Disposed

K.Varadarajulu, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC18 Mar 2024WP/7387/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioners' plea to declare a 40-foot road or remove encroachments due to disputed facts about the road's existence and land title. Finding trial proceedings necessary for title verification, the Court relegate parties to Civil Court, directing only that identified unauthorized constructions be removed by the Corporation under due process while the dispute remains.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed. Parties relegated to Civil Court for title verification. Corporation directed to demolish identified unauthorized constructions after affording opportunity.

K.Varadarajulu, Vs The Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.9173 & 19415 of 2018 and 4011 of 2019

¶7

W.P.No.7387 of 2018

K.Varadarajulu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building,

¶12

Chennai – 600 003.

¶13

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai – 8.

¶14

3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.

¶15

4.The Chairman,

¶16

Chennai Metropolitan Water supply, and sewerage Board, Pumping Station Road, Chennai – 2.

¶17

Page No.1 of 16

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶20

5.The Collector,

¶21

Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶22

6.The Thasildhar, Perambur Taluk,

¶23

Chennai – 600 001.

¶24

7.The Zonal Officer VI, Corporation of Chennai, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶25

8.The Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, War-71 Office

¶26

Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶27

9.E.Venkataiah

¶28

10.L.Ravanaiah

¶29

... Respondents

¶30

W.P.No.3659 of 2019

J.M.Ahmed Sirajudeen

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building,

¶35

Chennai – 600 003.

¶36

2.The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Regional Office (Central), Greater Corporation of Chennai, Chennai – 600 030.

¶37

3.The Commissioner of Police,

¶38

Page No.2 of 16

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶41

Greater Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai – 8.

¶42

4.The Chairman, (TANGEDCO) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶43

5.The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply, and Sewerage Board, Pumping, Station Road, Chennai – 2.

¶44

6.The Collector, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶45

7.The Thasildhar, Perambur Taluk, Chennai – 600 001.

¶46

8.The Zonal Officer VI, Corporation of Chennai, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶47

9.The Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, War-71 Office, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶48

10.Samsan

¶49

... Respondents

¶50

Page No.3 of 16

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶53

Prayer in W.P.No.7387 of 2018: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 8 to take appropriate action to demolish the unauthorised construction being put up by the 9^th & 10^th respondents in the Jamalia Link Road, Perambur, Chennai -12 abutting the petitioner's property eventually demolish the building already constructed by the 9^th and 10^th respondent.

¶54

Prayer in W.P.No.3659 of 2019: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certified Mandamus, calling for the records in proceedings in Z.O.VI.C.No.B1/7125/2017/date:31.07.2017 pertaining to the encroachments in the stretch land comprised in Survey Nos.269/1 and 269/2 of Jamalia Extension Road and quash the order of the 2^nd respondent as null and void and consequential direct the respondents 1 to 9 to collectively take steps to remove unauthorized construction put up by the 10^th respondent and others in the said road.

¶55

W.P.No.7387 of 2018

¶56

For Petitioner	: Mr.R.Udayakumar and Mr.R.Ravindraram
For R1, R7 & R8	: Mr.G.T.Subramanian Standing Counsel for GCC
For R2, R5 & R6	: Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader
For R10	: Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham
For R4	: Mr. N.Paul Sunder Singh
For R3	: No appearance

¶57

Page No.4 of 16

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶60

For R9 : Not ready in notice

¶61

W.P.No.3659 of 2019

¶62

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Udhaya Kumar for Mr.R.Ravindra Ram For R1, R2, R8 & R9 : Mr.G.T.Subramanian Standing Counsel for GCC For R3, R6 and R7 : Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader For R4 : No appearance For R5 : Mr.N.Paul Sundar Singh Standing Counsel For R10 : Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham

¶63

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶64

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

¶65

W.P.No.7387 of 2018 has been instituted to direct the respondents 1

¶66

to 8 to take appropriate action to demolish the unauthorised construction being put up by the 9^th & 10^th respondents in the Jamalia Link Road, Perambur, Chennai -12, abutting the petitioner's property eventually demolish the building already constructed by the 9^th and 10^th respondent.

¶67

W.P.No.3659 of 2019 has been field to quash the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 31.07.2017 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 9 Page No.5 of 16

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶70

to collectively take steps to remove unauthorized construction put up by the 10^th respondent and others in the said road.

