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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75901

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
C.JAMES – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Respondent
WP No. 18915 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.S. Rajamohan
For the Respondents: D.Ravichander, M.Suresh Kumar, D.B.R.Prabhu, N.Jothi, B.Balaji

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Declaratory relief - Disputed facts - Easementary rights - A writ court under Article 226 cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact of a civil nature, especially those relating to title or easementary rights, which require a trial. (Paras 1-2, 15)

(B) Property law - Rights of allottees - Sale deed and approved layout - Acceptance of allotment - Where the sale deed and approved layout provide a specific width of road (5.6 ft), the allottee cannot claim any additional right to a wider road not shown in those documents. Sympathy cannot override documentary evidence. (Paras 9, 13-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, allottees of housing plots in a colony developed by the Slum Clearance Board, sought a declaration that the respondents’ action of closing a passage was illegal and for restoration of a 20 ft road they claimed to have used. The sale deeds and approved layout only showed a 5.6 ft lane for their plots. The respondents had developed the adjacent low-lying area into a public pond and eco-park after removing encroachments pursuant to earlier court directions. The petitioners alleged a promise by an ex-servicemen association, but the respondents denied any such right.

Findings of Court:
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the declaratory relief involving easementary rights raised disputed facts not amenable to Article 226. Moreover, the petitioners’ rights were governed by the sale deeds and approved layout, which provided only a 5.6 ft lane. Having accepted the allotment and sale deeds, they could not later claim a 20 ft road. The respondents had lawfully developed a public project, and the court could not confer additional rights based on sympathy.

Issues: (1) Whether a writ court under Article 226 can grant a declaration of easementary rights involving disputed facts. (2) Whether the petitioners had any legal right to a 20 ft road when the sale deeds and approved layout only provided a 5.6 ft lane.

Ratio Decidendi: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not designed to adjudicate disputed questions of fact relating to title or easementary rights; such matters require a civil trial. The rights of allottees are conclusively determined by the documents of title (sale deed and approved layout), and they cannot claim additional rights not reflected therein.

Result: Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The nature of relief sought for in the present writ petition, at the first instance needs to be looked into. A writ of declaration has been instituted to declare that an action of respondents 1 to 4 in closing the passage or ingress and egress are illegal, unlawful, violation of rule of law and principles of natural justice and consequently, restore the properties of the petitioners in the usage of 20 feet width road running from Sathiyavanimuthu Road Extension (25th street), leading up to Door No.38, 25th street, CKM colony, abutting the pond at GKM Colony, Chennai-82 facing east of their properties falling with the Chennai corporation limits in present Division No.65 under the guise of rejuvenation of GKM colony pond park.

2. The declaratory relief seeking easementary right is a disputed fact deserves to be adjudicated in a trial nature proceedings. High court in exercise of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 cannot adjudicate disputed facts of civil nature. However, writ petition, since came to be instituted against State, this Court has to examine whether petitioners have acquired right over the streets, which is sought to be declared in the prayer column in the present writ petition.

3. The facts in brief would show that lands comprised in Survey Nos.379, 380 and 381, presently Block No.32/TS No.3, Peravallur Village, Survey No.153, Ayanavaram Village, Survey No.14 at Konnur village comprised of 139.07 acres of defence land, for which sanction was conveyed by Government of India, Ministry of Defence (ML & C Dept) New Delhi vide letter dated 31.03.1977 to be conveyed for allotment of members of the Sri Kusuma Haranath Ex-servicemen association, General Kumaramangalam Colony in consultation with State Government/local authority, on payment of a sum of Rs.27,80,000/- at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. Collection of value of land was initially required to be caused by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, which has to be re-transmissioned to Military estate officer, Madras

4.Vide order dated 31.03.1977, Government authorised erstwhile Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (renamed as Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board) as per the report of Chairman, Slum Clearance Board, dated 12.03.1982 and 24.09.1982 to take action towards collecting installments, whereupon transfer of ownership of lands in favour of the occupants, to enter into lease cum sale agreement, the Defence Ministry subject to certain terms and conditions resolved in Resolution No.267/81 dated 13.10.1981 by Slum Clearance Board. The terms were part of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.991, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 02.11.1982.

5. G.K.M. Colony, Chennai – 600 082, was taken up for development by Slum Clearance Board under Madras Urban Development Project and as per G.O.Ms.No.991, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 02.11.1982. Board became the authority to transfer ownership rights in the land to and in favour of the occupant under “as is where as” basis. The maintenance and development of the area also vested with Slum Clearance Board and the same was carried out with World Bank fund assistance.

6. G.K.M. Colony has been notified as “slum” along with other slum areas by Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.225, Labour and Housing Department, dated 26.02.1972 under Slum Clearance Board Act .

7. As per the directions of Government of India, Slum Clearance Board has allotted subject lands to 1762 occupiers as beneficiaries as per the eligible beneficiaries list approved by District Collector. There cannot be any substitution of any person other than the members in eligibility list. Slum Clearance Board is only in charge of the collection of installments and remitting the same to Government of India (Ministry of Defence) from 1762 members. Thereupon, by proceedings dated 01.04.2010 by Defence Estate Office, Madras, a certificate was issued to Slum Clearance Board

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