ………………There must
\n       be    real   and  genuine  public  interest
\n       involved in the litigation and concrete  or
\n       credible  basis  for maintaining   a  cause
\n       before  court and not merely  an  adventure
\n       of  a  knight  errant  borne out of wishful
\n       thinking.   It cannot also  be invoked   by
\n       a  person  or a body of persons  to further
\n       his  or  their  personal causes  or satisfy
\n       his  or  their personal grudge  and enmity.
\n       Courts  of  justice  should not be  allowed
\n       to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
\n       resorting     to     the      extraordinary
\n       jurisdiction.   The  credibility   of  such
\n       claims  or litigations should  be  adjudged
\n       on  the  creditworthiness  of the materials
\n       averred  and  not  even on the  credentials
\n       claimed  of the person moving the courts in
\n       such cases. ………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   14.   The  Court  has   to   be
\n       satisfied   about: (a) the credentials   of
\n       the   applicant;   (b)  the   prima   facie
\n       correctness    or  nature  of   information
\n       given  by   him;  and (c)  the  information
\n       being   not  vague   and  indefinite.   The
\n       information   should  show   gravity    and
\n       seriousness  involved. Court has to  strike
\n       a    balance   between    two   conflicting
\n       interests: (i) nobody should be allowed  to
\n       indulge   in  wild and reckless allegations
\n       besmirching  the character  of others;  and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii) avoidance  of public mischief  and  to
\n       avoid   mischievous  petitions  seeking  to
\n       assail,   for  oblique motives, justifiable
\n       executive actions.”  …………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  15. Courts  must  do justice  by
\n       promotion of  good faith, and prevent   law
\n       from   crafty    invasions.   Courts   must
\n       maintain     the   social    balance     by
\n       interfering  where necessary  for the  sake
\n       of  justice  and refuse to interfere  where
\n       it  is  against  the  social  interest  and
\n       public good. (See State of  Maharashtra Vs.
\n       Prabhu and A.P. State Financial Corpn.   V.
\n       Gar Re-Rolling Mills.)<\/a>”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            93.   When  we  apply   the  above  standards<\/p>\n
prescribed  by the Hon’ble Supreme Court  to the case  on<\/p>\n
hand  and  having regard to the caution outlined  by  the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court,  we made  a detailed  reference to<\/p>\n
the   various  materials  in order to  ensure  that under<\/p>\n
the guise of PIL anyone’s  private interest should not be<\/p>\n
allowed to be seriously impaired.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           94.  In our considered opinion,  the materials<\/p>\n
placed    before the Court  disclose that  if  the  issue<\/p>\n
raised   in  the PIL, is not probed into,  then  it   may<\/p>\n
result   in  a  public  wrong  or public  injury, on  the<\/p>\n
other  hand,  the  issue if probed into,  then  it  would<\/p>\n
result   in  redressal  of   a  genuine   public   wrong.<\/p>\n
Further,  eschewing   the  alleged  antecedents  of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   as well as the  interloper,   having  regard<\/p>\n
to  the voluminous documents  placed  before us, we  were<\/p>\n
able   to   sift   the  materials   and   ascertain   the<\/p>\n
correctness    of  the  information  furnished   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  and the interloper  and we were  able to find<\/p>\n
out   that   such   informations  were  not  vague     or<\/p>\n
indefinite. That apart,  in our conclusion, based on such<\/p>\n
materials   and  the  information, we  could  assess  the<\/p>\n
gravity and the seriousness of the issue involved.<\/p>\n
           95.  In that process,  we could  notice   that<\/p>\n
very  valuable land to an extent  of  0.90 cents  located<\/p>\n
in  a very prime  locality surrounded  by a Housing Board<\/p>\n
Colony  occupied by  several thousands of  citizens  have<\/p>\n
been  deprived of full-fledged peripheral hospital  being<\/p>\n
set  up  by a calculated move  to grab  the said land  by<\/p>\n
twisting  and creating records  to suit the  purpose   of<\/p>\n
such land  grabbing attempt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      96.  Therefore,  though it was shown to  us    that<\/p>\n
adjacent  to  the subject land, peripheral  hospital  has<\/p>\n
been   located   and  is functioning, it will have to  be<\/p>\n
held that  it  is not for the 11th respondent or for that<\/p>\n
matter  any other encroacher to state  where and how  any<\/p>\n
land    allotted  for   a  public  purpose   should    be<\/p>\n
utilised.    When  the  subject  land  was   specifically<\/p>\n
earmarked by the State Government for the construction of<\/p>\n
a  hospital   to cater to the welfare  of the  public  at<\/p>\n
large, it cannot lie  in the mouth of   an encroacher  to<\/p>\n
state  that  a hospital with some  facilities   has  been<\/p>\n
set   up  in  the  adjacent  land  and  therefore,    the<\/p>\n
encroached   land    which  was  also   meant   for   the<\/p>\n
construction  of  a hospital should  be left out   to  be<\/p>\n
enjoyed by the  encroacher  sacrificing  the need of  the<\/p>\n
public  at large. We are not in a position  to appreciate<\/p>\n
such    a  stand   put  forth  on  behalf  of  the   11th<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      97.  All  the above factors would go to  show  that<\/p>\n
irrespective of  the allegations against  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
and   the interloper  having regard to the gravity of the<\/p>\n
issue highlighted and brought to our notice  which in our<\/p>\n
considered  opinion  is in the interest of the public  at<\/p>\n
large, we are convinced  that necessary orders should  be<\/p>\n
passed  in this PIL to ensure  that  no one  is permitted<\/p>\n
to grab the Government land earmarked for the development<\/p>\n
of such land  for the welfare  of  the public at large.<\/p>\n
      98. In such a situation,  when the  11th respondent<\/p>\n
wants   to rely  upon the orders of this Court passed  in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.20552 of 2003, dated 19.12.2003, the  order  dated<\/p>\n
19.4.2005 in W.P.No.5630 of 2005  and confirmation of the<\/p>\n
said  order  in W.A.No.420 of 2006, dated  3.4.2006   and<\/p>\n
the interim order, dated  28.3.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.9583 of<\/p>\n
2006  in  W.P.No.8618  of  2006  and  the   order   dated<\/p>\n
10.8.2006  passed in W.P.No.24456 of 2006,  we wish to be<\/p>\n
guided by  a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
reported  in  (2007)  4  Supreme Court Cases 221    (A.V.<\/p>\n
PAPAYYA  SASTRY  AND  OTHERS  VS.  GOVT.   OF   A.P.  AND<\/p>\n
OTHERS).  The principles  set  out by the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court    in paragraphs  21-26  are  very relevant,  which<\/p>\n
are extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 “21.  Now,   it  is  well-settled
\n       principle  of law that if any judgment   or
\n       order  is obtained by fraud,  it cannot  be
\n       said  to  be a  judgment  or order in  law.
