IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
Madras Gymkhana Club, Represented by its Honorary Secretary - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department and ors. – Respondent
W.P.No.30294 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.32975 of 2024
Decided On : 18-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of golf course history (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner constructed club house (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents sealed access (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. respondents' counter-arguments (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's consideration of claims (Para 21) |
| 6. court finds no established rights (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. writ petition dismissed (Para 31) |
ORDER :
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from causing any further damage to the Golf Course, Annex building and allied areas pending consideration of the petitioner's representation, dated 25.09.2024.
2. The petitioner's case is that, at its inception, the petitioner was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 and later obtained registration under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act of 1975, bearing registration No.48 of 1910. In the Race Course at Guindy, a golf course established by the Madras Golf Club existed. The Madras Golf Club and the Madras Gymkhana Club merged in 1887, and the petitioner has maintained the golf course ever since. The Madras Gymkhana Club -M.G.C Golf Annex, Guindy, established in 1887, is the third oldest golf course in the country. The records available to the petitioner indicate that members of the petitioner and the Madras Race Club played the first seven holes at the golf course in Island Grounds before traveling on horseback to the golf course at Guindy to play four holes, then returning to the Island Grounds Golf Course to play the remaining seven holes to complete a total of 18 holes, which was the practice until the turn of the 20th century.
3. Additional details regarding the development of the game and the establishment of a full-fledged Golf Course are also provided. The petitioner constructed a Club House in 1951 at its own expense, which includes kitchen, dining, recreation, and bar facilities. It is located on the first floor of the building housing the race jockeys and measures approximately 4,000 square feet. There are 50 staff members employed, and nearly 400 to 500 members use the Golf Course on a regular basis. The history of golf play and the various events conducted over the years are all documented. The petitioner asserts that it has been in possession, management, and enjoyment of the Guindy Golf Course for over 140 years, maintaining the said land at significant costs to meet international standards. The petitioner club celebrated its 125th year of golf in 2002 and is set to celebrate its 150th anniversary in 2027. Paragraph No.13 of the affidavit reads as follows:-
" 13. I submit that the petitioner has established the following rights by efflux of time over hundred years viz.,
a. To maintain the golf course with 18 holes for the benefit of its members and to non member golfers on payment of the green fee.
b. In furtherance of the above, to assure the golfers to gain entry through Gate No.5.
c. To maintain a golf club house with club facilities such as bar and restaurant.
d. To the unfettered use of the lawn near the golf club house.
e. To uninterrupted supply of electricity, water for drinking as well as for irrigating.
f. To use of adequate parking facilities for cars near the golf club house and within the race course walls.
g. To conduct various golf tournaments and training sessions."
4. While the respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.343, dated 06.09.2024, this was related only to the termination of the lease made with the Madras Race Club, and no notice or Government Order was served on the petitioner before they proceeded to seal Gate No.5 of the petitioner's club, barring entry to its members. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 entered the petitioner's premises, including the Golf Course. No opportunity was given, and no procedure established by law was followed by the respondents. It has been reported in the newspapers that the Golf Course premises were transferred to the seventh respondent
Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs. Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs. and Anr.
Possession cannot be taken without due process, but the petitioner failed to establish legal rights over the land, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Plaintiff lacks legal standing to sue without prior notice to defendants due to absence of jural relationship, emphasizing necessity of notice under Section 80(1) of CPC.
The court upheld the public interest in maintaining playgrounds while allowing partial land transfer for a stadium, emphasizing the need for due process in property disputes.
Satisfaction of Government is sufficient to initiate process of requisition and acquisition of land in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the 1964 Act.
The court upheld the validity of ongoing acquisition notifications despite contested claims of possession, establishing that evidence of prior development and forest designations does not nullify acq....
The expiration of a lease does not justify the arbitrary eviction of occupants from property designated for public recreational use, recognizing residents' statutory rights in housing schemes.
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.