Disposed

M.K.Ganesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC4 Jan 2023WP/13981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Government Order for slum rehabilitation. It directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding land ownership, issue notice to all interested parties, and determine the title within twelve weeks before deciding on claims.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, provide notice to parties for a hearing, and determine the ownership of the land within twelve weeks.

M.K.Ganesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.13981 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.13233, 13235 & 34517 of 2022

M.K.Ganesh

... Petitioner

1.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. By its Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Rep. By its Chairman, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, (Near Vivekananda House)

¶13

Chennai – 600 005.

¶14

3.The District Collector, Chengalpet District Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu – 603 001.

¶15

4.The District Registrar,

¶16

10, Kancheepuram Main Road, Chengalpattu – 603 002.

¶17

5.The Special Assistant Director, Land Ownership Record Scheme, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 6.R.Thaiyammal (Fictitious Person)

¶18

7.M.Nagarajan

¶19

8.Susil Adam Seelan ... Respondents

¶20

1/8

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

¶23

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.51, Revenue (Nee.Mu.5) Department dated 24.01.2007 and also the entry in 'A' Register dated 30.09.1985 on the file of the 5^th respondent, quash the same in respect of the lands owned by the petitioner in Survey No.511 at Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk to the extent of 4 acres and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with his legal possession and enjoyment of the said lands.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Rajamani For Respondents : Mrs.Akila Rajendran Govt. Advocate for R1 to R5 For R6 : No such person For R7 : Died For R8 : No appearance

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

¶27

to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.51, Revenue (Nee.Mu.5) Department dated 24.01.2007 and also the entry in 'A' Register dated 30.09.1985 on the file of the 5^th respondent, quash the same in respect of the lands owned by the petitioner in Survey No.511 at Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk to the extent of 4 acres and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with his legal possession

¶28

and enjoyment of the said lands.

¶29

2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

¶31

Though such a larger prayer has been asked for in this writ petition, when this writ petition is taken up for hearing Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to make the submissions that, 4 acres of land at Survey No.511 at Perumbakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk belongs to the petitioner to claim right over the property based on 04.02.1929 sale deed of the grandfather of the petitioner from whom the mother and subsequently the petitioner inherited the property according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

When that being the position, when the Government taken a decision to construct houses for slum dwellers who are affected due to Tsunami had passed a Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.51, Revenue Department dated 24.01.2007 giving enter upon permission to the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitant Development Board to construct such tenaments where 46.65 hectares of lands have been included at various survey numbers in the said village including the lands claimed to be the lands of the petitioner.

¶33

3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

¶35

Therefore the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, even though the GO was challenged subsequently, the petitioner had given a detailed representation on 15.02.2022 to the official respondents where the petitioner had claimed that, he is the owner of the property to the extent of 4 acres of land as stated supra, which has also been included in the 46 acres of land covered under the GO impugned and therefore the said representation shall be considered after giving an opportunity of being heard

¶36

to the petitioner as well as the private respondents as they also seems to have made a claim that, they are owners of the part of the said property and after hearing all these parties, based on the documents and inputs to be supplied and produced by the petitioner and other private respondents, a decision can be made by the revenue authorities as to whether the petitioner is the owner of the property in question or not and accordingly a decision can be arrived at.

¶37

For the aforestated arrangement, Mrs.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would submit that, insofar as the consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.02.2022 is concerned, that can very well be considered by the

¶38

4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

¶40

respondents, however merely because the official respondents have agreed to consider the representation given by the petitioner, the stand of the official respondents that the land belongs to the Government for the purpose of constructing tenaments to the slum dwellers is concerned is not given up.

¶41

With this aforestated, the learned Government Advocate would submit that, the said representation of the petitioner would be considered and an opportunity of being heard would be given to the petitioner as well as the private respondents and thereafter a decision would be taken and that would be communicated to the petitioner and other respondents.

¶42

Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the official respondents and in view of the orders going to be passed in this writ petition, having dispensed with the notice to the private respondents, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

¶43

There shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the representation given by the petitioner dated

¶44

5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

¶46

15.02.2022. While considering the same, notice shall be given to the petitioner as well as the private respondents indicating the date of hearing and accordingly after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the private respondents where, if at all any documents in support of the claim of the petitioner are found by the official respondents or any further input are supplied that can also be taken into account by the 1^st respondent and accordingly a decision can be arrived at by the 1^st respondent as to who is the owner of the property and whether the claim made by the petitioner as well as the private respondents can be accepted or not and accordingly a decision can be arrived at by the 1^st respondent and such decision shall be communicated to the parties i.e. the petitioner as well as the private respondents. The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the 1^st respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

¶49

With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶50

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶51

04.01.2023

¶52

Index : Yes/No

¶53

Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶54

Sgl

¶55

¶56

1.The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamilnadu, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶57

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, (Near Vivekananda House) Chennai – 600 005.

¶58

3.The District Collector, Chengalpet District Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu – 603 001.

¶59

4.The District Registrar, 10, Kancheepuram Main Road, Chengalpattu – 603 002.

¶60

5.The Special Assistant Director, Land Ownership Record Scheme, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶61

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶62

7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

Sgl

W.P.No.13981 of 2022

04.01.2023

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.K.Ganesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Ganesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Radhakrishnan Vs District Collector

Mrs.L.Nagammal Vs The District Collector

R.Santhi (Widow) Vs The Principal Secretary to Government of

Malathi Selvam, Vs Special Tashildhar (Land Acq)

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs The Sub Registrar

Thanusu Vs The District collector