0

Madras High Court Declares Election Of AIADMK MP P Ravindranath Null And Void.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title:       P. Milany                                    … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

                     S. Arumugamand Ors.                 … Respondents

Date of Decision:    Reserved On 30.06.2023.

                                Pronounced On 06.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR.

Citation: ELP. No.4/2019.

Introduction:

This election petition is filed to declare the election of the     3rd respondent/Returned Candidate on 23.05.2019 from No.33, Then Parliamentary Constituency as null and void and to pass such further or other orders as this Court deems fit and appropriate. The Election Commission of India declared Lok Sabha General election on 10.03.2019. As per the Schedule of Election, the first day for issuing nomination was on 19.03.2019 and the last date for receiving nomination was on 26.03.2019. The date for scrutiny of nominations was fixed on 27.03.2019 and the last date for withdrawal of nominations was on 29.03.2019 before 5.00 p.m. 18.04.2019 was the date of polling and 23.05.2019 was the date of counting and for declaration of election results. This Election Petition is filed on 08.07.2019 within time. The petitioner has filed this petition as an elector challenging the election of 3rd respondent as representative of Theni Parliamentary Constituency on grounds referring to Section 81, 100[1][a], 100[1][b], 100[1][d][i], 100[1][d][ii], 100[1][d][iii], 100[1][d][iv], 33, 36, 77, 123[1][A][b], 123[1][B][b] of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Rules 88, 89 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The election petition is filed mainly on the ground of suppression of assets and liabilities in Form-26 of election affidavit filed under Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, improper acceptance of nomination by the Returning Officer and corrupt practices by the associates of the 3rd respondent with the consent of third respondent. It is not in dispute that the then ruling party in the State fielded 3rd respondent as a candidate in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [AIADMK] Party under ‘two leaves’ symbol. It is also admitted that the 3rd respondent is the son of the then Deputy Chief Minister of the State Mr.O.Panneerselvam. Mr.E.V.K.S.Elangovan, who contested as a candidate of Indian National Congress in ‘hands’ symbol is the 2nd respondent herein and many other candidates who contested the election, did not participate in the Election Petition. Though the 19th respondent filed a counter supporting the petition and gave evidence as PW2, he did not participate in the proceedings by engaging an Advocate. The other respondents, except the 3rd respondent, have not contested the election petition.

Legal Analysis:

Justice SS Sundar passed the order on an election petition filed by   Milany, a voter from the constituency, who had challenged his election on the ground of suppression of sources of income and bribing of voters. Milany had submitted that the MP had mentioned only agriculture and business as his sources of income and not disclosed the income that he received as the director of a private company. He added that assets, investments, sources of income, shares, financial loans and liabilities were suppressed in the affidavit filed by Ravindranath at the time of nomination. Milany had also submitted a CD containing video evidence, circulated during the election, allegedly showing voters being bribed. Though Ravindranath had filed a petition to dismiss the election petition, the same was rejected by the court. Thereafter, Ravindranath appeared before the court and denied all allegations of misrepresentation and bribe. The court noted that as per Section 123 of the Representation of The People Act 1951, the person who alleges bribery should establish such bribery by way of gift, offer or promise. by a candidate or his agent or by any person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. In the present case, the court observed that though Milany had alleged bribery by a lady, he could not establish that she was performing such acts as an agent of Ravindranath. “In such circumstances, though the petitioner’s case that there was bribery by a lady, it was not established with positive evidence that a lady by name Mrs. Saveetha Arunprasad has indulged in bribing the electors/voters either as an agent appointed by 3rd respondent or his chief agent or acted with the consent of 3rd respondent. Therefore, this Court is unable to hold that the petitioner has established corrupt practices as defined under section 123 of the RP Act, 1951,” the court observed.

With respect to non-disclosure, the court was satisfied that Ravindranath had not disclosed his assets correctly. The court also refused to accept Ravindranath’s explanation that the discrepancy was a result of a typographical error. The court further observed that if such discrepancies were condoned in the absence of an explanation or supporting document, it would go against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to save democracy as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. “For all the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the affidavit filed under Rule 4[A] of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, has not been validly made, Further this Court holds that the Returned Candidate has suppressed his assets equivalent to the value of 15,000 equity shares in M/s. Vani Fabrics Private Limited allegedly transferred by the Returned Candidate in favour of his brother and other assets and sources of income as admitted by him. Further, the 3rd respondent has given a false information in the Election Affidavit filed under Rule 4[A] of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961,” the court observed.

