The local body cannot assert ownership of property reserved for public purposes without clear documentary evidence proving title transfer; mere designation in a layout does not confer ownership rights.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

1. The plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Ponneri is the appellant in the above appeal. The third respondent/Zonal Officer, Corporation of Chennai Zone-3, Madhavaram, Chennai was brought on record as the third defendant in the suit after Madhavaram became part of Corporation of Chennai.

2. The appellant filed the suit in OS.No.19 of 2008 for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and they are in exclusive possession over the vacant plot comprised in Survey No.1179 in Ponniammanmedu, Madhavaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District measuring to an extent of about 21,800 sq.ft.; for a declaration that the order passed by the third defendant vide proceedings dated 30.05.2007 cancelling the planning permission granted to the plaintiff on 07.07.2006 is null and void; and also for a consequential injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 or their men from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff except by due process of law.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The plaintiff is a Trust, which was formed with an object to establish a School and other Educational Institutions on the property purchased by them in Survey No.1179 in Ponniammanmedu, Madhavaram Village. The suit property was acquired by the Trust by way of a registered sale deed dated 02.08.2004, which is marked as Ex.A9. The suit property was the subject matter of the suit for partition in OS.No.501 of 1920 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. Pursuant to the final decree passed in OS.No.501 of 1920, the property came to the hands of the predecessor in interest of plaintiff's vendor.

4. The appellant earlier filed an application before the Madhavaram, Municipal Commissioner under the District Municipal Act seeking permission to build a School in the said property. The Municipal Commissioner after inspecting the site and perusing the records, particularly, the documents of title relating to the suit property and being convinced about the title, interest and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff/Trust granted necessary permission to put up buildings for running the School. Thereafter, preparatory works were done by the plaintiff.

5. Subsequently, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, in response to the application submitted by the petitioner for permission to put up construction of a School, has given clearance by stating that School is permissible in the said land as per the land use zone. However, the Commissioner of Municipality, who had given permission earlier, objected for construction, demanding an exorbitant sum of Rs.30,00,000/- for himself, stating that the costs of land has gone up. Since the plaintiff is a Trust and they are answerable to so many people, they could not afford such payment. Thereafter, the then Commissioner of Municipality by name Sekhar started giving threats and tried to prevent the construction work. Later, the then Commissioner of Municipality with his men high-handedly demolished a thatched shed, which was put up by the plaintiff, with J.C.P. and there was some law and order problem. The plaintiff lodged a criminal complaint against the then Commissioner of Municipality. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Municipality cancelled the permission granted earlier for construction of School and the petitioner was constrained to file a Writ Petition in WP.No.35385 of 2006 to quash