Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4728
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
N. Ismail rep. by his Power of Attorney, N. Abdul Rahman Koya & Others
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, & Others
W.P. No.19469 of 2012, 19470, 19471, 19472, 19619, 20283, 20411, 20412, 20492, 20493, 20494, 20495, 20496, 20497, 20498, 20499, 20500, 20501, 20555, 20597 & 20801 of 2012 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions (21 Cases)
Decided on : 26-11-2012
For the Petitioners:P.S. Raman, Sr.Counsel for V. Perumal, E. Manoharan, T.V. Ramanujam, Sr. Counsel, R. Muthukumaraswamy, Sr. Counsel, A.L. Somayaji, Sr. Counsel, B. Kumar, Sr. Counsel, M. Abdul Nazeer, L. Chandrakumar, P. Krishnan, M. Liagat Ali, AR.L. Sundaresan, Sr. Counsel for C.R. Sathindran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General, P.H. Arvind Pandian, Addl. Advocate General, assisted by V. Subbiah, Spl. Govt. Pleader, R. Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel, for V. Rama Jagadeesan, Advocates.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 226 -Trust - Resumption and alienation – Writ petition preferred- The Government assigned a property to a Trust under a scheme but on the grounds of mismanagement by the hereditary trustee who allegedly gave properties to various persons/ lessee on lease, where in lease had to be renewed by the Government if it is executed for a period more than 5 years, appointed an Official trustee for the eviction of the tenants and resumption of the Trust properties without any notice and verifying any compensation that each Petitioner was entitled to, for the construction of a Railway project. Held- Government committed violation of its own scheme as the lease was issued with the permission of the Court and the construction was done with the permission of the Government - Therefore resumption would affect the rights of the people who were in possession of the land. The lessee were also entitled to compensation according to the scheme announced by CMRL and were also entitled of the opportunity of being heard before they were evicted.
These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of certain areas of land either as a Lessee or continuing in possession after the period of lease was over doing their business in the subject property, which was granted by the Government to Raja Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry through two Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.534 Revenue Department, dated 6.8.1888 and G.O.Ms.No.812 Revenue Department dated 22.11.1988, by the impugned order issued in G.O.Ms.No.168 Revenue Department, dated 21.5.2012 and the consequential proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai-3, dated 20.6.2012. The said subject lands were ordered to be resumed and the person in possession are ordered to be vacated as the said lands are required for the use of Chennai Metro Rail Project.
2. In W.P.No.19619 of 2012, the Co-Trustee of Raja Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry Trust, challenged the said Government order dated 21.5.2012. W.P.No.20801 of 2012 is filed by the person claiming himself as Co-Trustee.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:
(a) The lands comprised in T.S.No.41 and 43/2 in Block No.7 of Vepery Village, which are Government lands, were granted to Raja Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.534 Revenue Department dated 6.8.1888 and G.O.Ms.No.812 Revenue Department dated 22.11.1888, subject to condition that the Choultry therein should be available for the use of railway travellers with other conditions.
(b) In the year 1947, the Board of Revenue had recommended the request of the Trustee of the Choutry to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/-from the fixed deposit standing in the credit of the Choultry for the construction of showroom in the said land subject to the condition that the Trustee credits the rental income from the proposed building to the reserve fund of the Trust. The Government accepted the said recommendations of the Board of Revenue and issued G.O.Ms.No.488 Revenue Department, dated 4.3.1948 subject to the modification that not less than 50% of the rental income from the proposed showroom should be credited to the reserve fund of the Trust. The Trust put up the building in the form of showroom in parts of the above said lands for leasing out the same to third parties. Thus, it is the contention of the petitioners that the original condition that the land should be used for Choultry got modified by the order of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.488 Revenue Department dated 4.3.1948.
(c) The above lands were managed by Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar and thereafter by his legal heirs as Hereditary Trustees. In the year 1957 a portion of the said land with building was leased out to M/s.Buhari and Sons Pvt. Ltd., for a period of 20 years.
(d) The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu had filed a suit in C.S.No.90 of 1963 before this Court for framing a scheme for the proper and better management of Raja Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry Trust and this Court by order dated 18.8.1970 framed a scheme for proper and better management of the Trust, by which the existing trustees were removed and the Official Trustee, High Court, Madras, was directed to take immediate possession of the Estate and administer the same. The Official Trustee was ordered to be the Trustee in management of the charities.
(e) In clause 12 of the scheme decree, liberty was given to the Official Trustee to grant lease of vacant lands or portion thereof not required for the purpose of Choultry from time to time for a period of not exceeding five years and if the period is to be a longer period, the Official Trustee was directed to obtain appropriate permission/sanction of this Court.
(f) In the year 1972 Application No.340 of 1972 in C.S.No.90 of 1963 was filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.19469 of 2012 for the grant of lease of a portion of the land. The said application was allowed on 22.12.1972. Consequently the said petiti