\n       Before   three  centuries,  Chief   Justice
\n       Edward  Coke proclaimed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “Fraud   avoids   all judicial  acts,
\n       ecclesiastical or temporal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             22.  It is  thus settled  proposition
\n       of  law   that a judgment, decree or  order
\n       obtained  by playing  fraud  on the  court,
\n       tribunal  or authority  is a nullity    and
\n       non  est  in the eye of the law.    Such  a
\n       judgment,   decree or order – by the  first
\n       court   or by the final court  – has to  be
\n       treated    as  nullity   by  every   court,
\n       superior    or   inferior.   It   can    be
\n       challenged   in any court, at any time,  in
\n       appeal,    revision,  writ   or   even   in
\n       collateral proceedings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             23.  In  the leading case of  Lazarus
\n       Estates  Ltd.,  V.  Beasley   Lord  Denning
\n       observed:  (ALL ER p. 345 C)<\/p>\n
            “No judgment of a court, no order of a
\n       Minister, can be allowed  to stand   if  it
\n       has been obtained  by fraud.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              24.   In    Duchess  of   Kingstone,
\n       Smith’s  Leading  Cases,  13th Edn., p.644,
\n       explaining  the nature of  fraud,  de Grey,
\n       C.J.    Stated   that   though  a  judgment
\n       would be  res judicata and not  impeachable
\n       from within,  it might be  impeachable from
\n       without.   In other words,  though   it  is
\n       not  permissible  to show that   the  court
\n       was “mistaken”, it might be  shown that  it
\n       was   “misled”.  There  is   an   essential
\n       distinction     between     mistake     and
\n       trickery.  The clear  implication   of  the
\n       distinction   is  that an   action  to  set
\n       aside   a  judgment  cannot be brought   on
\n       the  ground   that  it  has  been   decided
\n       wrongly,  namely,  that on the merits,  the
\n       decision   was one which  should  not  have
\n       been rendered,  but it can be set aside, if
\n       the  court  was  imposed upon   or  tricked
\n       into giving  the judgment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             25.  It  has been said:   fraud   and
\n       justice never dwell together (fraus et just
\n       nunquam cohabitant);  or fraud  and  deceit
\n       ought  to   benefit  none (fraus  et  dolus
\n       nemini patrocinari debent).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             26. Fraud  may be defined  as an  act
\n       of deliberate deception with the design  of
\n       securing  some unfair or undeserved benefit
\n       by  taking undue advantage of another.   In
\n       fraud  one  gains  at the loss of  another.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Even   most   solemn   proceedings    stand
\n       vitiated  if  they are actuated  by  fraud.
\n       Fraud  is thus an extrinsic collateral  act
\n       which  vitiates  all judicial acts, whether
\n       in  rem  or in personam. The principle   of
\n       “finality   of   litigation”   cannot    be
\n       stretched  to  the extent of  an  absurdity
\n       that  it can be uitlised  as an engine   of
\n       oppression   by  dishonest  and  fraudulent
\n       litigants.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      99.  The  above principles set out by  the  Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme court squarely apply to the facts  of this  case.<\/p>\n
When   the judgment came to be passed in W.P.No.20552  of<\/p>\n
2003  by  applying the repealing Act of  the  Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Urban  Land  (Ceiling and Regulation)  Act,  1978,   this<\/p>\n
Court   had  no  occasion  to   examine  the  nature   of<\/p>\n
possession  as claimed on behalf of the  erstwhile  owner<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmi    Ammal.   Unfortunately,   the    Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner  of  Urban  Land  Tax  also  supported   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  in that Writ Petition  by written instruction<\/p>\n
to  the  learned Special Government Pleader to the effect<\/p>\n
that  she was still in possession   irrespective  of  the<\/p>\n
proceedings  which were available  in his office  in  the<\/p>\n
form  of  an extract from the revenue records of  Guindy-<\/p>\n
Mambalam  Taluk which specifically   disclosed  that  the<\/p>\n
property  in  S.No.297\/1 was transferred in the  name  of<\/p>\n
Tamil  Nadu  Government from the erstwhile  ownership  of<\/p>\n
Velu Mudaliar\/Rajalakshmi Ammal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      100. In the said circumstances,  none of the  above<\/p>\n
Court  orders can be relied upon  by the 11th  respondent<\/p>\n
as  those  orders   would in no way support   his  claim.<\/p>\n
Further,   the  order  passed  in  W.P.No.20552  of  2003<\/p>\n
cannot  be  relied  upon  by the 11th  respondent,  since<\/p>\n
without disclosing  the true, complete and correct facts,<\/p>\n
the  Court  based on the representation  of  the  Special<\/p>\n
Government Pleader passed the order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      101. In that context,  reliance placed  upon by the<\/p>\n
petitioner  in the decision  reported  in  JT  2007  (10)<\/p>\n
SC  218  (M\/s.  Prestige Lights  Ltd. V.  State  Bank  of<\/p>\n
India)<\/a>   is  quite apposite.  Paragraph  34 of  the  said<\/p>\n
judgment  is very relevant for our purpose which reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “It  is  well settled   that   a
\n       prerogative   remedy is  not  a  matter  of
\n       course.    In   exercising    extraordinary
\n       power,   therefore,   a  Writ  Court   will
\n       indeed   bear in mind  the conduct  of  the
\n       party  who is  invoking  such jurisdiction.
