2019 Supreme(Mad) 276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Venugopal, R. Pongiappan, JJ.
XS Real Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another – Petitioners
Versus
Anaithu Vivasaya Sagupadi Payirkal Urpath Vivasayigal Sangam, Kanchipuram, Rep. By General Secretary & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 4864 of 2016 & W.M.P. Nos. 20278 & 24152 of 2017
Decided On : 14-02-2019

Headnote:

The Court held that the impugned order of the District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 02.09.2015 is set aside. The District Collector, Kancheepuram is directed to conduct a De novo/Fresh Enquiry into the Representation of the Sangam dated 06.04.2015 and to pass a reasoned speaking orders in qualitative and quantitative terms, after affording necessary opportunities to the Petitioners, Official Respondents and the Plaintiff to substantiate their version through oral and documentary evidence by examining necessary witnesses.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners, a leading Developer in the Chennai Real Estate Market, purchased Lands at Siruseri Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, being the Lands identified and aggregated by the 9th Respondent (later given up), who was the 'Real Estate Aggregator' along with 8th Respondent. The Petitioners obtained 'Foreign Direct Investment' for developing the Project named as “Catalunya City” in Siruseri Village. The 2nd Petitioner is the 1st Petitioner's Group Company which engaged the 1st Petitioner as its 'Marketing Agent' for promoting the aforesaid using the brands of the 1st Petitioner. The 2nd Petitioner is currently developing the first phase of the Project named as 'Barcelona' after obtaining the required statutory 'Approvals'. The Petitioners and its group company have a strict policy not to deal with cash, in order to bring respectability and transparency to the realty segment. The 8th Respondent agreed to sell his Lands and the Lands of his relatives to the 2nd Petitioner, in addition to other Lands identified by the 9th Respondent. On 17.07.2013, the Government of Tamil Nadu (Housing and Urban Development) published a G.O.Ms.No.28 for classifying the Lands as “Mixed Residential Zone” from “Urbanisable Use Zone”. After obtaining Sale Deeds in its favour, the 2nd Petitioner had also obtained 'Patta' in respect of the aforesaid survey numbers. After the rates for purchase of Lands were finalised and the 2nd Petitioner had proceeded to obtain 'Demand Drafts' for the Sale Consideration as well as the stamp duty and registration fees, from its bankers State Bank of India, CCPC, Chennai. The Petitioner and its group company have a strict policy not to deal with cash, in order to bring respectability and transparency to the realty segment. The 8th Respondent, at the last minute, made a demand for an increase in Sale Consideration, but the transaction had not fructified because of dispute. The 5th Respondent/Tahsildar, Kancheepuram Taluk Office issued a 'No Objection Certificate' on 23.04.2014 confirming that the Lands were not Government Poramboke Lands, there were no pending Land acquisition proceedings and there were no ceiling proceedings. Also, it was certified that the 2nd Petitioner's Lands were not prone to flooding. Apart from that, it was certified that it was part of the local planning authority. Indeed, the 2nd Petitioner had executed registered Gift Deeds dated 09.02.2015 in favour of the Siruseri Panchayat as per the Development Control Rules towards the public road and open space reservation area. The 7th Respondent had granted the Site Approval and Planning Permit Approval and on 14.03.2015 the Building Plan Approval was obtained from the Siruseri Panchayat Board. The 2nd Petitioner commenced its development activities only after payment of Statutory Fees and securing statutory 'Approvals'. Because of the numerous problems created by the 8th Respondent either directly or through his relatives etc., the 2nd Petitioner was constrained to lodge a complaint before the Jurisdictional Inspector of Police seeking to take necessary action. Further, he laid a Civil Suit in O.S.No.579 of 2014 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Chengalpet for injunction restraining the 1st Petitioner from blocking the 'Water Canal' showed in the related map and sketch filed by him. The 1st Respondent/Sangam filed W.P.No.13495 of 2015 to protect the riparian right of the farmers and the right of the farmers' and villagers over channels and pathways duly recognised by the Government and is duly reflected in the Village Map. The 3rd Respondent/District Collector, Kancheepuram passed an order on 02.09.2015 recognizing the rights of villagers and farmers in respect of riparian rights resting the Channels and Pathways, after issuing notice and providing due opportunity to the Writ Petitioners. The 1st Respondent/Sangam filed W.P.No.36952 of 2015 to implement the orders passed by the 3rd Respondent/District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 02.09.2015 and that the 5th Respondent/Tahsildar, Thiruporur (4th Respondent therein) filed counter stating that '... action is being initiated and to inform the encroachment portion so as to evict all the encroachments in channel by the public works department'.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned order of the District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 02.09.2015 is set aside. The District Collector, Kancheepuram is directed to conduct a De novo/Fresh Enquiry into the Representation of the Sangam dated 06.04.2015 and to pass a reasoned speaking orders in qualitative and quantitative terms, after affording necessary opportunities to the Petitioners, Official Respondents and the Plaintiff to substantiate their version through oral and documentary evidence by examining necessary witnesses.

Issues: Whether the impugned order of the District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 02.09.2015 is valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned order of the District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 02.09.2015 is set aside. The District Collector, Kancheepuram is directed to conduct a De novo/Fresh Enquiry into the Representation of the Sangam dated 06.04.2015 and to pass a reasoned speaking orders in qualitative and quantitative terms, after affording necessary opportunities to the Petitioners, Official Respondents and the Plaintiff to substantiate their version through oral and documentary evidence by examining necessary witnesses. The Court observed that the impugned order was passed without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also observed that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Final Decision: The Court held that the impugned order of the District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 02.09.2015 is set aside. The District Collector, Kancheepuram is directed to conduct a De novo/Fresh Enquiry into the Representation of the Sangam dated 06.04.2015 and to pass a reasoned speaking orders in qualitative and quantitative terms, after affording necessary opportunities to the Petitioners, Official Respondents and the Plaintiff to substantiate their version through oral and documentary evidence by examining necessary witnesses.