Judgement:

“This Court, from the facts as seen from the documents and evidence, finds that the Returning Officer has not conducted the scrutiny of nominations strictly in terms of Section 36 of the RP Act, 1951 and instructions given under the Hand Book. She has shown her partisan attitude in favour of 3rd respondent at the time of scrutiny. As a consequence, this Court holds that the nomination of 3rd respondent has been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer,” the court noted. The suppression has not materially affected the result of the election. Pointing out that the 3rd respondent has won the election with huge margin of 76,000 votes, he submitted that the election of 3rd respondent in this case, cannot be declared as void on the ground of suppression. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sri Meirembam Prithiviraj @ Prithviraj Singh Vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh reported in 2017 SCC 487, has rejected the contention of the returned candidate that under Section 100[1][d] of the RP Act, 1951, that there must be proof proof that the result of the election was materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination. Suppression is proved. As a consequence, this Court holds that nomination of the returned candidate had been improperly accepted. In view of the conclusions reached above on all issues, this Court has to allow the election petition and declare the election of the 3rd respondent / returned candidate as void. In the result, the Election Petition in ELP.No.4/2019 is allowed and the election of 3rd respondent / Returned Candidate on 23.05.2019 from No.33, Then Parliamentary Constituency is declared as null and void. 

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court has declared the election of P. Ravindranath, son of former Tamil Nadu CM O Paneerselvan and the sole Member of Parliament from the AIADMK party null and void. The court however kept the order in abeyance for a month, to enable appeal against the order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement.

0

Madras High Court Directs Authorities to relocate the tombs of more than 100 years to any appropriate place.

Blog, blog , , , ,

Case Title:       B. Manoharan                               …Petitioner                                 
                                              Versus

                   The Ministry of Culture and Ors.        … Respondents

Date of Decision:    Reserved On 19.06.2023.

                                Pronounced On 27.06.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI.

Citation: W.P. No.32163 of 2022. and WMP 696/2023.

Introduction:

The tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners, the son and friend of Elihu Yale, the then Governor of East India Company, situated within the compound of the Law College within the campus of the High Court, is sought to be removed, by filing the present petition premising the case that the said tomb has no archaeological value and does not fall within the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, (for short ‘the Act’) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of Declaration to declare that the Tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hymners situated in the compound of Law College within the Madras High Court campus is not an ancient monument and consequently direct the respondents to remove/relocate the same from the existing place to any other place nearby within the time fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

Facts:

During the early 1700, when the city was under the rule of the East India Company, a Guava garden was situated next to the Fort, which was used as a burial ground and a Church was constructed there and over a period of time, the cemetery had extended upto the present law college. All the cemeteries were razed down to make the wall for Fort St. George after the attack by the French during the year 1758, barring two monuments, which were left standing, one of which is of Yale Obelisk, beneath which rest Ellhu Yale’s son, David and his close friend Joseph Hynmers. Alongside the said tomb is a circulat valut enclosed with railing which contains the remains of six members of the Powney family.
It is the further averment of the petitioner that though representation has been given for removal or in the alternative for relocation of the tomb to another place, if the respondents really feel that the structure has archaeological significance, no response has been forthcoming from the respondents and, therefore, left with no alternative, the present petition has been filed for a Declaration as afore stated.

Issues:

Whether the Tomb of David Yale and Joseph Hynmer would fall within the meaning of ancient monument u/s 2 (a) and would get the status of protected monument u/s 2 (j) of the Act so as to be declared as an ancient monument of national importance?

Legal Analysis:

The Court is conscious of the fact that developmental necessity cannot rob the archaeological value of a structure, which has been declared as a protected monument. Mere developmental necessity should not shield the eyes of this Court when a particular monument is archaeologically important. It is the duty of the respondents to have revisited the monuments, which were declared as protected monuments having historical or archaeological value in line with its duty under sub-section (e) of Section 20-I. But with a heavy heart, this Court is constrained to record that the present act of the respondents clearly show that without resorting to the duties prescribed by the statute, the Authority has shirked their responsibility imposed on them by the statute by not properly discharging their duties. In the aforesaid background, as evidenced by the discussion above, the structure has neither archaeological value or historical importance and is neither an artistic masterpiece for it to be maintained as a protected monument and in such a scenario, the developmental activities necessitated in the current day scenario cannot be brushed aside for merely housing the cemetery of individuals, who have no historical significance, but for being the son of the then Governor of the East India Company. Necessarily the said tomb has to pave the way for the development of parking space, which is the need of the hour

