Disposed

Malathi Selvam, v. Special Tashildhar (Land Acq)

Madras HC4 Jan 2023WP/307/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging construction blocking property access was disposed of after parties reached a compromise. Court directed respondent to issue revised agreement reflecting agreed terms, granting absolute property rights over the access passage to petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to issue revised communication within 4 weeks incorporating petitioner's proposed amendment to clause 3 of the agreement.

Malathi Selvam, Vs Special Tashildhar (Land Acq) — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.307 of 2020

¶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.307 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.351 of 2020

Malathi Selvam

... Petitioner

1.Special Tahsildar (Land Acq.) Chennai Metro Rail Project, Harini Towers, No.7, Conron Smith Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086.

¶11

2.The Estate Officer and Joint General Manager, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, CMRL Depot, Admn. Building, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

¶12

[R2 impleaded as per order dated 10.1.2020 made in WMP.No.666/2020 in WP.No.307/2020]

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from putting up construction in the nature of compound wall whereby blocking the access of the petitioner to her property situated at Old Door No.44, New Door No.77/2, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032, and consequently direct the respondent to ensure the construction of compound wall within the area acquired under acquisition vide proceeding No.35/2011 dated 30.12.2011.

¶15

1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.307 of 2020

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ganesan For Respondents : Mrs.Akila Rajendran Government Advocate for R1 : Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia for R2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the

¶20

respondent from putting up construction in the nature of compound wall whereby blocking the access of the petitioner to her property situated at Old Door No.44, New Door No.77/2, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032, and consequently direct the respondent to ensure the construction of compound wall within the area acquired under acquisition vide proceeding No.35/2011 dated 30.12.2011.

¶21

Since the adjacent land to the petitioner's land belongs to the respondent CMRL and that land was used as ingress and egress of the petitioner's property and since the same has been prevented, according to the petitioner, by the respondent CMRL, in order to restrain the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

Though initially only the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.307 of 2020

¶25

Chennai Metro Rail Project alone was impleaded as party, subsequently by order of this Court, the Estate Officer and Joint General Manager, Chennai Metro Rail Limited has been made as the 2^nd respondent.

¶26

When this writ petition is taken up for final hearing today, Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has submitted that, insofar as the issue raised by the petitioner to have an ingress and egress of the property of the petitioner through the CMRL property by way of an access, there has been a compromise reached between the parties and pursuant to which the proceedings itself has been issued by the District Revenue Officer and Legal Officer, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Koyambedu by proceedings dated 19.01.2022.

¶27

The learned counsel has also produced the copy of the proceedings where inter alia the following has been agreed between the parties.

¶28

“1.The access shall be used by petitioner only to approach her property and the area shall not be used for any other purpose. 2.No permanent or temporary structure or partition shall be erected in the access area by the petitioner or any others without permission from CMRL.

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.307 of 2020

¶31

3.CMRL shall remain the sole owner of the land provided for accessing her property which starts with 10 feet passage with iron gate.

¶32

4.Petitioner will not make any hindrance to the operations and maintenance activities of CMRL in the land provided for access.”

¶33

Insofar as the aforesaid agreement reached between the parties is concerned, Mr.M.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has agreed with the said agreement or the terms of said agreement, however he wants one line to be added in clause 3

¶34

of the agreement, accordingly she shall propose the following:

¶35

“ I agree for all the contents available in the said letter and however clause 3 of the said letter requires small inclusion (bolded portion to be included).

¶36

“... 3.CMRL shall remain the sole owner of the land provided for accessing her property and the access from thereon is a 10 feet private passage with an iron gate erected thereon will be the absolute property of Mrs.Malathi Selvam ....”

¶37

Kindly, include the above content in your correspondence letter under reference No.2 so as to put an end for the ongoing issue once for all.”

¶38

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.307 of 2020

¶41

if the said line is inserted in clause 3 of the agreement, the petitioner would be satisfied.

¶42

Insofar as the said insertion at clause 3 of the agreement, the learned counsel for respondent CMRL also would submit that, it would be included and a revised communication by way of agreement to that effect would be issued shortly.

¶43

The said submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides

¶44

are taken on record. In view of the said agreement reached between the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

¶45

The agreement with that terms by proceedings dated 19.01.2022 issued by the District Revenue Officer and Legal Officer, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Koyambedu, Chennai is hereby taken on record. Also a direction is issued to the 2^nd respondent to issue a revised communication inserting a clause or two lines in the clause 3 of the agreement as indicated above and such a revised communication shall be issued by the 2^nd

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.307 of 2020

¶48

respondent to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

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

¶50

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

04.01.2023

¶52

Index : Yes/No

¶53

Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶54

Sgl

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.307 of 2020

¶57

¶58

1.Special Tahsildar (Land Acq.) Chennai Metro Rail Project, Harini Towers, No.7, Conron Smith Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086.

¶59

2.The Estate Officer and Joint General Manager, Chennai Metro Rail Limited, CMRL Depot, Admn. Building, Poonamallee High Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

¶60

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

W.P.No.307 of 2020

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.307 of 2020

04.01.2023

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

Malathi Selvam, v. Special Tashildhar (Land Acq)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malathi Selvam, v. Special Tashildhar (Land Acq)

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

M.Radhakrishnan Vs District Collector

Mrs.L.Nagammal Vs The District Collector

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

M.K.Ganesh Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs The Sub Registrar

Thanusu Vs The District collector