\n       If  the applicant  does not  disclose  full
\n       facts  or  suppresses   relevant  materials
\n       or  is  otherwise guilty of misleading  the
\n       Court,  the  Court may dismiss  the  action
\n       without   adjudicating   the  matter.   The
\n       rule   has been evolved   in larger  public
\n       interest   to deter unscrupulous  litigants
\n       from  abusing  the  process  of  Court   by
\n       deceiving it.   The very basis  of the writ
\n       jurisdiction rests in disclosure  of  true,
\n       complete   and  correct  facts.    If   the
\n       material facts  are not candidly stated  or
\n       are  suppressed or are distorted,  the very
\n       functioning   of  the  writ  courts   would
\n       become impossible.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      102. Equally, the claim made on behalf of the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent  that the subject land  has been developed  by<\/p>\n
him   at a very huge cost advanced by the respondents  12<\/p>\n
to 64 cannot also be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      103.  When once it is found that the right  claimed<\/p>\n
by  the 11th respondent  in respect of  the subject  land<\/p>\n
situated  in S.No.297\/1 in an extent of  0.90 cents   was<\/p>\n
illegal  and  was not  supported  by any valid title  and<\/p>\n
that  the  said land belonged to the Tamil  Nadu  Housing<\/p>\n
Board  and  the State Government, such pleas put  forward<\/p>\n
by  the  11th respondent  and the respondents  12  to  64<\/p>\n
cannot  in any way mitigate against the  lawful ownership<\/p>\n
of  the  State  Government  and the  Tamil  Nadu  Housing<\/p>\n
Board.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      104. In this context,  the  decision of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court  in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 253 (DR.  G.  N.<\/p>\n
KHAJURIA  AND  OTHERS  VS. DELHI  DEVELOPMENT   AUTHORITY<\/p>\n
AND OTHERS) can be usefully referred to.  Paragraph  8 of<\/p>\n
the  said  judgment  is  relevant for our purpose   which<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “We  therefore,  hold that  the  land
\n       which was  allotted  to respondent No.2 was
\n       part of a park.  We further  hold that   it
\n       was  not  open to the DDA to carve out  any
\n       space  meant for park for a nursery school.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       We  are of the considered  view that    the
\n       allotment   in   favour of respondent  No.2
\n       was  misuse  of  power, for reasons   which
\n       need not be adverted. It is, therefore,   a
\n       fit  case,   according to  us,   where  the
\n       allotment   in  favour of  respondent  No.2
\n       should   be   cancelled    and   we   order
\n       accordingly.    The fact   that  respondent
\n       No.2  has put  up some structure stated  to
\n       be   permanent  by  his  counsel   is   not
\n       relevant, as the same has been  done  on  a
\n       plot   of   land   allotted    to   it   in
\n       contravention    of   law.    As   to   the
\n       submission   that  dislocation   from   the
\n       present  site  would  cause difficulty   to
\n       the  tiny   tots,  we would  observe   that
\n       the  same  has been advanced  only  to  get
\n       sympathy    from  the  Court  inasmuch   as
\n       children,  for whom the nursery school   is
\n       meant,   would travel  to any other  nearby
\n       place  where such a school  would be set up
\n       either  by  respondent No.2 or by any other
\n       body.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      105. On behalf of the 11th respondent, reliance was<\/p>\n
placed  upon  the decision of the Hon’ble  Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
reported in  (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 91 (R & M TRUST<\/p>\n
VS.  KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE  GROUP AND  OTHERS).<\/p>\n
Specific reliance  was  placed upon paragraphs 34  to  36<\/p>\n
of the said judgment which read  as under:<\/p>\n
            “34. There is no doubt  that delay  is
\n       a  very important factor  while  exercising
\n       extraordinary  jurisdiction  under  Article
\n       226 of the Constitution. We cannot  disturb
\n       the  third-party   interest  created     on
\n       account of delay. Even  otherwise  also why
\n       should the Court  come to the rescue  of  a
\n       person  who is not vigilant  of his rights?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            35. We are of the opinion  that  delay
\n       in   this  case   is  equally  fatal,   the
\n       construction   already   started   by   the
\n       appellant in 1987  and building   had  come
\n       up  to  three floors.  Thereafter,  it  was
\n       stopped  in  1988  and in  March  1991   it
\n       resumed   after  permission   was  granted.
\n       The  writ  petition  was filed  in November
\n       1991  meanwhile   construction  was  almost
\n       complete.  Therefore, delay was  fatal   in
\n       the  present case and learned Single  Judge
\n       rightly   held it  to be so.   It was  also
\n       brought to our notice  that 46 multi-storey
\n       buildings  have  come  up  in  this   area.
\n       Learned   counsel has produced  photographs
\n       to  show  that  buildings  more than  three
\n       and   four  floors  have been   constructed
\n       in and around this area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             36.  However,  we are satisfied  that
\n       there   is   no   prohibition   under   the
\n       provisions   of the Act and Rules   putting
\n       the  ceiling  on construction of the multi-
\n       storey   building.  We are  also  satisfied
\n       that the delay is also fatal in the present
\n       case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      106.  That   case  related to  the  rights  of  the<\/p>\n
individual flat owners  as against the  promoter.  It was<\/p>\n
in  that  context,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  held  that<\/p>\n
the  belated  approach  to  the  Writ  Court  cannot   be<\/p>\n
entertained  inasmuch as the subsequent   development  by<\/p>\n
way  of  constructions  made by the promoter deprived  of<\/p>\n
other  occupants   to  claim  any  relief   in  the  writ<\/p>\n
petition   as  against  the  equitable   rights  of   the<\/p>\n
promoter.  The said decision, therefore, does  not   help<\/p>\n
the 11th respondent  in the present case.<\/p>\n
      107. Reliance was also placed upon the decision  of<\/p>\n
the  Supreme  Court  reported in  (2001) 6 Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
Cases 512 (KEWEL CHAND  MIMANI (D) BY LRS.,  VS. S.K. SEN<\/p>\n
AND  OTHERS), in particular in paragraph 27,   where   it<\/p>\n
has been stated as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “27.   ……………… it  is
\n       on   this  score   that  Mr.  Nariman,  the
\n       learned  Senior Advocate appearing for  one
\n       of  the respondents very strongly contended
\n       that    the   statute   has   created    an
\n       enforceable   obligation  and  question  of
\n       acting  contra   to the provisions  of  law
\n       does not  and cannot arise.   It is on this
\n       score,    the  issue  of  complete  justice
\n       between the parties has been brought to our
\n       notice.    It   is  trite  knowledge   that
\n       presently,  the law courts are being guided
\n       by  a  justice-oriented   approach,   since
\n       the  concept of justice is the call of  the
\n       day  and the need of the hour.  Justice  is
\n       the     goal     of     jurisprudence     –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       processual\/procedural,    as    much     as
\n       substantive.  Puritan approach has lost its
\n       significance  in the present-day   context;