Judgement:

This Court is of the opinion that not only the respondents have not discharged their responsibility as provided for under the Act, but the present order, in and by which the tomb, which is held to be a protected monument does not satisfy the requirements provided for u/s 2 (a) and 2 (j) r/w Section 3 of the Act and, therefore, necessarily, not only the order passed by the respondents deserve to be set aside, but as a consequence thereof, necessary orders have to be passed for relocating the tomb, which is put in issue in the present petition. In view of the aforesaid discussion, necessarily this Court has to answer the question framed in the negative against the respondents, as the said tomb does not fulfil the requirements as provided for u/s 2 (a) and (j) r/w Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the communication dated 9.6.2023 of the respondents to the petitioner and also the consequential order dated 16.6.2023 passed by the respondents in and by which the tomb has been held to be a protected monument, as the same does not satisfy the requirements of protected monument under Sections 2 (a) and (j) r/w Section 3 of the Act. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to take steps to relocate the tomb to any appropriate place, which they deem fit and proper, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

“Merely because the tomb has been in existence for more than 100 years, that alone cannot be a ground to declare the monument as a protected monument, thereby bringing it under the cover of ancient monument as provided for under Section 2 (a) of the Act,” the court observed. Thus, the court set aside the rejection order of the authorities and allowed the petition directing the respondents to take steps for relocating the tomb to any appropriate place.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court Directs Authorities To Exempt Vehicle Tax, GST For Car Purchased By Visually Challenged Person.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:  Carunia Seelavathi          … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

      Department of Transport State of Tamil Nadu.       … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 26.06.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.T. ASHA.

Citation: W.P.(MD) Nos.12955 and 13043 of 2023cand W.M.P.(MD) No.11040 of 2023 W.P.(MD) No.12955 of 2023.

Introduction:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned email communication dated 04.05.2023 vide his proceedings in registration application MHI- 290423185541-6629 sent by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.1 to extent the GST, Road Tax, Tool Tax and registration concession to the petitioner for purchasing a four wheeler (TATA NEXON XECar (Petrol) Derik Motors Private Limited ) in the light of the orders passed by the Honble Court of Chief Commissioner for persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) in Case No.12149/1141/2020 dated 01.12.2020. The relief is sought for on the basis of the order passed by the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) New Delhi in Case No.12149/1141/2020 dated 01.12.2020 and the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.20511 of 2021 dated 22.12.2021.

Facts:

The petitioner, who is visually handicapped and who holds the unique disability identity card showing that she is a person with 100% physical impairment, has planned to purchase a car for her own use. She is dependent on a third person for her travels. Considering the fact that she is a lady and visually challenged, travelling in the taxies and autos in the present scenario is a scary choice for the petitioner. Therefore, she would try to take advantage of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.3352, Home (Transport-T) Department, dated 29.12.1976, which grants exemptions from payment of tax leviable under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 for the motor vehicles designed or adapted for the use of disabled persons. She has also relied upon the aforementioned case of the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) as also the order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.20511 of 2021 dated 22.12.2021. However, her request has been rejected by the authorities by stating that the vehicle of the petitioner would not undergo any change in its form and it cannot be considered as a adapted vehicle, which is the basis of the exemption. Like wise, the request for exemption of GST has been rejected with the one line order that the scheme is only for ortho/locomotory applicants.

Issue:

  • Whether the petitioner is suffering from any disability?

Legal Analysis:

The petitioner is a person suffering from a disability has not been denied by the respondents. In the order of the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) New Delhi, the Commissioner was dealing with cases of various kinds of disabilities, like locomotory, hearing impairment, visually handicapped etc. The Commission has held that a personsuffering from complete blindness can never drive the vehicle by himself/herself, which is also the case of hearing impairment. The Commission went on to hold that the person who is visually challenged also belongs to the PwD category (Person with Disability) and the Commission had recommended that the Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Union of India should make amendments to their rules to give concession with reference to GST, Road Tax, Toll Tax etc to all these persons. This recommendation of the Commission has been followed by the learned Judge of this Court in the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.20511 of 2021, wherein the learned Judge has relied upon this recommendation and directed the respondents to process the applications at the earliest. This Court on an earlier occasion was dealing with the cases of exemption in respect of the adapted vehicle adapted for the use of a physically challenged person. Relying upon Sections 2(1) and 52(1) of the Act, this Court had directed that the petitioner is entitled to the concession.

