IMPORTANT POINT
Private property dispute between the members of one family cannot be allowed to be raised under Article 226/227.
State authorities are duty bound to see as to whether any person(s) has/have contravened or/and is/are contravening any provision(s) of any Act or Rules or Regulations or Statutory Schemes in any manner while using the properties, and if so, what action is called for qua such persons and against the activities carried on by such person(s) in law.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

In Civil Appeal Nos.7390-7391 of 2009

1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.5718 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal and the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out few relevant facts hereinbelow.

3. The appellant herein is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1499 of 2005 and writ petitioner in W.P. No. 5718 of 2005 whereas respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein are the respondents of the said writ appeal and the writ petition out of which these appeals arise.

4. In the aforesaid writ petition, the Single Judge passed an interim order dated 07.03.2005. The appellant herein (writ petitioner) felt aggrieved by the said interim order and filed intra court appeal before the Division Bench.

5. The Division Bench, with the consent of the parties, decided the main writ petition itself on merits and finding no merit therein dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein by the impugned order, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave by the writ petitioner in this Court.

6. On perusal of the list of dates, special leave petitions, writ petition, its counter, the documents enclosed in the appeal and lastly, the findings of the Division Bench in the impugned order, it is clear that the dispute, which was subject matter of the writ petition and which is now carried in these appeals at the instance of the writ petitioner (appellant herein), is essentially between the members of one family whose ancestor was Late S. Narayanapillai. He died leaving behind six sons. Late S. Narayanapillai owned several properties which, on his death, were inherited by his legal representatives.

7. The disputes arose between the members of the family of Late S. Narayanapillai on his death. In order to resolve the disputes, the members of the family, therefore, executed one memorandum of understanding on 24.09.1998 in relation to their family properties. Unfortunately, the disputes did not come to an end and, on the other hand, persisted amongst them, which led to filing of the cases in the Company Law Board by some members against the other and also the writ petition in question by the appellant herein.

8. The dispute, which is subject matter of the writ petition out of which these appeals arise, centers around to the land which is situated in a scheme known as "Ashok Nagar Scheme" in Chennai. The dispute is between the appellant, who is one of the members of the family and respondent No. 2, which is a Private Limited Company formed by another member of the family.

9. One of the grievances of the appellant against respondent No. 2 in the writ petition is that respondent no 2 is running a petrol pump on a portion of the land in question and has also let out its part to respondent No. 3 who, in turn, is using the same as marriage hall for public under the name "Udayam Kalyana Mandapam". This act of respondent No. 2 is being objected to by the appellant amongst them.

10. It is with these background facts and the grievance, which is elaborated, the appellant filed a writ petition and sought therein a relief for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the State authorities namely, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (R1), Chennai City Municipal Corporation (R4) and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (R5) directing them jointly and severally to take appropriate action in law against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and restrain them from continuing with their activities on the land. According to the appellant, the activities undertaken by respondent No. 3 on the land in question are illegal, hazardous and against the public safety inasmuch as they are being carried in violation of several provisions of the laws in force.

11. As mentioned above