SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1662

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN
M/s Tambaram Perunagar Anaithu Viyabarigal Sangam (Regd.No.135/87) - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government & Another - Respondents
W.P.Nos.17350, 29010 to 29045, 34585 of 2002
Decided On : 21 October 2003

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr.S.Sampathkumar, Senior Counsel for M/s Sampath Kumar & Associates. For the Respondents:Mr.S.V.Durai Solaimalai, Government Advocate for R1 Government Mr.N.R.Chandran, Advocate General for Mr.K.R.Tamizhmani for R2 Municipality.

Payment of property tax does not confer ownership of unauthorized superstructures, and the Municipality has the authority to auction unauthorized shops.

Headnote:

auction notice - challenge by shop owners - Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1975 - G.O.Ms.No.819 Revenue Department dated 2.4.1980 - shops, encroachments, property tax, lease, superstructures, public auction

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, shop owners, challenged the auction notice issued by the Municipality for shops occupied by them. The shops were situated in a market area initially classified as railway and revenue poromboke. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.819 in 1980, offering the land to the Municipality with a condition to lease it to encroachers and not sell it. The petitioners claimed ownership of the superstructures and challenged the Municipality's right to auction the shops.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Government Order applied only to specific shops and vacant land, not to the shops in question. It held that the petitioners did not have lease rights over the land and that payment of property tax did not confer ownership of the superstructures. The court also noted that the superstructures were unauthorized and subject to demolition by the Municipality.

Issues: 1) Applicability of Government Order to the petitioners' shops. 2) Claim of ownership based on property tax payment. 3) Municipality's authority to auction the shops.

Ratio Decidendi: The Government Order applied only to specific shops and vacant land, not to the petitioners' shops. Payment of property tax did not confer ownership of unauthorized superstructures. The Municipality had the authority to auction the shops due to the unauthorized nature of the superstructures.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the Municipality to keep the auction notices in abeyance for one year, after which the shops were to be handed over for public auction. The petitioners were allowed to occupy the shops during this period and participate in the auction.

Judgment :-

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the auction notice issued by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality, calling for tender-cum-public auction of shops occupied by the petitioners with a consequential relief forbearing the respondents from putting into auction the shops belonging to the petitioners. In W.P.No.17350 of 2002, the petitioner-sangam has challenged the notice dated 9.5.2002 and in all the other writ petitions the members of the petitioner-sangam have challenged the individual notice dated 22.7.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent.

2. The following are the few facts as culled out from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the W.P.No.17350 of 2002, which led to the filing of the writ petitions. Since almost all the petitioners have questioned the impugned auction notice on the same averments, I do not elaborate the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of each of the writ petitions and for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions, the averments made in W.P.No.17350 of 2002 are alone discussed.

3. The petitioner sangam was formed with the aim of uplift and welfare of 112 shop owners of open market situate at "Duraiswami Reddiar Market" GST Road, West Tambaram, Chennai-45. The land in which the market is situate initially was classified as railway poromboke and revenue poromboke. The members of the petitioner-sangam occupied the vacant land 50 years back and have also put up superstructures. The superstructures put up by the members of the petitioner sangam are assessed to property tax and that too way back from the year 1979-80.

4. Considering the long number of years of occupation of the land together with the superstructure for the purpose of doing their business in the open market, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.819 Revenue Department dated 2.4.1980. By the said Government Order, the entire lands were offered to the second respondent (herein after referred as "The Municipality). In fact, an extent of 3.65 acres of land in S.F.No.323/1 and 0.25 acres of land in S.F.No.323/1A1A1B of Tambaram Village, Saidapet Taluk was placed at the disposal of the Municipality with the existing encroachments on collection of land value with a further condition that the Municipality should only lease the land to the encroachers and should not sell them at any time. Though the land was handed over to the Municipality, pursuant to the compliance of the above Government Order, the members of the petitioner-sangam were not granted lease in respect of the land occupied by them. However, the members of the petitioner-sangam continued to pay the land rent as well as property tax for the superstructure to the Municipality. In fact, by a resolution the Municipality decided to collect the licence fee through private contractors. This practice was adopted right from the year 1981. On the strength of the payment of property tax for the superstructure and on the payment of licence fee, the members of the petitioner-sangam had inherited right over the superstructures and the Municipality being the owner of the land alone, cannot claim any right over the superstructures and therefore, the Municipality is not entitled to auction the shops in question.

5. A counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality. According to the counter affidavit, an extent of 3.65 acres of land comprised in S.F.No.323/1 and an extent of 0.25 acres of land comprised in S.F.No.324 Part of Tambaram village were notified as market in the Tambaram Town Planning Scheme as the land was in possession of erstwhile Chengleput District Board. The District Collector, Chengleput periodically granted permission to the local body for its possession and permitted the Municipality to lease out the land to third parties. This area came to be known as "Duraiswami Reddiar Market". About 172 persons came to occupy this land and they had put up superstructures. Apart from




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top