Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4670 (MAD)

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. v. D. Shanker

2011-11-30

M.Y.EQBAL, T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2011
Judgment : 1. The writ petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the third respondent, Tahsildar, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, dated 19.08.2011, confirmed by the second respondent, by order dated 26.09.2011, and for a consequential direction, to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the property situate at Town Survey Nos.11, 12 & 13 of Block No.9, Saligramam village, Egmore, Nugambakkam Taluk, Chennai District. 2. When the writ petition was posted for admission before a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 04.10.2011, in M.P.No. 1 of 2011, interim stay of the proceedings of the third respondent dated 19.08.2011, as confirmed by the second respondent, by order dated 26.09.2011, was granted. 3. Since the land in question has been allotted in favour of the Chennai Metro Rail Limited, they were impleaded as the fourth respondent in the writ petition, pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2011 in M.P.No. 2 of 2001. The Chennai Metro Rail Limited have filed M.P.No.3 of 2011, to vacate the interim stay granted and the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein a prayer has been made for vacating the interim order as well as the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. We have heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, for the writ petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R. Thiyagarajan Senior counsel for the fourth respondent (CMRL) and we dispose of M.P.No. 1 of 2011 and M.P.No.3 of 2011, by this order. 5. The case of the petitioner is that his family is in occupation of the property comprised in Town Survey Nos. 11, 12 &13 of Block No.9, Saligramam Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District and the land is classified in the Revenue Register as Grama Natham and it is not a Poramboke land that falls within the ambit of the Land Encroachment Act. It is further stated that Grama Natham land does not vest with the Government and the Government has no right whatsoever over the said land. It is further stated that Grama Natham land does not vest with the Government and the Government has no right whatsoever over the said land. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in A.Sankaralingam vs. Arunachala Reddiar and others, [ 1993 (1) MLJ 472 ]; Executive Officer, Kadathus Town Panchayat, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District, vs. V.Swaminathan, [ 2004 (2) MLJ 708 ]; Ellammal and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [ 2007 (2) MLJ 1113 ] and Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt vs. Raghavan & another, 2011-5-L.W. 545. 6. It is further contended that the third respondent issued a notice to the petitioner dated 04.05.2011, under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. The said notice was challenge by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 12795 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court, directing the third respondent, to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto, the third respondent passed an order dated 19.08.2011, under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, holding that the land in question is a Government Poromboke land and directed the petitioner to vacate the land. Aggrieved by such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent, the District Collector, Chennai, who confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar, by an order dated 26.09.2011. Challenging these orders, the writ petition has been filed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the property is not a Government Poromboke land, but a Grama Natham and even though, the petitioner was not granted any patta, he cannot be evicted by resorting to the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. It is further contended that the Urban Land Tax Authority have recognized the petitioner as owner of the said lands and levied and collected urban tax. Further, the petitioner’s mother was recognized as the owner of the said property in an earlier land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Tamil Nadu for the formation of inner ring road and the petitioner’s mother was awarded compensation in award No.6 of 1996, dated 30.07.1986. Further, it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax has recognized the petitioner’s ownership and passed an order on 23.06.1972. Further, it is stated that the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax has recognized the petitioner’s ownership and passed an order on 23.06.1972. The petitioner relied upon the extract of the Town Survey Register in support of his contention. The petitioner also relied upon the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 26.06.1978, stating that clarification has been issued that in respect of the village site in Madras City, not classified as “ryotwari manai” would be automatically termed as “ryotwari manai” and should be noted in the Revenue records. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents 2 & 3 erroneously concluded that the land in question is a Government Poromboke land. 8. the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is occupying the land in T.S.No.12 and T.S. No. 13 of Block No.9 which has been classified as per the Permanent Land Register as “Sarkar Poromboke” and to implement the CMRL Project, the Government accorded administrative approval for transfer of the Government Poromboke land by G.O.Ms.No.31, and G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 02.02.2011. It is further stated that the land is required for the formation of Vadapalani Metro Station and the extent of requirement is tentative, which will be finalized by CMRL. The CMRL has been permitted to enter upon the land with immediate effect in view of the urgency involved in the implementation of the project. 