Judgement:

Considering the recommendation of the Commission, which is a Commission specifically established for the disabled and taking into consideration the fact that today the visually challenged persons are having more opportunities of employment even in the Government sector and their commuting to the place of work becomes challenging, this Court is of the opinion that the exemption has to be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The authority concerned shall ensure that necessary orders exempting the petitioner from the motor vehicle’s tax as well as the GST are passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a undertaking letter by the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Conclusion:

Justice PT Asha of the Madurai bench took note of the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for amendments to their rules to give concession with reference to GST, Road Tax, Toll Tax etc to the visually challenged persons.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Dainik Bhaskar Editor who Spread Fake news on attacks of Migrant workers.

Blog, blog , , ,

Case Title:  Prasoon Mishra               … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

                  The State of Tamil Nadu                   … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 27.06.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA.                                                     

Citation: Crl.O.P.Nos.13400 & 11077 of 2023.

Introduction:

This case is related to Cyber Crime Domain, so the Inspector of Police,T 11, Tirunindravur Police Station transferred the case to Central Crime Branch, Avadi, based on the instructions of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Commissionerate, Avadi vide inRc.No.54/8291/Crime-1 (1) / APC/ 2023, dated 09.03.2023. After registration of this case from the Station concerned, assigned a new Crime No.11 of 2023, u/s.153(A) (1), 505(1) (b) and 505(2) IPC in CCB, Avadi on 10.03.2023, pending arrest in both the cases, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 

Facts:

On 03.03.2023 at 11.30 hrs, one Kannagi, the Special Sub Inspector of Police of Tiruppur North Police Station gave a written complaint stating that a false news was posted in the Twitter page of “Dainik Bhaskar” in Hindi and its English translated form with the help of Google was “BIHARI LABOURS IN TAMIL NADU ARE BEING PUNISHED BY THE TALIBAN FOR SPEAKING HINDI. HINDI SPEAKING PEOPLE ARE NOW BEING KILLED IN THE DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF WAGES THE YOUTH OF JAMUI TOLD -12 LABOURERS WERE HANGED MORE THAN 15 WERE MURDERED”. It contained the following four false news:-
(i) Bihari Laboureres in Tamilnadu are being punished by Taliban for speaking Hindi. 
(ii) Hindi speaking people are now being killed in the dispute arising
out of wages.
(iii) 12 Labourers were hanged, and
(iv) More than 15 were murdered.

Issue:

  • Whether the Petitioner had created panic in thepublic and caused hazard and annoyance to public tranquility?

Legal Analysis:

The petitioner in the case on hand claims to be an Editor of a reputed publication which is in existence from the year 1958 and the publication group to which he belongs has a wide circulation throughout four States in North India. The Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of the democracy as it carries with such a huge power and responsibility as public repose their trust and confidence in the Media. The Media and Press need to adopt their professional ethics and take care of public interest instead of concentrating on sensational news alone for promoting their own commercial interest. Such a bounden duty cannot be shirked by them under the guise of freedom of speech. Such being the expectation of the democratic system, it is painful to note that the petitioner, without verifying or exercising due diligence to find out the veracity of the news and without understanding the sensitivity, merely in order to sensitize the public, had published a fake news. This Court strongly deprecates the act of the petitioner in publishing such a sensitive news, without verifying the correctness of the same. However, taking into consideration the unconditional apology rendered by the petitioner and the undertaking made on his behalf that he would publish a Corrigendum in the homepage itself that the news published by him is a fake one and that he would be more vigilant not to indulge into any such activities in future, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Judgement:

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready,
(i) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) (in respect of Crl.O.P.No.13400/2023)
(ii) before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) (in respect of Crl.O.P.No.11077/2023) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[a] The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b]The petitioner shall report before the Inspector of Police, (Conventional Crime) Central Central Crime Branch, Avadi Police Commissionerate, Avadi, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week, thereafter before the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur District, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week.
[c] The petitioner shall also publish a Corrigendum in the first page/homepage in all the publications contending that they had published a fake news, without verifying the truth and veracity of the same and nobody should follow and post the same and tendering unconditional apology to this court and the people of Tamil Nadu.
[d] The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation ortrial.
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
Post the matter after four weeks under the caption “for reporting compliance”.

Conclusion:

Considering this undertaking, the court granted him anticipatory bail on the condition that he shall execute two bonds for a sum of 25000 rupees with sureties and report before the Inspector of Police, (Conventional Crime) Central Central Crime Branch, Avadi Police Commissionerate, Avadi for a period of one week and thereafter before the Tiruppur Police Station. The court also directed that Mishra shall not abscond during the investigation and if So, a fresh FIR could be registered.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

The Government has to protect the property in the interest of public Says Madras High Court.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:  Agri-Horticultural Society             … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

                  The State of Tamil Nadu Ors                          … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved on 21.06.2023.