¶71

The respective learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners would strongly contended that 40 feet Jamalia Link Road has been encroached upon by individuals and Chennai Corporation and Revenue Authorities are showing blind eyes towards the encroachments. Certain proceedings were placed before us to establish that Jamalia Link Road was in existence several decades. Previously, it was a 40 feet road, which was made available for public usage. The said 40 Feet Road has been encroached upon by few individuals and the complaint given by the residents of that locality was not acted upon. Thus, the present writ petitions came to be instituted.

¶72

The writ petitions are kept pending for about 5 years. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct a survey. Admittedly, the Corporation Authorities and the Revenue Officials have not co-operated with the Advocate Commissioner and not produced any Revenue Records enabling the Advocate Commissioner to form a final opinion. Thus, we are not in a position to rely on the Report of the Advocate Commissioner.

¶73

Page No.6 of 16

¶74

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

¶75

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶76

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further contend that 20 Feet Road now being maintained is insufficient for public usage. Therefore, the encroachments and unauthorized constructions are to be removed for the purpose of providing free passage to the people of that locality.

¶77

There was no approved layout, which could be traced out or produced before this Court. It is contended that the residents of that locality has given 20 feet on each side for formation of 40 feet road. However, one portion of 20 feet on the 40 feet road was encroached upon is the allegation set out in the present writ petitions.

¶78

Pertinently, the alleged encroachments were made 3 decades back. It is an admitted fact that the past more than 25 to 30 years, a part of the Jamalia Link Road is maintained as 20 feet road and some of the individuals have encroached upon the 20 feet road in that locality. It caused heart burning issue amongst the residents of the locality.

¶79

Learned Counsel for the Corporation would submit, Jamalia Link

¶80

Page No.7 of 16

¶81

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

¶82

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶83

Road is being maintained as 20 feet road for the past more than 25 years. It is

¶84

not an approved layout under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act and that apart, no Gift Deed was executed in favour of the Corporation for maintaining 40 Feet Road in that locality. In the absence of any such document, the Corporation is maintaining Jamalia Link Road as 20 feet road for all purposes and infrastructural facilities are provided to the people residing in that locality. Therefore, there is no encroachment identified as stated by the petitioners. The other alleged encroachments are in Patta land. Therefore, the question of removal would not arise. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would submit that unauthorised constructions are made in that locality and such unauthorised constructions are to be removed by initiating appropriate actions. It is needless to state that if any building is identified as unauthorised construction, all further actions are to be initiated by following the procedures as contemplated under the Statutes and Rules in force.

¶85

Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader would

¶86

rely on the letter of the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, Page No.8 of 16

¶87

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

¶88

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶89

dated 3107.2017, which would reveal the facts regarding the disputes as under:

¶90

“ As such personal inquiry was conducted by the Regional Deputy Commissioner. After Inquiry the Thasildar of Perambur Taluk has been called for joint inspection along with Corporation Official's through their letter dated 10.07.2017 to survey the suit site in order to demark the exact road as per the Revenue records available with their office. After due inspection by the Thasildar on 14.07.2017 a detailed report has been submitted by the Thasildar dated 17.07.2017 as follows:

¶91

“Has stated that they have conducted joint filed survey in the place in question and has started that as per the Revenue records available at the Taluk Office, the land in question is a “Rayathuvari Land” and belongs to Bagavadhi Ananda Kumar and she has also submitted PLR Extract and survey report with sketch:

¶92

In this connection, it is ascertained from the Revenue records furnished by the Tahsildar of Perambur Taluk, the land in question has not been mentioned as road and the same is belonging to a private party. It is also submitted that there was a proposal of a 40 feet width road for 1250 feet length road mentioned as A1A1 in Perambur Village in Survey No.327, 328, 201/1 and 203 up to R.S.No.204 in the

¶93

Page No.9 of 16

¶94

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

¶95

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶96

G.O.No.1473 Dated 23^rd May 1944. The proposal of the road could not be carried out for which the Town Planning Committee of the Corporation of Chennai has passed a Resolution vide Resolution No.153/73 dated 30.04.1973.”