\n       since justice  ought  to  be end product of
\n       equity   and go to the roots.   It is  this
\n       complete justice between the parties  which
\n       stands    statutorily    recognised      in
\n       Section  108 (A) as noticed   above (please
\n       see the observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in
\n       Ahmedabad  Municipal  Corpn.   V.  Ramanlal
\n       Govindram).<\/a>“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      108.  In  the  subsequent  paragraph,  the  Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme  Court also highlighted how the  justice-oriented<\/p>\n
approach  was not of recent origin and was being  applied<\/p>\n
even  four  decades  ago.  However,   in  the  very  same<\/p>\n
judgment   in  paragraph  33, the Hon’ble  Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
has  stated  how  any  misplaced  indulgence   shown  and<\/p>\n
laxity   on  the  part  of the law courts   would  be  an<\/p>\n
unauthorised   exercise of  jurisdiction which would  put<\/p>\n
a  premium on illegal acts. In paragraphs 32 and 33,  the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble  Supreme Court has stated the principles  in  the<\/p>\n
following words :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “32.  ……………….There must be
\n       some   semblance  of right  at  least   and
\n       that right must continue  till the judgment
\n       is   pronounced, because on the day of  the
\n       pronouncement  of the judgment,  the  Court
\n       can pass  an appropriate order only  in the
\n       event  of   entitlement  of such  judgment,
\n       but  not  otherwise.  The Mimanis  were  in
\n       fact     not   entitled   to   obtain   the
\n       possession   on the date of   the  judgment
\n       by  reason  of  the expiry of the deed   of
\n       lease  and  how that right can be  enforced
\n       by   the  Court  in  the  event   of   non-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       entitlement    thereof  -   there   is   no\n       satisfactory reply thereto.             33.\n<\/pre>\n
       The  principle  of justice  is  an  inbuilt
\n       requirement    of  the  justice    delivery
\n       system  and indulgence  and laxity  on  the
\n       part  of  the   law  courts  would  be   an
\n       unauthorised     exercise  of  jurisdiction
\n       and thereby put a premium on illegal acts.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      109.  Therefore, the said judgment  also   goes  to<\/p>\n
show  that  where a person  is in illegal possession,  he<\/p>\n
has  no right  to claim  equitable justice.<\/p>\n
      110.  On  behalf  of  the  respondents  12  to  64,<\/p>\n
reliance   was  placed  upon the  decision  reported   in<\/p>\n
(1994)  2  Supreme Court Cases 647 (A.P. State  Financial<\/p>\n
Corporation Vs. M\/s.Gar Re-Rolling Mills and Another)  in<\/p>\n
the  context  of  the orders passed  in  the  Urban  Land<\/p>\n
Ceiling  Proceedings and the order of this  Court,  dated<\/p>\n
19.12.2003  passed in W.P.No.20552 of 2003.  Inasmuch  as<\/p>\n
we   have  held  that   the  said  proceedings  were  not<\/p>\n
genuinely   pursued  both by  the authorities constituted<\/p>\n
under  the   Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 and that   full<\/p>\n
facts  were not placed before the Court by the petitioner<\/p>\n
therein at the time  when orders came to be passed in the<\/p>\n
said  writ petition, we do not find  any scope  to  apply<\/p>\n
equitable justice to be  rendered  under Article 226   of<\/p>\n
the  Constitution  of  India   as  stated  in  the  above<\/p>\n
referred to decision.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      111.  The other decision relied upon by the learned<\/p>\n
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf  of respondents 12  to<\/p>\n
64   is  reported  in  AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT  2403  (The<\/p>\n
Land  Acquisition Officer, City Improvement  Trust Board,<\/p>\n
Bangalore,  Vs. H. Narayanaiah etc., etc.).  In fact, the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court  has made it very clear in para 23,<\/p>\n
which is asunder:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “23.  ……….. We know  the  maxim
\n       that “equity follows the law”.  We have not
\n       heard   of   the  proposition   that   some
\n       transcendental  Equity  should  be so  used
\n       as  to  defeat   or amend the   law  as  it
\n       stands.    Maitland said   long  ago   that
\n       equity   came  to supplement   and  not  to
\n       supplant    the law. We think that   if  we
\n       were    to  equate  a  notification   under
\n       Section  18  with  the  notification  under
\n       Section  6   of  the Act  for  purposes  of
\n       determining   the market  value,  which  is
\n       to  be  awarded.  We would be doing nothing
\n       short   of supplanting   at least   the law
\n       as  found clearly laid down  in Section  27
\n       of the Bangalore Act  read with Section  23
\n       of the Acquisition Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      112.  Going by the above statement of law  declared<\/p>\n
by  the   Hon’ble Supreme Court,  there can  be no  claim<\/p>\n
based  on  equity  in  the light  of  blatant  illegality<\/p>\n
committed  against the State. The other  decision  relied<\/p>\n
upon is the one reported   in (2007) 5 MLJ 436 (SC)-(Amey<\/p>\n
Co-operatiave   Housing Society  Ltd.  and  Another   Vs.<\/p>\n
Public  Concern  for Governance Trust  and  Others.  That<\/p>\n
was  a  case  where it was alleged   in  a  PIL  that   a<\/p>\n
preferential allotment  of  Housing Board was secured  by<\/p>\n
floating   a bogus Co-operative Society and that   later,<\/p>\n
after  allotment,  it came to light    that   it  was  to<\/p>\n
favour   an  individual    developer   for  a  commercial<\/p>\n
venture.    The   Bombay High Court after  accepting  the<\/p>\n
case  of  the  Probono Publico issued  directions,  after<\/p>\n
quashing   the  allotment, to forfeit  the  constructions<\/p>\n
already made   and  vest it with the Statutory body   for<\/p>\n
re-allotment.   In para-56,  the Hon’ble  Supreme  Court,<\/p>\n
taking  note  of  the stage of  the constructions  (i.e.)<\/p>\n
beyond  4th floor as well as the alternate prayer in  the<\/p>\n
PIL    for    making  a  revaluation   and  collect   the<\/p>\n
difference,  chose  to take recourse   to  the  alternate<\/p>\n
prayer  while  setting aside the order of the High Court.<\/p>\n
In  the  first blush,  though the above decision   appear<\/p>\n
to support the case  of the contesting respondents  11 to<\/p>\n
64  on  a deeper  scrutiny, we are not in a position   to<\/p>\n
apply the said decision   to the facts  of this case.  In<\/p>\n
the  first  place, that  was a case where  allotment   of<\/p>\n
certain   flats   came  to  be  made  by  the   statutory<\/p>\n
Corporation   by  way of development  of   the  township.<\/p>\n
Unlike,   the  case on hand, where the ownership  is  now<\/p>\n
claimed  by resorting to an illegal act of land grabbing.<\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no  semblance  of  any right   in the<\/p>\n
11th  respondent,   as  against  the  above  referred  to<\/p>\n
decision, where initial allotment  was made  in  a lawful<\/p>\n
manner   by a Statutory Corporation. That apart, in  that<\/p>\n
Public Interest Litigation, there was an alternate prayer<\/p>\n
made to the effect that there should be a direction   for<\/p>\n
revaluation  since  one of the  allegations was that  the<\/p>\n
land   was   undervalued   while  making  the  allotment.<\/p>\n
Further,  the  land  was meant for  allotment  to  a  Co-<\/p>\n
operative  Society  for  construction   of  housing,   as<\/p>\n
against  the   case on hand, where the allotment  of  the<\/p>\n
subject   land    for  a  welfare  purpose,   viz.,   for<\/p>\n
