Disposed

V.M.Yaseen v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC21 Aug 2023WP/16458/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a disposed petition concerning a cancelled lease of Government land subsequently acquired for a Metro Rail project, the Court directed the Metro Rail Limited to deposit superstructure compensation with the District Collector and authorized the Government to recover arrears.

What did the court decide?

Chennai Metro Rail Limited directed to deposit structure compensation with District Collector, Chengalpattu; Government permitted to recover arrears.

V.M.Yaseen Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.16458 of 2006 and

¶7

W.P.M.P.Nos.15933 & 15934 of 2006

¶8

V.M.Yaseen ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

rep. by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,

¶12

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Commissioner and Special Commissioner for Land Administration,

¶14

Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.

¶15

3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶16

4.The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶17

5.The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

¶18

Page 1 of 10

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶21

6.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District.

¶22

7.The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, 327 Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondents

¶23

R6 and R7 suo motu impleaded as per order dated 21.08.2023 in W.P.No.16458 of 2006]

¶24

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.141, Revenue (Ni.Mu.2) Department dated 27.02.2006 and quash the said G.O. dated 27.02.2006 and consequently direct the respondents to grant lease or assign the land in Survey No.489/3A in St. Thomas Mount Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District in favour of the petitioner on such terms and conditions that may be fixed by the Government.

¶25

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Nivedha For Mr.P.Anbarasan For R1 to R6 : Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.G.Krishna Raja Additional Government Pleader For R7 : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar [CMRL]

¶26

Page 2 of 10

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order of the rejection passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.141, Revenue Department dated 27.02.2006.

¶31

The Subject property in Survey No.489/3A in St. Thomas Mount

¶32

Village, Tambaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District was originally leased out in favour of one Thiru T.Kathiresan for the purpose of establishing “Commercial Wire Nail” factory in G.O.Ms.1267, Revenue Department dated 19.07.1967. The Government imposed conditions while granting permission. Accordingly, the lease is liable to be resumed in case, the building is not constructed by the leasee from the date on which he takes possession of the land. The land will be liable to be resumed if it is used for anything excepting the establishment of a Commercial Wire Nails Factory.

¶33

It is brought to the notice of this Court that both the conditions

¶34

were violated by the original leasee imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1267, Revenue Department dated 19.06.1967.

¶35

Page 3 of 10

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶38

Pertinently, the original leasee sublet the Government property for

¶39

personal gains. The Sub leasee also is not in occupation as of now. The land belonging to the Government was classified as Government Poromboke land. The said portion of the property has been now acquired for the purpose of developing Chennai Metro Rail Project and Corridor V road widening project. Since the original leasee had violated the lease conditions and sublet the Government property and further not utilised the property for which it was leased out, the Government cancelled the lease through the impugned G.O.Ms.No.141, Revenue Department dated 27.02.2006. The said order of cancellation is under challenge in the present writ petition and pursuant to the interim stay granted in the present writ petition, the subject property belonging to the Government was being misutilised by the many persons in the name of leasee or sub leasee or otherwise.

¶40

It is an unfortunate situation, where the valuable Government property is being misutilised and misused by the private individuals for unjust gains. The authorities also have not initiated appropriate steps for the purpose of vacating the interim stay granted by this Court or to dispose of the matter, which is pending for the past about 17 years.

¶41

Page 4 of 10

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶44

When the present writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned

¶45

counsel for the petitioner made a submission that she is unable to secure any instruction from the petitioner for the purpose of getting along with the case.

¶46

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 brought to the notice of this Court that the sub leasee is also not in possession as of now and some unruly elements are making profits from and out of the Government property in the name of sub leasee or the leasee for the past several years. The Government property was left unattended and till such time, the CMRL has taken possession of the land for the purpose of developing Chennai Metro Rail Project.

¶47

Many such Government properties are abused, misused by the

¶48

private individuals and the Government being the custodian of such properties is expected to protect the same in the interest of the public and being the Constitutional obligation on the part of the Government.

¶49

Page 5 of 10

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶52

The learned Additional Advocate General filed the proceedings of

¶53

the District Collector, Kancheepuram dated June 2018 stating that the arrears of rent to be collected from the leasee in the year 2018 was 35,53,42,789/-. The CMRL has to pay the cost for the superstructure built in the subject property belonging to the Government, which has been now acquired. The said cost determined by the CMRL is therefore to be deposited in the Government accounts, since the arrears of rent is running to the tune of Rs.35,53,42,789/-

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner despite their efforts unable to secure instructions from the petitioner, who is the sub leasee and the original leasee has not appeared before this Court. The lease was cancelled in the year 2006.

¶55

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the District Collector, Kancheepuram in his proceedings of the year 2018 has recorded the statement of the sub leasee Smt.Revathy wife of Karunagaran. The said sub leasee made a statement before the District Collector that she is in

¶56

Page 6 of 10

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶59

occupation of the Government property and the commercial building constructed in the said property. She made a promise that she will clear the entire rental arrears due to the Government.

¶60

The learned Additional Advocate General made a submission that despite the assurance given by the sub leasee, no rent has been deposited and as on June 2018, the arrears was calculated as Rs.35,53,42,789/-. Since the sub leasee, who was in occupation of the subject property has given an undertaking that she will pay the rental arrears to the Government and now the land has been acquired for the purpose of Chennai Metro Rail Project, the CMRL is directed to deposit the structure compensation to the Government as the lease itself was cancelled in the year 2006 in G.O.Ms.No.141 dated 27.02.2006. When the lease was cancelled and the sub leasee has not paid the rental arrears, they have no right to claim any structure compensation from the CMRL and both the land and building therein vest with the Government for all purposes.

¶61

The District Collector, Chengalpattu has been suo motu impleaded as 6^th respondent. The Chennai MRL is directed to deposit the

¶62

Page 7 of 10

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶65

structure compensation in the name of District Collector, Chengalpattu, without causing any undue delay. Hence, the Managing Director, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, 327 Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035 has been suo motu impleaded as 7^th respondent, since the subject property belonging to the Government has been acquired by the CMRL.

¶66

The respondents / Government is at liberty to initiate all appropriate actions to recover the entire rental arrears from the leasee, sub leasee or the persons, who all are responsible by following the procedures as contemplated.

¶67

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶68

21.08.2023

¶69

Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶70

Page 8 of 10

¶71

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

¶72

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶73

¶74

1.The Secretary to Government, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶75

2.The Commissioner and Special Commissioner for Land Administration,

¶76

Ezhilagam, Chennai – 600 005.

¶77

3.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶78

4.The District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶79

5.The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

¶80

6.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District.

¶81

7.The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, 327 Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶82

Page 9 of 10

¶83

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

¶84

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶85

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶86

Jeni

¶87

W.P.No.16458 of 2006

¶88

21.08.2023

¶89

Page 10 of 10

¶90

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

V.M.Yaseen v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M.Yaseen v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Govindaraj Vs The District Registrar (Administration)

Pr.Veerappan Vs Nagavalli

N.Dandapani Vs The District Collector

Sunnath Jamath Jamiya Mosque Vs Government of Tamilnadu

S.Arthanareeswaran Vs the District Revenue Officer

R.Perumalswamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu