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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 1322

High Court of Judicature at Madras
ELIPE DHARMA RAO & M. VENUGOPAL
Woodlands Hotel, rep. by its Partner K. Murali Rao, Chennai
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and Others
M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in Rev. A.SR. No. 33182 of 2008 and Rev. A.SR. No. 33186 of 2008
Decided On : 22-04-2008

Advocates Appeared:
A.R. L. Sundaresan, Standing Counsel for Srinath Sridevan for Petitioner. P. S. Raman, Addl. Advocate General assisted by D. Sreenivasan, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Unauthorized occupation of government land without a valid lease agreement does not confer any right on the occupier. The government has the right to resume lands for public purposes and for violation of lease conditions.

Headnote:

Government Land Resumption - Land Acquisition - [Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975), Section 37] - The court allowed the government to resume the lands for public purposes and for violation of lease conditions. The court found that the petitioner, a sub-lessee, was in unauthorized occupation of the land without a valid lease agreement with the government. The court dismissed the review petitions as the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and the government had the right to resume the lands.

Fact of the Case:

The government purchased lands for public purposes and leased them to a society. The society sublet the land to the petitioner without government permission. The government sought to resume the lands for public purposes and violation of lease conditions. The petitioner filed review petitions seeking to challenge the court's decision allowing the government to resume the lands.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the land without a valid lease agreement with the government. The court dismissed the review petitions as the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and the government had the right to resume the lands.

Issues: Unauthorized occupation of government land, validity of lease agreement, petitioner's status as an aggrieved person

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner, as a sub-lessee, was in unauthorized occupation of the land without a valid lease agreement with the government. The court held that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and dismissed the review petitions.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the review petitions as the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and the government had the right to resume the lands.

Judgment :

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

Both these petitions are tiled by the petitioner, a third party to the proceedings, praying to grant leave for him to seek review of the common judgment passed by this Court, dated 11.4.2008 respectively in W.A. Nos. 1030 and 1031 of 1998.

2. A brief history, leading to the filing of these petitions, is that the Government in 1836, has purchased lands in Mylapore village, Triphcane-Mylapore Taluk, Madras District, measuring an extent of C 6-18-1673 sq.ft. in O.S. No. 3410 (now part of R.S. No. 13) and an extent of C.4-22-226 sq.ft. in O.S. Nos. 3406 (part), 3407, 3408, 3409 and 3413 (now part of R.S. No. 13 and R.S. No. 64), Mylapore village, Madras District was acquired by the Government and placed at the disposal of the 5th respondent Agri Horticultural Society, for the specific purpose of maintaining an Agri-Horticulture garden. In the year 1912, another extent of C1-11-1823 sq.ft. in O.S. No. 3415 part was acquired by the Government and leased in favour of the above Society on annual rent, with provision for resumption. A specific lease deed was also executed. However, owing to non-fulfilment of the condition of grant by the Society, the Government by their order in G.O. Ms. No. 1362, Revenue, dated 26.3.1962 has ordered resumption of the land placed at the disposal of the Agri Horticultural Society. Challenging the said order of resumption, the Society filed W.P. No. 469 of 1962. While so, in the year 1964, a compromise was entered into between the Society, represented by its Secretary and the then Government of Madras, represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department and the same was communicated in G.O. Ms. No. 2572, dated 26.10.1964. Society has withdrawn the Writ Petition No. 469 of 1962.

3. Thereafter, the Government, by a Memorandum bearing No. 77668/Ll/71-41, dated 25.5.1977, had issued a notice to the Society, stating that there is violation of conditions of grant inasmuch as the Society has not obtained prior approval of the Government for subletting the lands in favour of the Woodlands Drive-in Restaurant/the petitioner herein. It was also stated that the sub-lease of the lands by the Society in favour of the petitioner came to an end on 31.7.1971, but the Society permitted the petitioner to continue to remain in the property, without the Government recognising the sub-lease. After detailed discussion with the office bearers of the Society, the Government has arrived at certain conclusions and issued G.O. Ms. No. 513, dated 4.3.1980. Pursuant to the said G.O., the Society had entered into an agreement on 28.4.1980.

4. Thereupon, the Government, by Letter No. 45135/Ll/89, dated 26.7.1989, placing reliance on clause No. (4) of the above said agreement which says that the Government reserve themselves the right to resume at any time the said lands in the event of infringement of or failure to observe any of the conditions of the grant or if the lands are required for any public purposes and the decision of the Government on the question of infringement or failure to observe any of the conditions of the grant or the requirement for any public purpose shall be final and binding on the Society….‘ had issued a notice to the 5 respondent Society, seeking to resume the lands immediately, for a public purpose, which includes (a) the development of sports facilities without affecting the environment and (b) development of horticulture and horticulture research and required the Society to state as to why the Government should not resume the lands for public purposes. The said notice was challenged by the Society as well as by its Honorary Secretary Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, by filing two separate writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 10167 and 10168 of 1989 before this Court, on the ground that the impugned action was initiated by the Government as a result of political vendetta, since he is closely associated with AIADMK General Secretary and also a former Minister of the AIADMK Government. It is also c









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top