construction  of a peripheral  hospital.  When  there  is<\/p>\n
large  scale  attempt  to grab the public land by  making<\/p>\n
encroachments  by resorting to other illegal means   even<\/p>\n
by  way of manipulation of government records, we  are of<\/p>\n
the view  that the application of the above decision   to<\/p>\n
the case on hand  will not  be appropriate.<\/p>\n
      113.  Arguments were also  addressed on  behalf  of<\/p>\n
the  11th  respondent  as well as respondents  12  to  64<\/p>\n
based on the  principle of  Promissory Estoppel  and  the<\/p>\n
availability  of  the said doctrine    even  against  the<\/p>\n
Government actions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      114.  The  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for<\/p>\n
respondents 11 as well as  12 to 64, relied upon  certain<\/p>\n
decisions  based on the doctrine  of Promissory Estoppel.<\/p>\n
As  far  as the said doctrine is concerned, it  has  been<\/p>\n
explained  in  P. Ramanatha Aiyer’s  Law Lexicon  in  the<\/p>\n
following words.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 “Estoppel, promissory. That which
\n       arises   when  there is  a  promise   which
\n       promisor should reasonably expect to induce
\n       action  or  forbearance of a definite   and
\n       substantial character on part of  promisee,
\n       and  which  does  induce  such  action   or
\n       forbearance  and such promise  is   binding
\n       if  injustice   can  be  avoided   only  by
\n       enforcement  of promise.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      115. For the application  of the said doctrine   in<\/p>\n
so  far  as,  it  is related  to  public  bodies  or  the<\/p>\n
Government, it is well settled  that  the same  will  not<\/p>\n
apply  if  such promise or representation is contrary  to<\/p>\n
law  or  which is outside their authority or power.   The<\/p>\n
doctrine  also cannot be  invoked   if it  is found    to<\/p>\n
be  inequitable  or unjust  in its enforcement.  When  we<\/p>\n
apply  the above principles to the case on hand,  in  the<\/p>\n
first  place, we are unable to  find any definite promise<\/p>\n
extended  either by the State Government  or   the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu  Housing  Board  to anyone,  much  less,   the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent,  who   wants  to assert  his  title   to  the<\/p>\n
subject land.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     116. In fact, if the origin of the title claimed  by<\/p>\n
the  11th respondent  is examined, it is traceable   from<\/p>\n
the  sale  deeds, dated 15.3.1996.  As far  as  the  said<\/p>\n
document   is  concerned,  after  a detailed analysis  of<\/p>\n
the  various   materials, we have  held  that   the  said<\/p>\n
document  came  into existence  as part of  a  fraudulent<\/p>\n
creation   at the instance of the  erstwhile  Rajalakshmi<\/p>\n
Ammal or her so-called  power agent Thiru.Mohan.  We have<\/p>\n
also  referred  to  the  written statement  of  the  said<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmi Ammal, in her reply notice, dated  31.3.1998,<\/p>\n
i.e.,  after the execution of the so-called  sale  deeds,<\/p>\n
dated   15.3.1996  to the categorical  effect  that   the<\/p>\n
subject lands  situated in  S.No.297\/1 ceased to  be  her<\/p>\n
property and that the State Government\/Tamil Nadu Housing<\/p>\n
Board   was  the  owner  of  the   above  said  property.<\/p>\n
Therefore,  if at all any promise is to be claimed now on<\/p>\n
behalf of respondents  11 to 64 such promise should  have<\/p>\n
been   extended  by the State Government   or  the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu  Housing  Board  only to the  said  erstwhile  owner<\/p>\n
Rajalakshmi Ammal.  In the light of the various   factors<\/p>\n
discussed  above there could have been no scope   at  all<\/p>\n
for  any such  promise being  extended in the manner   so<\/p>\n
claimed  and  therefore,  the  very  application  of  the<\/p>\n
doctrine    does  not  arise.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t117.    If      the     respondents    11   to  64 \n\nwant     to      rely      on     the        proceedings\n\n<\/pre>\n
of   the   Urban  Land  Ceiling  Authorities,   for   the<\/p>\n
application  of  the said doctrine,  hereagain,  it  will<\/p>\n
have  to  be stated that   the said authorities were  not<\/p>\n
concerned  with the  title  or  ownership of the  subject<\/p>\n
lands.    We have  already pointed out  that  there  were<\/p>\n
total  lack  of   bona  fides in  the  issuance  of   the<\/p>\n
proceedings   by the said authorities  inasmuch  as    in<\/p>\n
their  own  records, the Mambalam-Guindy  Taluk   revenue<\/p>\n
proceedings    was   very much in existence  to  disclose<\/p>\n
that   at  no point of time  after the entry  of the name<\/p>\n
of  the  Government  as owner  in respect of the land  in<\/p>\n
S.No.297\/1, nobodyelse’ name was recorded in the  revenue<\/p>\n
register. In such circumstances, any contrary proceedings<\/p>\n
issued  not  in  consonance  with the  revenue   register<\/p>\n
relating to the ownership  of the subject property cannot<\/p>\n
be relied upon in order to claim any promise  on the part<\/p>\n
of  the authorities  of the State  in order to apply  the<\/p>\n
doctrine   of  Promissory Estoppel as against  the  State<\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t118.      Though      in      some      of      the\n\nproceedings    issued    by  the  Urban   Land    Ceiling\n\n<\/pre>\n
Authorities, it is stated  that  S.No.297\/1  was  further<\/p>\n
classified  as S.Nos.297\/1A, 1B and 1C,  there  were   no<\/p>\n
such sub divisions  said to be in existence in the parent<\/p>\n
records  of the Town and Country Planning Department   to<\/p>\n
support   the  above proceedings.  Therefore,   any  such<\/p>\n
proceedings issued  by the Tamil Nadu Urban Land  Ceiling<\/p>\n
Authorities   can  only  be considered   as   proceedings<\/p>\n
which  was  contrary  to  law  and   were  outside  their<\/p>\n
authority  or jurisdiction. Therefore,  there is no scope<\/p>\n
for   applying   the doctrine of promissory  estoppel  on<\/p>\n
this ground as well.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      119.  In  fact, the decision  relied  upon  by  the<\/p>\n
learned  counsel  is reported in AIR  1980 SUPREME  COURT<\/p>\n
1285 (M\/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar  and others  Vs.  The State<\/p>\n
of  Haryana   and another), in paragraph 39, the  Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court  has summed up the scope of application  of<\/p>\n
the  doctrine  against the Government  in  the  following<\/p>\n
words:-\n<\/p>\n
              “39.  The  scope  of   the  plea  of
\n       doctrine  of promissory  estoppel   against
\n       the   Government   may  be  summed  up   as
\n       follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (1) The plea  of  promissory estoppel
\n       is   not  available against  the   exercise
\n       of   the  legislative   functions   of  the
\n       State.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (2)  The doctrine  cannot be  invoked
\n       for   preventing    the   Government   from
\n       discharging  its functions  under the law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (3)   When  the  officer    of   the
\n       Government acts  outside  the scope of  his
\n       authority, the plea of promissory  estoppel
\n       is  not available.  The doctrine  of  ultra
\n       vires   will come into operation   and  the
\n       Government  cannot be held bound    by  the
\n       unauthorised acts of its officers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (4) When the officer acts  within the
\n       scope of his authority under a scheme   and
\n       enters   into  an agreement   and  makes  a
\n       representation  and a person acting on that