                              Pronounced On 04.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM. 

Citation:  WP No.17612 of 2023 and WMP Nos.16694 to 16697 of 2023.

Introduction:

The writ petitioner is the Agri-Horticultural Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The petitioner-Society states that originally the Society had lands granted by the East India Company  British Government, as well as, lands purchased out of its own funds through Private Negotiation, 1836 onwards. Certain portions of land were leased out to the Society by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1912. The Society’s gardens, which are now claimed by the Government, are situated on the Northern side of Cathedral Road. On the Northern side, apart from the Society’s private lands, and adjoining the same having Lloyds Road on its Northern Border is, another portion of land,
which is now Senganthal Poonga, a portion of land granted by the Government to the Society and now resumed. On the Southern side of Cathedral Road, lies Semmozhi Poonga, which comprises the land, originally leased out and later granted to the Society. Within the portion now occupied on Semmozhi Poonga, lies private lands of the Society are also, originally identified as OS Nos.3411 and 3062, Mylapore Village, which essentially makes it four tracks of land. The Government attempted to resume the subject property in the year 1960. The petitioner filed WP No.469 of 1962 and eventually the matter entered into a settlement between the Society and the Government of Tamil Nadu and the question of ownership of the land in possession of the Society was left open. The Government re-granted portion of the land in the year 1980. Subsequently, there was no dispute for several years.

Legal Analysis:
Regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, the facts as established in the present writ petition would reveal that the disputed issues regarding title is to be adjudicated before the Competent Civil Court of Law. The power of Judicial Review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to ensure the processes through which the decision taken by the Competent Authorities whether in consonance with the provisions of the Statute and the Rules, but not the decision itself. Thus the scope of the present writ petition cannot be expanded for adjudicating the disputed issues regarding title with ownership or otherwise. However the power of the Government to resume the land belonging to the Government under the relevant Statute and Board Standing Orders need not be interfered with by the Court ordinarily. A person claiming title over the property has to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for establishing his title.

In the present case, the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration in exercise of his powers under the Revenue Standing Order for initiation of suo motu revision proceedings. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings and this Court has elaborately considered all grounds raised by the petitioner, including the grounds relating to mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, political vendetta etc. All grounds were elaborately adjudicated by this Court, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court  and subsequently by the Apex Court of India.

Res Judicata:

Principles of res judicata as defined under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to Writ Petitions also as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements. In view of the same, the plea of mala fide and political vendetta, is settled and nullified. The petitioner is estopped from stating the same time and again and the said
averments have to be rejected as per the principles of Res Judicata.

Judgement:

The factum established, the petitioner has deemed to have exhausted his right to re-canvass the said grounds once again before this Court, which were elaborately adjudicated. Even then this Court has independently considered the grounds and the legal positions once again and does not find any reason for reconsidering the claim of the petitioner. The additional grounds raised by the petitioner is also untenable. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the Commissioner of Land Administration categorically considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and made a finding in unambiguous terms. The Commissioner of Land Administration has stated that the petitioner-Society has been in enjoyment of highly valuable lands belonging to the Government, without remittance of any nominal amount whatsoever to the Government for several decades. Serious infringement of the rights of the public at large has been rightly taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Land Administration. In the event of abuse of Government land by any private individuals, the right of public at large is violated and in such circumstances, the Government is duty bound to resume the land and recover the lease rent by following the procedures as contemplated. Thus the Commissioner of Land Administration has not committed any error in issuing a direction to recover the interim lease rent from the petitioner Society and directing the District Collector to calculate the final lease rent and recover the same by following the procedures. The petitioner-Society is in possession of the Government land for several decades and therefore they are liable to pay the minimum lease rent as calculated by the Authorities in the interest of public and to protect the State revenue, which is the constitutional obligation on the part of the Government. The factum established in the present writ petition would be sufficient enough to arrive an inevitable conclusion that the petitioner has not established even a semblance of legal right to occupy the land belonging to the Government.

Conclusion:

The subject land has already been resumed by the Government and the Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops is in possession of the Government land as of now. Thus the Government has to protect the property in the interest of public and utilise the said land for the welfare of the public as they have stated in their affidavit filed in support
of the present writ petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

 

1 2 3 … 6