IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
P.A. Towers Residential Service Society - Applicant
Vs.
M/s. P.A. Constructions, Rep. By its Proprietor, Mr. K. Ponuswamy and Ors. - Respondents
Original Application No. 267 of 2018 in CS No. 1051 of 2010
Decided On : 16-05-2018
Injunction - Property Dispute - G.O.Ms.1030, G.O.Ms.709 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought injunction to prevent the bank from taking possession of a property, claiming it as open space reservation (OSR) land. The defendants contested, arguing that the land was released from OSR status after payment of charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found doubt about the nature of the land and granted the injunction, prohibiting any construction on the property until the suit is resolved.
Issues: Dispute over the nature of the land, validity of conveyance, and payment of OSR charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found doubt about the land's status and granted the injunction based on a prima facie case.
Final Decision: The court made the interim injunction absolute, prohibiting construction on the property until the suit is resolved.
The applicant/plaintiff seeks an order of injunction restraining the 25th respondent viz. the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Kasturba Nagar Branch, Adayar, Chennai 600 020, from in any way taking possession of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the above suit.
2. The suit in CS No.1051 of 2010 has been filed by the applicant seeking the declaration that the vacant land, which is described in Schedule “A”, the passage morefully described in the Schedule “B” and use of open space surrounding the Block A and Block B of P.A. Flats, morefully shown in Schedule “C” absolutely vests with the plaintiff, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 20, their men agents or any other person claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and for Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants 21 and 22 to maintain the Open Space Reservation Area and the passage as per G.O.Ms.1030 dated 11.07.1986 and G.O.Ms.709 of 02.06.1987, Housing and Urban Development and the planning permit approved by CMDA No.C/7871/87 dated 28.07.1988.
3. In this Application, we are concerned only with the area shown as Open Space Reservation in Survey No. 3121/31 bearing Door No. 869 of Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. According to the plaintiff, the said area measuring about 4 grounds and 300 sq.ft. was set apart as OSR land, when the portion of the property was developed in the year 1985. As per the original sanctioned plan the Open Space Reservation Area was shown on the southern side abuting the Poonamallee High Road, subsequently the same was shifted to the rear side and the said shifting was approved by G.O.Ms.1030, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 11.07.1986.
4. The applicant/plaintiff is the Association of the owners of the apartments that were constructed, pursuant to the planning permission granted to the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the owner of the land on the Eastern side of the property developed by the 1st respondent, viz. the 2nd respondent had sought for additional approval for construction of additional floors from CMDA in 1995-1996. While doing so, the set back area and the common passage of the property situate on the western side bearing Door No. 869, Poonamalle High Road, was shown as the set back area for the said building and since the planning permission was sought for, for an area above 3000 sq.meters, the applicant was required to either provide open space reservation or to pay the charges. It is learnt that the charges were paid, however, since no patta was issued for the set back area the planning permission was not granted. While so, the applicant would further contend, that the owners of the land bearing No.869, Poonamalle High Road, had applied for construction of additional floors during the year 1987 and the said permission for construction of additional floors was granted, by the Government in G.O.Ms.706 dated 02.06.1987, wherein also a condition was laid to the effect that they should undertake to shift the existing open space to a place in the rear side satisfying the development control rules in respect of the construction under reference. Therefore, according to the plaintiff Association, the land shown as open space reservation on the north western side of the property in question, marked as F, H, I, J, in the plan annexed to the plaint is actually the Open Space Reservation left by the 1st respondent, who promoted the apartment complex and the same should be maintained as a open space.
5. Claiming that the 25th respondent, viz, the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Kasturba Nagar Branch, Adayar, Chennai 600 020, had issued a notice under SARFAESI Act, seeking to take possession of the said property, the plaintiff had come forward with this Original Application, seeking an order of injunction restraining the Bank from taking over possession of the property. The Authorised Officer of Canara Bank was impleaded as
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.