\n       representation   puts himself   in  a  dis-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       advantageous    position,  the   Court   is
\n       entitled   to require the officer   to  act
\n       according  to the scheme  and the agreement
\n       or  representation.   The   Officer  cannot
\n       arbitrarily   act  on his   mere  whim  and
\n       ignore  his promise on some  undefined  and
\n       undisclosed   grounds  of   necessity    or
\n       change  the conditions to the prejudice  of
\n       the   person  who  had   acted  upon   such
\n       representation   and  put  himself   in   a
\n       disadvantageous  position.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (5)  The  officer  would be justified
\n       in changing  the terms  of the agreement to
\n       the  prejudice   of  the  other  party   on
\n       special  considerations such as   difficult
\n       foreign exchange  position or other matters
\n       which  have  a bearing  on general interest
\n       of the State.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      120. Applying the above restrictions stated in  the<\/p>\n
said  decision  to the case on hand,  we  are  unable  to<\/p>\n
countenance  the plea of the respondents  11 to 64  based<\/p>\n
on the doctrine  of Promissory Estoppel.<\/p>\n
      121.  In the light of  our above conclusion on  the<\/p>\n
application  of  the doctrine promissory  estoppel,   the<\/p>\n
other  decisions  relied upon   by  the   learned  Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel  reported  in  AIR  1979  SUPREME  COURT  621   (<\/p>\n
M\/s.Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs.  The  State<\/p>\n
of  Uttar  Pradesh and others), (1985)  4  Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
Cases 369 (Union of India and others  Vs. Godfrey Philips<\/p>\n
India Ltd.), (2004) 6 Supreme Court Cases 465  (State  of<\/p>\n
Punjab  Vs. Nestle India Ltd. and Another)  are also  not<\/p>\n
helpful  to the  respondents 11 to 64.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      122. Having realised   the position that  no  valid<\/p>\n
title   passed on to the  11th respondent,  a  submission<\/p>\n
was  also made  to claim equity by contending that in the<\/p>\n
light  of   the fact that  the subject land  was promoted<\/p>\n
by  the  11th  respondent  by   investing   huge  sum  of<\/p>\n
rupees,  viz.,  three crores by way of the cost   of  the<\/p>\n
land,   apart   from  the  investments   made    by   the<\/p>\n
respondents 12 to 64 by borrowing heavy sums  from  banks<\/p>\n
and  financial institutions,  it  was submitted  that   a<\/p>\n
huge structure   consisting  of  54  flats  have been put<\/p>\n
up  which have been now  sold out  by 11th respondent  to<\/p>\n
the respondents 12 to 64 by way of  residential flats.<\/p>\n
      123.  It  was  contended that since the  respondent<\/p>\n
state remained as mute spectators till the completion  of<\/p>\n
the construction, it will not be equitable  at this stage<\/p>\n
for  the  State  Government  and the Tamil  Nadu  Housing<\/p>\n
Board to  merely state  that the lands were acquired   in<\/p>\n
award  No.5\/74,  dated   4.1.1975  and  on  that   basis,<\/p>\n
deprive the respondents 11 to 64 to enjoy the  fruits  of<\/p>\n
promotion of the property by investing several crores  of<\/p>\n
rupees.    It  was,  therefore,  contended  that   equity<\/p>\n
demands some order to be passed sustaining the rights  of<\/p>\n
the respondents 11 to 64  to retain their possession   by<\/p>\n
passing some  equitable orders.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      124.  In  the  first place, though  the  submission<\/p>\n
looks   highly persuasive,  we are not in a position   to<\/p>\n
countenance   such  a  submission having  regard  to  our<\/p>\n
conclusion  that   the  Government  land  was   illegally<\/p>\n
occupied by certain persons with deliberate  intention to<\/p>\n
grab  the  said land knowing full well that the  property<\/p>\n
belonged to the State.  The respondents 11 to 64   cannot<\/p>\n
be  heard  to plead ignorance of the earliest  award   in<\/p>\n
Award  No.14\/64  or the subsequent Award  No.5\/74,  dated<\/p>\n
4.1.1975  as  well as Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.1031,<\/p>\n
dated   31.10.1973. It was a futile  attempt on the  part<\/p>\n
of   the 11th respondent  to contend that   in the  Award<\/p>\n
No.5\/74,  dated  4.1.1975,  the extent of land  mentioned<\/p>\n
was  only   4.05 acres and  not 4.95 acres.   If  at  all<\/p>\n
anything  is  to be  said about the  said contention,  it<\/p>\n
can only be  said that it is a myth like statement, which<\/p>\n
was  wholly  incorrect.    The  contention  of  the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent  that  he was unaware of the real ownership of<\/p>\n
the  State  over the subject land  can never be believed.<\/p>\n
Even  though  in the earlier sale deeds, dated 15.3.1996,<\/p>\n
there  was  no reference  to the prior ownership  of  the<\/p>\n
0.90  cents conveyed under those documents, at least when<\/p>\n
the  sale deed, dated  1.12.2004,  was drafted, which was<\/p>\n
sought to be conveyed   by the individual parties through<\/p>\n
the  Power  of  Attorney,  namely,  M\/s.  TVS  Finance  &<\/p>\n
Services  Ltd.,  the  ownership   even  prior   to   Velu<\/p>\n
Mudaliar  and Rajalakshmi Ammal  was traced and there was<\/p>\n
also   a specific  reference to the awards, namely, award<\/p>\n
Nos.14\/64  and 5\/74 and when the 11th respondent   wanted<\/p>\n
to  invest  a huge sum of Rs.3,00,00,000\/-, it is hard to<\/p>\n
believe  that  he did not  even bother to verify with the<\/p>\n
relevant   authorities,  namely, the  concerned   revenue<\/p>\n
authorities   and   the   Town   and   Country   Planning<\/p>\n
Authorities,  where  the record of ownership    is  being<\/p>\n
kept   and   in which records the ownership of the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu    Housing  Board\/State  Government  has  been  duly<\/p>\n
mentioned  even  as on the date of the execution  of  the<\/p>\n
sale deed, dated  1.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     125. The various  other  proceedings  issued  by the<\/p>\n
Urban  Land Ceiling Authorities on which  heavy  reliance<\/p>\n
was  sought  to be placed was only a vain attempt on  the<\/p>\n
part  of  the  11th  respondent  to  cover  up   his  own<\/p>\n
misdeeds.  Apparently,  in  collusion     with    certain<\/p>\n
other       parties,       who      appeared    to   have<\/p>\n
perpetrated the fraud by engineering the execution of the<\/p>\n
sale  deeds,  dated  15.3.1996 the subsequent transaction<\/p>\n
must have been emanated.  As we have no doubt to conclude<\/p>\n
that   the  whole  attempt was  designedly   made   as  a<\/p>\n
paramount  exercise   of land  grabbing   activity    and<\/p>\n
in that process to make  a  monetary gain   by  involving<\/p>\n
gullible  purchasers, namely, the respondents 12  to  64,<\/p>\n
we  are  not  in a position   to accede  to the  plea  of<\/p>\n
exercise  of equitable jurisdiction in favour of   either<\/p>\n
the  11th  respondent   or  the  respondents  12  to  64.<\/p>\n
Though   on  behalf  of  the  11th  respondent,  it   was<\/p>\n
suggested that   he was even  now prepared  to  pay a sum<\/p>\n
of  Rs.3,00,00,000\/- (Rupees Three Crores  only)  to  the<\/p>\n
Tamil Nadu Housing Board  for  conveying the subject land<\/p>\n
in  favour of the respondents  12 to 64,  we are  of  the<\/p>\n
view   that   countenancing  the said prayer  would  only<\/p>\n
give a wrong signal  to the land grabbers  to indulge  in<\/p>\n
such  land  grabbing  activity by adopting  all  unlawful<\/p>\n
tactics    and  by  involving  gullible  purchasers   and<\/p>\n
ultimately come forward  with such a plea and create   an<\/p>\n
impression    that  after  carrying  out  all  fraudulent<\/p>\n
