Dismissed¶128

S.N.Chandrasekar v. K.Ganesan

Madras HC14 Nov 2025SA/198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; Madras High Court; S.A.No.198 of 2020; Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board conveyance and resale of Plot No.34, Thirumoolar Colony, Koyambedu; plot earmarked for well/public purpose; sale deeds dated 27.11.2011 and 06.02.2012 declared null and void; fraud on eminent domain; land reserved for public purpose cannot be sold to individuals; Order 1 Rule 8 CPC representative suit and locus standi; Section 65 Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Act civil suit bar; W.P.No.382/2010; innocent-purchaser defence rejected; allotment cancelled 03.06.1996; K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi J.; 14.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; second appeal dismissed with no costs, leaving intact the First Appellate Court's decree declaring the sale deeds dated 27.11.2011 and 06.02.2012 null and void. ¶128

S.N.Chandrasekar Vs K.Ganesan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; second appeal dismissed with no costs, leaving intact the First Appellate Court's decree declaring the sale deeds dated 27.11.2011 and 06.02.2012 null and void.

¶128

Issue for consideration

Substantial question (a): Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the absence of leave to sue in representative capacity is not applicable to the appeal proceedings but can be raised only before the Trial Court. +2 more

¶88

Court's answer

Though the suit was not instituted under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC as a representative suit, it is maintainable because the plaintiff himself is an aggrieved person whose right to use the land earmarked for public purpose was prejudicially affected; alleged non-compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is not a ground for dismissing the suit.

¶118

Ratio / Principle

Land once designated/earmarked for a public purpose must be used only for that purpose and cannot be sold or allotted to private parties; an attempt to reverse the public purpose through a private agreement is a fraud on the Government's power of eminent domain and may be considered legally invalid.

¶121

Key takeaways

The First Appellate Court rightly held null and void the sale deed dated 27.11.2011 executed by the 2nd defendant (Board) in favour of the 3rd defendant and the sale deed dated 06.02.2012 executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of defendants 4 & 5, the plot having been reserved/earmarked for public convenience.ratio¶121
Since the writ petition W.P.No.382/2010 was disposed of on the footing that plot no.34 is earmarked as a well, neither the writ petitioner nor the appellants/defendants 4 & 5 can claim any right over plot No.34.ratio¶125
Because the plot was reserved/earmarked for public purpose, its allotment in favour of any individual is illegal, and the constructions put up by the appellants/defendants 4 & 5 are also illegal and unauthorised.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.), Second Appeal S.A.No.198 of 2020, pronounced 14.11.2025 - DISMISSED, no costs. Plot No.34 (109 sq.m., R.S.No.220/2Bpt, Thirumoolar Colony, Koyambedu), earmarked in the revised layout for a well/public amenity, was conveyed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to former allottee R.Vijayalakshmi (deed 27.11.2011, Doc.No.394/2012, Rs.8,175) and at once resold by her to defendants 4 & 5 (deed 06.02.2012, Rs.23,50,000), even though an earlier allotment to her had been cancelled on 03.06.1996 after the Welfare Association's objections (O.S.No.325 of 1996). The First Appellate Court (A.S.No.188/2019, 19.12.2019) had declared both deeds null and void, reversing the trial Court's dismissal of the resident-plaintiff's suit (O.S.No.3461/2012). Held: (i) the suit is maintainable though not framed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the plaintiff himself being an aggrieved resident whose right to use land reserved for public purpose was prejudiced; (ii) land once earmarked for public purpose cannot be allotted or sold to individuals - reversal of public purpose by private agreement is a fraud on eminent domain and legally invalid; (iii) with W.P.No.382/2010 disposed (25.10.2021) recognising Plot No.34 as a 'well', neither the writ petitioner nor the purchaser-appellants can claim any right over it, and their construction is illegal and unauthorised. Admitted questions on representative-capacity leave, the Section 65 TNSCB Act bar and third-party challenge were resolved in favour of upholding the appellate decree, expressly on the public-purpose doctrine.