THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.SIRPURKAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.THANIKACHALAM W.A.No.1495 of 2001 N.Devarajan ..Appellant .Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu rep.by the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort.St.George, Chennai. 2.The Collector of Chennai, Singaravelan Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1. 3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3. 4.The Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai-31. 5.The Commissioner and Director of ULC & ULT, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 6.The Assistant Commissioner (ULT), Tondiarpet, Chennai-29. ..Respondents Appeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 16.08.2001 made in W.P.No.14658 of 2001. For Appellant : Mr.K.Ezhilmalai For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Murthy, Spl.GP Mrs.P.Baghyalakshmi JUDGMENT (Delivered by V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.)
Learned counsel Shri.K.Ezhilmani, appearingo on behalf of Ms.R.Maheswari, counsel for the petitioner, makes a statement that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ appeal itself. The other side has no objection. In that view, the writ appeal as well as the connected CMP No.13368 of 2001 are disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar /True copy/ Sd/-xx 7.11.03.
for Sub.Asst.Registrar.
Jai: 14.10.2003 To
1.The Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai-9.
2.The Collector of Chennai, Singaravelan Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
3.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-600 003.
4.The Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai-600 031.
5.The Commissioner and Director of ULC & ULT, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
6.The Assistant Commissioner (ULT), Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 029.
1 cc to the Govt. Pleader, Sr.59145.
BS W.A.No.1495 of 2001 9.22. It is also seen that the vendor of the plaintiffs had also challenged the order passed by the 1st defendant in W.P.No.17483/2001 and this writ petition was allowed by an order dated 17.02.2002. Subsequently, the 1st defendant filed an appeal in W.A.No.2122/2005. The Division Bench of this Court after elaborately dealing with the matter dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 11.02.2011 (Ex.D.16). It will be appropriate to extract the following:-
7. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the order impugned passed by the appellant making certain remarks against the first respondent cannot be sustained. It is a settled proposition of law that, an adverse remark cannot be made against a party without affording an opportunity. Admittedly, in the present case on hand, the remarks have been made against the first respondent without affording an opportunity. Therefore, such remarks made against the first respondent cannot be sustained. At the same time, we have perused the order of the learned single judge passed in W.P.No. 14658/2001, which was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No. 1495/2001. It is not in dispute that the properties have been subjected to acquisition and award has been passed as early as in the year 1953 and thereafter in the year 1964. In pursuance of the awards passed, the said properties got vested with the Government. Thereafter, they got vested in the hands of the second respondent. The first respondent has also sold the property in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No. 14658/2001 by name Devarajan. Therefore, the appellants cannot maintain writ petition on merits in view of the fact that the subsequent purchaser had filed an independent writ petition and lost his case.
8. Considering the above said facts. We are of the considered view that, the order impugned, passed by the appellant will have to be sustained. 9.23. it is therefore clear that the attempt made by the vendor to question the order passed by the 1st defendant also failed.
9.24.The above mentioned orders took note of the acquisition proceedings and the apparent mistakes in the records that was attempted to be taken advantage of by the vendor of the plaintiffs. These orders will also have a significant bearing on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and their vendor over the suit property. The orders virtually confirmed the title of Corporation of Madras. These orders have become final and binding on the plaintiffs.
9.25. The second relief claimed by the plaintiffs challenging the show cause notice has virtually become stale due to the subsequent events. Therefore, this relief also cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The second issue in the point for consideration is answered accordingly.
9.26. The relief claimed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction is a consequential relief upon declaration of title. This Court has found that the Corporation of Madras is the owners of the suit property. It is a settled principle of law that an injunction cannot be granted as against the true owner of the property. In this case particularly, the plaintiffs and their vendor have misused the system and have attempted to grab the property belonging to the Corporation of Madras. The property in question is a large extent of land measuring nearly 3880 sq.metres (Approx.41,764 sq.ft.) in the heart of the city. Under the given circumstances, the plaintiffs at the best can be termed only as tress-passers and they are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. There is no cause of action available on a show cause notice when the final order itself was upheld by the Court. Thus even the relief for declaration also is not maintainable.
9.27. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs and has given weightage to the possession of the plaintiffs and their vendor. In our considered view, these factors are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the title. The learned Single Judge has given a lot of validity to the proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and has virtually relied upon the same for conferring title upon the plaintiffs. The learned Single Judge found fault with the Corporation of Madras for not proving their title. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge has completely lost site of the acquisition proceedings and the subsequent orders passed by the Collector of Chennai which was approved by this Court. We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has relied upon irrelevant materials for the purpose of deciding the title of the plaintiffs over the suit property.
9.28.We are not in agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge while granting the reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs in the above suit. Accordingly we set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.418/2001, dated 24.07.2009 and consequently we dismiss the suit.
10.The Original Side Appeal is allowed with cost through out payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[M.M.S.J ] [N.A.V.J] 03.08.2018 2/2 dss/mpa O.S.A.No.24 of 2017 M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
And N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
After pronouncing judgment, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 would submit that inasmuch as possession is with respondents 2 to 5, there is likelihood of the same being taken over, status quo as on today may be ordered to be maintained for a period of six weeks.
2.Considering the submissions made and taking note of the fact that we have reversed the order of the learned single Judge, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice, to grant four weeks to maintain status quo. Accordingly, status quo as on today shall be maintained for a period of four weeks from today.
(M.M.S.J.) (N.A.V.J.) 03.08.2018 mmi Note: Issue copy of the order on 07.08.2018 Index: Yes Internet:Yes Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order To 1.The Collector of Chennai, Singaravelan Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 2. The Assistant Registrar, O.S. High Court, Madras. M.M.SUNDRESH, J and N. ANAND VENKATESH, J dss/mpa Pre-Delivery Judgement in O.S.A.No.24 of 2017 and CMP Nos.14618 to 14620/2017 03.08.2018 2/2