activities  one can escape  from all woe-full consequence<\/p>\n
by getting  the seal of  approval of the Court  under the<\/p>\n
garb   of   exercise   of  equitable  jurisdiction.   Our<\/p>\n
endeavour  is to ensure that no one  indulging   in  such<\/p>\n
fraudulent  attempt  of  land grabbing activity  can  get<\/p>\n
away  with it by seeking the sympathy  of the  Court   on<\/p>\n
the  ground  of  equitable  principles  involving  others<\/p>\n
who  were  not  directly  involved    in  the  fraudulent<\/p>\n
activities designedly made.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      126.  As  far  as the respondents   12  to  64  are<\/p>\n
concerned,   though  it is claimed on their behalf   that<\/p>\n
their  loan transactions  were scrutinised  by very  many<\/p>\n
banks    and  financial  institutions, after  a  detailed<\/p>\n
analysis  of  the  various  documents,  and  they   being<\/p>\n
innocent  purchasers  of the flats, they  should  not  be<\/p>\n
deprived  of their  right to  hold the flats which  would<\/p>\n
cause   very   serious   prejudice to  them  inasmuch  as<\/p>\n
they  have parted with the cost  of construction  of  the<\/p>\n
flats    to   the  11th  respondent  by  making     heavy<\/p>\n
borrowings   and  that  irrespective   of   they    being<\/p>\n
allowed  to  enjoy   the possession of the  flats,   they<\/p>\n
will  be forced  to  repay  the loans  borrowed  by  them<\/p>\n
to  the  banks and financial institutions.  Such  a  plea<\/p>\n
put  forth    on  behalf of the  respondents   12  to  64<\/p>\n
looks  quite  appealing. In the first place,  when  their<\/p>\n
claim   is   considered in the light of  the  rank  fraud<\/p>\n
played   against  the   State  Government,  as  Court  of<\/p>\n
Justice, we are bound to maintain solemnity  by restoring<\/p>\n
the  property   to  the State  which was  earmarked   for<\/p>\n
extending  much more  greater  welfare measures   to  the<\/p>\n
entire  public  at  large, who live in  and  around   the<\/p>\n
subject  land.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t127. It will have to be remembered that 0.90  cents<\/p>\n
of land  was part of other extent of lands adjacent to it<\/p>\n
for the construction of  peripheral hospital  at the time<\/p>\n
when the acquisition was made  during the period, namely,<\/p>\n
1964-1974.  When a  huge  housing colony was proposed  to<\/p>\n
be  set  up, the construction of  a peripheral   hospital<\/p>\n
with  all facilities available in the Government  General<\/p>\n
Hospital  was  thought of so that the  residents  of  the<\/p>\n
housing  colony being set up  by the Tamil  Nadu  Housing<\/p>\n
Board  can avail the medical services of  every  kind  in<\/p>\n
that  peripheral  hospital to be set up.  When the  above<\/p>\n
said  land was acquired  by the State  and earmarked   by<\/p>\n
the  Tamil  Nadu Housing Board for the lofty  purpose  of<\/p>\n
setting up a peripheral hospital, the action of the  11th<\/p>\n
respondent in his attempt  to gain a hold over  the  said<\/p>\n
land under the guise of  promoting a project  cannot   be<\/p>\n
permitted  to succeed and equally the claim made  by  the<\/p>\n
respondents  12  to 64  through the 11th respondent  that<\/p>\n
they have made huge investment in the project cannot also<\/p>\n
be   countenanced in their favour  as  that would deprive<\/p>\n
of   a  greater welfare  activity for the benefit of  the<\/p>\n
public  at  large  which  would otherwise  get  defeated.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the claims  of the respondents 12 to  64  when<\/p>\n
pitted  against  the  entire public at  large  who  would<\/p>\n
otherwise  avail the medical services  in the  event   of<\/p>\n
the  peripheral   hospital being  set up would  virtually<\/p>\n
veto  the  claim  of the latter.  We are not,  therefore,<\/p>\n
inclined  to   apply the plea of equity   put  forth   on<\/p>\n
behalf of the respondents 12 to 64  as well  in order  to<\/p>\n
permit   the   11th  respondent to  pay  back  a  sum  of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,00,00,000\/-  to  the Housing Board   and  allow  the<\/p>\n
respondents  12 to 64  to take possession  of  the  flats<\/p>\n
constructed  in the subject land. Further, it will   also<\/p>\n
be  appropriate  to mention that  when there  is  a  long<\/p>\n
waiting  list for allotment of housing board  plots\/flats<\/p>\n
to  the  low income group and middle income group people,<\/p>\n
who cannot afford  to compete in the private  real estate<\/p>\n
market  to  own a residence or  flat, it will  be  wholly<\/p>\n
unjustified if such land grabbers are shown any  sympathy<\/p>\n
or  mercy  on  the ground that  the land   was  developed<\/p>\n
after  its grabbing and therefore, they should be allowed<\/p>\n
to  retain possession. It will be a misplaced sympathy if<\/p>\n
such   prayers are to be countenanced, viz.,  the  common<\/p>\n
men,  who  are waiting in the long queue  with  the  fond<\/p>\n
hope that one day or other, he will get allotment in  his<\/p>\n
favour  by the State. Of late, when owning of a piece  of<\/p>\n
land  by ordinary people is becoming a dream and most  of<\/p>\n
the  families are drowning in the process of buying plots<\/p>\n
and construction of houses, it will be wholly inequitable<\/p>\n
to consider the claim of  11th respondent and respondents<\/p>\n
12 to 64 to recognize their  illegal holding.<\/p>\n
      128. In our considered view, mere promotion of  the<\/p>\n
subject land  by way of construction of so many  flats by<\/p>\n
itself   need not stand in the way of restoration of  the<\/p>\n
land to the  State Government as we feel the  interest of<\/p>\n
respondents  12  to  64  can to some extent  obviated  by<\/p>\n
suggesting some other alternatives. We wanted to be  firm<\/p>\n
and  ensure  that   the ownership  of  the  land  of  the<\/p>\n
State\/Tamil  Nadu  Housing Board is  restored   from  the<\/p>\n
clutches   of any encroachers and  in the case  on  hand,<\/p>\n
from  the  11th respondent  at  this point   in order  to<\/p>\n
send  a  clear message that  no one who indulge  in  such<\/p>\n
land  grabbing   activity  can never  be  successful   in<\/p>\n
their  attempt and that  at  one point of time, the  long<\/p>\n
arms  of  the  Court  will ensure that such attempts  are<\/p>\n
dethroned         with        a        firm         hand.\n<\/p>\n
129.  Having  regard  to our conclusions,   we  pass  the<\/p>\n
following order:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “a. The respondents  1 to  4 are
\n       directed  to take  possession  of the  land
\n       situated   in  S.No.297\/1  along  with  the
\n       superstructure  forthwith  free  from   any
\n       encumbrance from  the respondent 11 as well
\n       as 12 to 64.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  b.  The respondents  1 to 4  are
\n       further directed  to examine  the scope  of
\n       using  the  construction  now put   up   on
\n       the  subject  land   in S.No.297\/1   in  an
\n       extent  of 0.90 cents for putting the  same
\n       to  the  best  use  as part of   peripheral
\n       hospital  said to have been already set  up
\n       in the rest of the land  earmarked for that
\n       purpose,   if  necessary,  by  making   any
\n       alterations required.  In the event  of the
\n       respondents 1 to 4 not  able  to   use  the
\n       building    for  the  activities   of   the
\n       peripheral  hospital,  it is  open  to  the
\n       fourth  respondent  to  bring  those  flats
\n       constructed  therein  for  sale  in  public
\n       auction and appropriate the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  c.    The   11th  respondent  is
\n       directed   to refund the value of  purchase
\n       money  paid  by respondents 12 to  64   for
\n       the   purchase   of   flats,   along   with
\n       undivided  share of the property   promoted
\n       in  S.No.297\/1,  with interest  at  6% p.a.