9. Based on request made by CMRL, the third respondent initiated proceedings for evicting the encroachment as per the procedure laid down in the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 7 on 04.05.2011 and subsequently, after enquiry, an order of eviction was passed on 20.05.2011. The petitioner challenged the eviction notice, by filing a writ petition which was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 21.06.2011, to give an opportunity to the writ petitioner. After due opportunity, the impugned order has been passed by the third respondent on 19.08.2011, which has also been confirmed by the second respondent, by order dated 26.09.2011. The learned Government Pleader by relying upon the permanent land recode submitted that the land is classified as Government Poromboke and in the adangal, it is noted as Grama Natham, and the question of initiating land acquisition proceedings for taking over the Government lands does not arise. The learned Government Pleader by relying upon the permanent land recode submitted that the land is classified as Government Poromboke and in the adangal, it is noted as Grama Natham, and the question of initiating land acquisition proceedings for taking over the Government lands does not arise. Therefore, it is submitted that the question of payment of compensation does not arise and the petitioner himself has admitted that no patta has been issued. It is further pointed out if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the second respondent, he is at liberty to file a revision petition before the first respondent under Section 10A of the Act. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the CMRL submitted that the Metro Rail Project is a time bound project planned to ease out, the phenomenal growth of traffic congestion in the city of Chennai and delay in carrying out the vital project will affect the convenience of the public seriously and will also affect the plans announced by the Government of India and the State Government. Any delay in the project execution, will caused the public exchequer several hundreds of crores of rupees besides depriving citizens of Chennai of a safe quick means of public transport. It is further submitted that the Government have passed orders on 02.02.2011, granting permission to CMRL, to enter upon the land and they should be permitted to commence the project work. It is further submitted that the question of ownership raised in the writ petition cannot be a basis to deny handing over the land to CMRL, which has already commenced the project. The reasons for public purpose would out weigh the private interest and if the land is not handed over till the dispute between the Revenue authority and the petitioner is resolved, it would cause great inconvenience to the public and would be against the public interest. 11. After carefully considering the materials placed before this Court, it is seen that at an earlier point of time, when certain extent of land was acquired by the State Government for the formation of the inner ring road project, it appears that in respect of land in T.S.No.11 (part) of block No.9 measuring 00.00.03.0 sq.meters the register holder and interested persons were shown to be one Rokkaia and Krishnaveni Ammal, the mother of the petitioner. Further, Certain records have been produced, which have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner Urban Land Tax, in which the petitioner’s mother has been shown to be the owner in respect of the T.S.No.11 measuring 0.1.996 sq.ft.; T.S.No.12/2 measuring 0.0.1701 sq.ft; T.S.No.13/1 measuring 0.0.1147 sq.ft; and T.S.no.13/2 measuring 0.0.1582 sq.ft. In the said record of the ULT authority, the land is shown to be classified as “village site”. 12. In the Town Survey Register, Block No.9, it is seen that T.S.No.10 has been registered as Grama Natham. T.S.No.11, reflects a name of Rokkaia and Krishnaveni Ammal, under the column adangal. There are certain corrections in the Town Survey Register as regards whether the land is a Dry, Wet, Unassessed, Proomboke, House Site. The relevant entry in respect of T.S.No.11; T.S.No.12; and T.S.No.13 has been shown as Poromboke and there is a over writing in the Town Survey Register showing it as House Site. The Government by relying upon the Town Survey Register as certified by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, submitted that the land has been classified as Poromboke and in the adangal, it has been shown as Grama Natham and the names of the predecessor in title of the petitioner’s mother find place. Therefore, to resolve this issue, the validity and proprietary of the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3 have to be gone into. The original records have to be perused and thereafter, a decision has to be taken on merits. Further, the effect of the award passed in the earlier land acquisition proceedings and the orders passed by the Urban Land Tax Authority and the Circular issued by the District Collector, dated 26.06.1978, has to be examined. However, this can be done, when the writ petition is finally heard by this Court. In respect of the neighbouring land owners, who had also raised similar contention and filed writ petitions in W.P.no.24513 of 2011 and W.P.No.24514 of 2011, challenging the orders passed by the respondents 2 & 3, have agreed to vacate the land in question and their entitlement for compensation to be decided in the writ petition. Accordingly, this Court passed an order on 29.10.2011, directing them to vacate the land within a period of four weeks. 13. Accordingly, this Court passed an order on 29.10.2011, directing them to vacate the land within a period of four weeks. 13. In the interregnum, we cannot lose sight of the importance of the Metro Rail Project and it cannot be disputed that any delay in the implementation of the Project may have serious consequences, which would not only affect the common public, but may have disastrous consequences on the public exchequer. 14. Therefore, we are of the firm view that such public interest should be put in a higher pedestal when compared to the interest of one individual. However, we are not advocating a principle that the interest of the writ petitioner should be given a go-bye. If the writ petitioner ultimately succeeds in establishing that the land in question is a Grama Natham land then the question of assessing the compensation payable to him would arise. Therefore, if such right is protected, the petitioner cannot have much grievance, especially when the land in question is required for a project of a great public importance and immediate need for the city of Chennai. 15. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the balance of convenience lies in favour of implementing the Metro Rail Project and therefore, the order of interim stay granted on 04.10.2011 is vacated and M.P.No.1 of 2011, is dismissed and the M.P.No.3 of 2011 is allowed. The petitioner is directed to vacate and hand over possession of the said land within a period of four weeks from today. However, this order shall be subject to the condition that the 3rd respondent – Chennai Metro Rail Project shall deposit a some of Rs.25 lakhs in any one of the nationalized bank to the credit of the petitioner and the same shall remain in the form of deposit till further order of this Court. It is made clear that the petitioner’s entitlement to get compensation shall be subject to the decision to be rendered in the main writ petition, which is admitted for hearing.