W.A.No.2669 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.10.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.A.No.2669 of 2023

Don Bosco Higher Secondary School

Rep. by its Correspondent

No.130, Madhavaram High Road

Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

..

Appellant

Vs.

1. The Secretary

Ministry of Home Affairs

Government of India

North Block, Central Secretariat

New Delhi 110 001.

2. The Joint Secretary (FFR Division)

Ministry of Home Affairs

Government of India

NDCC-I, Palika Kendra

Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001.

3. The Custodian

O/o. The Custodian of Enemy Property for India

Kaiser-I-Hind Building

Ballard Estate, Currimbhoy Road

P.B.No.689, Mumbai 400 038.

__________

Page 1 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2669 of 2023

4. The Secretary to Government

Revenue Department

Government of Tamil Nadu

Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

5. The Commissioner for Land Administration

Chepauk

Chennai 600 005.

6. The District Collector

O/o. The District Collector

Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

7. The Tahsildar

Purasawalkam-Perumbur Taluk

Perambur, Chennai 600 011.

..

Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.09.2023 made in

W.P.No.28448 of 2021.

For the Appellant

: Mr.R.Prabhakaran

For the Respondents

: Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy

Senior Panel Counsel

for Respondents 1 to 3

Mr.Ramanlal

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by

Mrs.R.Anitha

Special Government Pleader

for Respondents 4 to 7

__________

Page 2 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2669 of 2023

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

We have heard Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the

appellant, Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned Senior Panel Counsel for

the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional

Advocate General, assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special

Government Pleader for the respondents 4 to 7.

2. The appellant has filed the writ petition seeking directions

against the third respondent to accept the lease amount of

Rs.96,583/- (Rupees ninety six thousand five hundred and eighty

three only) and to renew the lease from 01.08.2022 in favour of the

appellant School.

3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, lease was

executed in favour of the appellant in respect of the subject writ

land way back in the year 1984 and the occupation charges were

directed to be paid with effect from July 1985. The property in

__________

Page 3 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2669 of 2023

question is an enemy property. The lease in favour of the appellant

has come to an end in July 2021.

4. The property in question is used as a playground for the

children and also for the residents of the locality. The playground is

to be preserved as such and the respondents cannot use the

property for commercial purpose. According to learned counsel,

learned Single Judge failed to consider the said aspect in its correct

perspective.

5. Learned counsel submits that the appellant is not an

unauthorised occupant. It is occupying it under a valid lease. The

respondents ought to have accepted the lease amount. The lease

amount was increased from time to time. Initially, it was

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per annum.

Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.96,583/- (Rupees ninety six

thousand five hundred and eighty three only). The respondents

ought to have considered the larger interest of the students and the

__________

Page 4 of 9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.2669 of 2023

people at large. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant would remit the amount of lease within one week.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that

the period o