\n       from  the  date of payment of such purchase
\n       money  within six  weeks from the  date  of
\n       receipt  of  a copy of  this order.   After
\n       making  the refund  to respondents   12  to
\n       64,  it will be open to the 11th respondent
\n       to  claim the value of cost of construction
\n       made   in  the subject land  in  S.No.297\/1
\n       from the 4th respondent, if so advised.  It
\n       is  for  the 11th respondent  to  work  out
\n       his  claim   as against the 4th  respondent
\n       and  it is open  to the 4th respondent   to
\n       deal  with  the said claim,  if  made,   in
\n       accordance with law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  d. The respondents 1 to 4 and  8
\n       are    directed   to    place     all   the
\n       documents,   concerning  the  subject  land
\n       right  from award No.14\/1964  till the  so-
\n       called  transfer of patta  stated  to  have
\n       been   made   in  favour   of   the    11th
\n       respondent     and   two   others,    dated
\n       10.6.2004 and 5.5.2005  including the Urban
\n       Land  Ceiling Proceedings, before the CBCID
\n       Authorities  to cause  an investigation and
\n       in  the event  of  prima  facie  case being
\n       made  out,  every  endeavour  to  book  the
\n       culprits, be it  the Government Authorities
\n       or  the  11th  respondent or the  erstwhile
\n       owner  Rajalakshmi Ammal or  her  so-called
\n       power agent Thiru.Mohan or the purchaser of
\n       the  sale  deed, dated 15.3.1996  or  their
\n       Power   of   Attorney  M\/s.TVS  Finance   &
\n       Services  Ltd. or any other person involved
\n       in   manipulation of  any of  the  records.
\n       The  records should be handed over   within
\n       one  month  from the date of receipt  of  a
\n       copy of this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 e. Having regard to the magnitude
\n       of  the  scandal relating to the Government
\n       property and since a considerable  time  of
\n       this  Court  had  to be  devoted   in  this
\n       litigation,  we  feel  it  appropriate   to
\n       impose    exemplary  costs   on  the   11th
\n       respondent  and  the   11th  respondent  is
\n       directed  to pay  costs of Rs.50000\/-.  Out
\n       of  the  said sum of  Rs.50000\/-, a sum  of
\n       Rs.35000\/- shall be paid to the Tamil  Nadu
\n       Mediation and Conciliation Centre, a sum of
\n       Rs.5000\/-  to the Indian Red Cross Society,
\n       Tamil  Nadu Branch and the balance  sum  of
\n       Rs.10000\/-  to the Tamil Nadu  State  Legal
\n       Services  Authority. The  costs  should  be
\n       paid   within four weeks from the  date  of
\n       receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  f.  It  is  also made clear  and
\n       declared  that  none of  the other parties,
\n       either  the  petitioner or  the  interloper
\n       Arumuga Pandian or  anybody else  have  got
\n       any  right in respect of the land  situated
\n       in  S.No.297\/1. Apart from the construction
\n       made by the 11th respondent,  if  there are
\n       any other encroachments  in the said survey
\n       number, it is open to the respondents  1 to
\n       4 as well  as the respondents  8, 9  and 10
\n       to   take   necessary  lawful  action   for
\n       removing such encroachments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   g.  The  Fourth  respondent  is
\n       directed  to ensure the compliance  of  the
\n       directions  contained in  paras (a),   (b),\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (d) and (f) of this order within six months
\n       from  the  date of  receipt  of a  copy  of
\n       this order  and file a report  in  proof of
\n       such compliance  into the Registry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   h.  W.P.No.4950  of  2007    is\n       allowed    with   the   above   directions.\n       W.P.No.8624   and  8625    of    2007   are\n<\/pre>\n
       dismissed  confirming  the  orders  of  the
\n       D.R.O., dated  15.6.2006 and the order   of
\n       the  Special  Commissioner and Commissioner
\n       of  Land  Administration,  dated  28.2.2007
\n       and W.P.No.8618 of  2006 is also dismissed.
\n       All  connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed.  Costs
\n       as directed in sub-para (e) of  this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
RNB<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.\tThe Secretary
\n\tHousing & Urban Development Department
\n\tGovernment of Tamil Nadu
\n\tFort. St. George
\n\tChennai 9.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe Secretary
\n\tPublic Works Department
\n\tFort St. George
\n\tChennai 9.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe Secretary
\n\tHealth Department
\n\tFort St. George
\n\tChennai 9.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe Managing Director
\n\tTamil Nadu Housing Board
\n\tNo.493
\n   \tAnna Salai
\n\tNandanam
\n\tChennai 35.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe Commissioner
\n\tCorporation of Chennai
\n\tRippon Buildings
\n\tChennai.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe Member Secretary
\n\tCMDA
\n\tThalamuthu Natrajan Maaligai
\n\tEgmore
\n\tChennai 8.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe Spl. Commissioner & Commissioner of Land Administration
\n\tChepauk
\n\tChennai 5.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe Collector
\n\tChennai Collectorate
\n\tM.Singaravelar Maaligai
\n\tChennai 1.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe District Revenue Officer
\n\tChennai District
\n\tChennai 1.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe Tahsildar
\n\tMambalam-Guindy Taluk
\n\tTaluk Office
\n\tBharathidasan Colony
\n\tK.K. Nagar
\n\tChennai 78.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nI. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-29T20:19:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"102 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T20:19:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":19419,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007\",\"name\":\"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T20:19:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-29T20:19:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"102 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T20:19:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007"},"wordCount":19419,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007","name":"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T20:19:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/i-t-uday-kumar-vs-the-district-collector-on-5-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"I. T. Uday Kumar vs The District Collector on 5 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220078","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}