¶97

In order to have further more clarity the said issue was referred to DRO (Land and Estate Department), Greater Chennai Corporation to find the status of the said road on 21.07.2017. As such the Land & Estate of Greater Chennai Corporation furnished the following report on 21.07.2017 and the same as follows: @,j;Jiwapy; guhkhpf;fg;gLk; Mtz';fspd; Mf;fpukpg;g[ cs;sjhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s rhiy under Section.218 and 219 of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919 – d;go \jh;fhh;ld; 4tJ bjU bghJ rhiyahf mwptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ ,jd; tlf;F gf;fj;jpy; 20 mo rhiy vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,J bjhlh;ghd midj;J Mtz';fSk; ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gLfpwJ/@

¶98

In Continuation with report of Land & Estate Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, further report was obtained from EE Works Department, Town Planning in g/J/e/f/vz;-1787-2017 dated 25.07.2017 as

¶99

Page No.10 of 16

¶100

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

¶101

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶102

follows: ,jd; mog;gilapy; jw;nghJ nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l $khypah yp';f; rhiyahdJ 20 mo mfyj;jpy; btFehl;fshf bghJkf;fs; gad;ghl;oy; cs;sJ/ CMDA land use MAP d;go nkw;fz;l rhiy Rkhh; 20 mo mfy bghJ rhiyahf cs;sJ/ ,j;Jld; CMDA land use MAP ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/

¶103

In the above said circumstances, the representation of each one who appeared for inquiry has been clearly scrutinized and after perusing the entire report furnished by the authorities, if reflects the exact status that the alleged suit site belongs to some private parties and not a public road. The Greater Chennai Corporation is not in a position to remove the alleged encroachments made in the Jamaliya Extension Road which starts from Hyder Main Street and runs up to the Chandrayogi Samathi Street.

¶104

Hence, the removal of encroachment not arises here, being the said alleged suit area is private property, by complying the Hon'ble High Court order this final order passed herewith and the same is disposed accordingly.”

¶105

However, the said letter has been disputed by the petitioners by

¶106

stating that the Corporation is committed a perjury and contempt by suppressing certain facts. The Revenue Records regarding 40 feet road has been suppressed by the Authorities. Therefore, further actions are to be

¶107

Page No.11 of 16

¶108

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

¶109

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶110

initiated.

¶111

After hearing the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the disputed fact exist regarding the existence of 40 feet road i.e., Jamalia Link Road. Such disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Trial nature proceedings are required for verification of original records and to ascertain the existence of 40 feet road or 20 feet road, as the case may be. As per the version of Chennai Corporation , they are maintaining 20 feet road for the past more than 25 years. The said statement is endorsed by the learned Special Government Pleader. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners state that the 40 feet road existed prior to 25 years.

¶112

Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, learned Counsel for private respondent

¶113

would deny that it is a 40 feet, but the respondents have purchased the land and constructed the buildings and it is a Patta land.

¶114

Page No.12 of 16

¶115

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

¶116

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶117

In view of the conflicting versions made between the parties and noting the disputed fact exist between the parties with reference to the layout in original and the documents regarding title, ownership etc., we are inclined to relegate the parties to approach the competent Civil Court of law for the purpose of establishing 40 feet Jamalia Link Road in that locality.

¶118

However, if the Corporation has identified any such encroachments as of now in the said Jamalia Link Road, all such encroachments are directed to be removed by following the procedures. In respect of disputed 40 feet road, either of the party is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court of law. Regarding the illegal and unauthorized constructions, the Commissioner, Chennai Corporation is directed to identify such buildings and initiate all appropriate action to demolish the unauthorised constructions in that locality by affording opportunity to the persons concerned.

¶119

Page No.13 of 16

¶120

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

¶121

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶122

With the above directions, both the Writ petitions stand disposed

¶123

of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

[S.M.S.J.]

[K.R.S.J.]

18.03.2024

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda

¶128

¶129

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶130

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Egmore, Chennai – 8.

¶131

3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.

¶132

4.The Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Water supply, and sewerage Board, Pumping Station Road, Chennai – 2.

¶133

Page No.14 of 16

¶134

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

¶135

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶136

5.The Collector, Singaravelar Maligai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶137

6.The Thasildhar, Perambur Taluk, Chennai – 600 001.

¶138

7.The Zonal Officer VI, Corporation of Chennai, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶139

8.The Assistant Engineer, Corporation of Chennai, War-71 Office Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶140

9.The Regional Deputy Commissioner, Regional Office (Central), Greater Corporation of Chennai,

¶141

Chennai – 600 030.

¶142

Page No.15 of 16

¶143

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

¶144

W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶145

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.

¶146

veda

¶147

Order in W.P.Nos.7387 of 2018 and 3659 of 2019

¶148

18.03.2024

¶149

Page No.16 of 16

¶150

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

K.Varadarajulu, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Varadarajulu, v. The Commissioner

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

V.Ambigavathi Vs The Registrar General

M.Senthil Kumar Vs The Commissioner

Mrs.S.Kalamalini Vs Subramanian, S/o.Rathinam

P.Jayakumari Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

The Commissioner Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I

K.Mohamed Ansar, Vs The Commissioner,Corporation