SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD – Appellant
Versus
JAYANTHI – Respondent
CRP 3610 2018



C.R.P.(NPD)No.3610 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 22.07.2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 03.08.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3610 of 2018

and C.M.P.No.20184 of 2018

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Rep. By its Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

No.331, Anna Salai,

Nandanam, Chennai-35.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. Jayanthi

2. Suganthi

Both are represented by

Power of Attorney Agent

A.Alagupandian

... Respondents

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of CPC., to set

aside the docket order to issue fresh direction warrant passed on 22.06.2018

in E.P.No.3495 of 2015 in O.S.No.4714 of 1999 on the file of the learned IX

Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.C.Emalias

For Mr.Sivakumar

For Respondents

: Mr.P.Paramasivadas

Page 1 of 37

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3610 of 2018

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petitions is directed as against the docket

order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil

Court, Chennai in E.P.No.3495 of 2015 in O.S.No.4714 of 1999, thereby

issuing fresh warrant as against the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondents are

the decree holders. The petitioner acquired land for the development of

Besent Nagar Phase-II scheme for the total extent of 96.92 acres comprised

in Survey No.88/1, 2 etc of Thiruvanmiyur Village, Mylapore Taluk,

Chennai. For the administrative purpose, the entire extent of 96.92 acres was

split up into five blocks. The land in survey No.86/13A and 86/13B ad

measuring 20 cents and 21 cents respectively, falls in block No.III out of the

total extent of 23.44 acres. The Acquisition Officer has passed an award vide

Award No.5/86 dated 23.09.1986 including the land comprised in Survey

No.86/13A and 86/13B ad measuring 20 cents and 21 cents respectively.

3.

The land comprised in survey No.86/13A to an extent of 20

Page 2 of 37

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3610 of 2018

cents registered in the name of Kadambadi Ammal under patta No.30. She

had sold it in favour of the first respondent herein on 14.04.1981 vide

registered document No.1346/81. Similarly, the another land to an extent of

21 cents comprised in Survey No.86/13B registered in the name of one

Durairaj under patta No.150. He had sold out the said land in favour of the

second respondent herein on 26.03.1981 vide document No.2285/81. Both

the respondents herein have purchased the said properties after 4(1)

notification dated 09.08.1978. As per the award, they were ordered to pay

the compensation on production of original documents. Aggrieved by the

said award the respondents filed petition in L.A.O.P.No.146 of 1987 before

the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and by the

judgment and decree dated 08.11.1990, the said Court fixed the land value

at Rs.500/- per cent against the value at Rs.328/-.

4.

In fact, the respondents filed writ petition before this Court in

W.P.Nos.17231 and 17232 of 1997 for direction directing the petitioner to

consider their application for issuance of no objection certificate on

04.06.1997. Both the writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn by this

Page 3 of 37

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3610 of 2018

Court by an order dated 19.11.1997 with liberty to prosecute appropriate

remedy before the appropriate forum. Even before the said writ petitions,

they also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.11895 of 1986 challenging

the acquisition proceedings and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn

by an order dated 18.11.1988.

5.

While being so, suppressing the above facts, the respondents

have filed a suit in O.S.No.4717 of 99 for declaration declaring that the

award passed in Award No.5 of 1986 dated 23.09.1986 has become

unenforceable and mandatory direction directing the petitioner to issue no

objection certifica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top