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