Dismissed

Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar Coop. v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC20 Sept 2023WA/44/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by a Housing Society challenging the Single Judge's order denying a direction to the State to sell plots to the Society members. The Court held that since the acquisition proceedings were withdrawn, the land vested in the Temple, and the right to purchase was negated by the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act amendment, 1996.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs given.

Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar Coop. Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on: 07.08.2023 Delivered on: 20.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶8

W.A.No.44 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶9

Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited rep. by its Secretary M.Sreenivasan No.114, Sundarar Street, Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar Anna Nagar West, Thirumangalam Chennai-600 040 …Appellant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep by the Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board rep by its Chairman/Managing Director No.331, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶13

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶16

3.Shree Thiruvalleeswarar Devasthanam Thiruvallithayam rep by its Executive Officer Padi, Chennai-600 050.

¶17

4.The Secretary Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Government of Tamil Nadu Fort. St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶18

5.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Chennai-600 034. …Respondents

¶19

Prayer:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent praying to set aside

¶20

the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18167 of 2011 dated 02.11.2012.

¶21

For Appellant : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan For Respondents : Mrs.P.Raja Rajeswari, G.A for R1 & 4 Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, SC for TNHB for R2 Mr.D.R.Sivakumar for R3

¶22

Mr.Yaswanth, AGP (HR&CE) for R5

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI,J.)

¶25

The petitioner society aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18167 of 2011 dated 02.11.2012 has preferred the

¶26

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶29

present Writ Appeal.

¶30

The appellant as Writ Petitioner sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent viz., The State of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department to sell and allot plots to the petitioner's members. The Writ Court, in and by a common order, dismissed the Writ Petition along with batch of other Writ Petitions which were filed by the individual lessees/sub-lessees who were members of the Devasthanam, contending that the members of the appellants/writ petitioners were in occupation of respective small extents of land, having constructed pucca buildings as tenants of Devasthanam and that they were willing to purchase the respective properties in their occupation for a reasonable consideration.

¶31

Before the Writ Court, Tamil Nadu Housing Board filed a counter stating that though an award was originally passed to acquire the subject lands, subsequently, the Government has withdrawn the same from acquisition and therefore, there is no question of selling plots to the

¶32

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶35

appellant or its members. The Executive Officer of the Devasthanam also filed a separate counter before the Writ Court stating that there are about 200 tenants paying rent to the temple and that the Government has no right over the property, especially after the notification withdrawing the acquisition proceedings way back in the year 1988. It is also specifically stated that even the temple does not in any way intend to sell the plots to the appellant or its members.

¶36

Heard Mr.E.J.Ayyappan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs.P.Raja Rajeswari, learned Government Advocate for R1 and 4, Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TNHB for R2, Mr.D.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for R3 and Mr.Yaswanth, learned AGP (HR&CE) for R5. We have also perused the records, besides the order of the Learned Single Judge.

¶37

The Writ Court after carefully analysing the respective contentions

¶38

of the parties before it held that the appellant's members were only tenants and they cannot compel the Devasthanam to sell the plots to them, even assuming they have constructed pucca houses and had been living there for

¶39

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶42

several years. The Writ Court found that possession was not taken over by the Government and the temple continued to be in possession and that the notification issued U/s. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act withdrawing the subject land from acquisition only made it further clear that the Government had not taken possession of the property. Ultimately, the Writ Court finding that there is absolutely no substance or basis whatsoever in the case advanced by the appellant, proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶43

Aggrieved by the said order of the Writ Court, the petitioner as appellant, has preferred the present Writ Appeal on the grounds that once the acquisition proceedings were initiated and award came to be passed, the Devasthanam ceased to be the owner and therefore the Writ Court ought to have allowed the prayer seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent State to sell the respective plots to the members of the appellants society and that the withdrawal of the acquisition by notification of the Government in 1988 was non-est and null and void.

¶44

In view of the fact that acquisition proceedings have been dropped

¶45

and the subject lands vest with the Devasthanam, the prayer seeking a

¶46

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶49

direction to the 1^st respondent State to sell the plots to the members of the appellant society is wholly unsustainable. The appellant's members are admittedly lessees or sub-lessees under the temple viz., Shree Thiruvalleeswarar Devasthanam and in view of the amendment to the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, in 1996, the question of right to purchase the land under the occupation of the tenant also has been taken away and the question of the appellant society compelling either the State or the temple to sell the lands to them, cannot and does not arise. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, having discussed all relevant facts and contentions put forth by all the parties concerned and passed a considered and reasoned order thereafter.

¶50

In fine Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

¶51

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶52

(D.K.K.J) & (P.B.B.J) 20.09.2023

¶53

Internet : Yes Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mjs

¶54

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶57

¶58

1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶59

2.The Chairman/Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board No.331, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶60

3.The Executive Officer Shree Thiruvalleeswarar Devasthanam Thiruvallithayam Padi, Chennai-600 050

¶61

4.The Secretary Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Government of Tamil Nadu Fort. St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶62

5.The Commissioner

¶63

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Chennai-600 034

¶64

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶67

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J., and P.B.BALAJI,J (mjs)

¶68

Pre-delivery judgment in W.A.No.44 of 2013

¶69

20.09.2023

¶70

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar Coop. v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvalleeswarar Nagar Coop. v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managin Director Vs Balamurugan

M/S Ei Forge Ltd. Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Union of India Vs P.Swaminathan

Mohamed Aadil Arshi Vs the Competent Authority and

S. Senthil Kumar Vs the Executive Engineer

Thiruvaleeswarar Nagar Co-Op. Vs the Corporation of Chennai