Dismissed¶¶53

M/s.Samarpana Charitable Trust v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC14 May 2026WP/19442/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suppression of material facts; clean hands doctrine; writ petition dismissed; CMRL land acquisition compensation recovery; Phoenix ARC charge over schedule property; compromise decree dated 13.12.2025 in O.S.No.7264 of 2024; revenue recovery proceedings; attachment of property notice; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; finality of O.S.A.No.227 of 2025 after dismissal of S.L.P.(C) No.36065 of 2025; Samarpana Charitable Trust; Venkatanarayana Road T.Nagar Chennai; T.S.No.6179/1 and 6179/2.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner Trust suppressed the factum of the dismissal of S.L.P.(C) No.36065 of 2025 dated 06.01.2026 — the special leave petition it had preferred against the order dated 25.10.2025 passed in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025. ¶¶40

M/s.Samarpana Charitable Trust Vs State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notices dated 19.02.2026 (RC. No.973/LND/LC-1/CMRL/2024) and 25.02.2026 (RC. NO.B1/2427/2025) issued by CMRL, requiring the petitioner Trust to pay the demanded amount and for attachment of property, are untenable in view of the petitioner's claim of absolute ownership based on the subsisting compromise decree dated 13.12.2025. +1 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed; no costs; consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP Nos. 20723 and 20726 of 2026) are closed — the challenge to the impugned notices therefore fails.

¶¶53

Ratio / Principle

¶¶40

Key takeaways

The elaborate discussion and findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 25.10.2025 in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025, having been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 06.01.2026 in S.L.P.(C) No.36065 of 2025, the issue has attained finality.ratio¶¶48
It is crystal clear that the petitioner Trust has not approached this Court with clean hands, and filed the writ petition with an ulterior motive to thwart the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against them, as a last-minute measure.ratio¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (L. Victoria Gowri J.), 14-05-2026: Dismisses WP No. 19442 of 2026 filed by M/s.Samarpana Charitable Trust under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus to quash notices dated 19.02.2026 (RC. No.973/LND/LC-1/CMRL/2024) and 25.02.2026 (RC. NO.B1/2427/2025) issued by Chennai Metro Rail Limited requiring the Trust to pay the demanded amount and for attachment of property, issued pursuant to the Division Bench order dated 25.10.2025 in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025, which set aside the single-Bench order dated 05.09.2022 (O.P.No.260 of 2022) that had permitted vesting/sale of the T.S.No.6179/1 and 6179/2, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar property to CMRL with right to recover compensation. The Supreme Court had dismissed the Trust's S.L.P.(C) No.36065 of 2025 on 06.01.2026, confirming the Division Bench findings, so the issue had attained finality. Holding that the Trust suppressed the Apex Court order, did not approach with clean hands, and filed the writ with an ulterior motive to thwart revenue recovery as a last-minute measure, the Court dismisses the petition; no costs; connected WMP Nos. 20723 and 20726 of 2026 closed.

¶1

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14-05-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

WP No. 19442 of 2026 AND WMP Nos. 20723 and 20726 OF 2026

¶7

M/s.Samarpana Charitable Trust Head Office at New No.4, Old No.60, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017 Through its Authorized person, Meyanathan Karupaiyan.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

State of Tamilnadu The Secretary to Government (Special Initiatives), Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

Chennai Metro Rail Limited Rep. By the District Revenue Officer and Project Implementation Officer, METROS No.327 Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶12

Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Guindy Taluk, Chennai-600 032

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus quashing the impugned notices dated 19.02.2026 in respect of RC. No.973/LND/LC-1/CMRL/2024 and 25.02.2026 in respect of RC. NO.B1/2427/2025 and directing the Respondent NO.1 to withdraw the same issued to the petitioner.

¶15

Page 1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohammed Badeea Uz Zaman for Mr.Hussain Mueen Farooq For Respondents: Mr.M.Murali, Government Advocate – for R1 Mr.B.Vijay, Standing Counsel – for R2 Ms.Abitha Banu (appeared through VC) (for Phoenix Arc Pvt Ltd. - not a party to the W.P.)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notices dated 19.02.2026 in respect of RC. No.973/LND/LC-1/CMRL/2024 and 25.02.2026 in respect of RC. NO.B1/2427/2025 and directing the first respondent to withdraw the same issued to the petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Trust and they are the absolute owners of the property comprised in T.S.No.6179/2 and 6179/1, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. While so, the second respondent Chennai Metro Rail Limited, in the process of acquiring lands for the expansion of their rail network project, proposed to acquire an extent of 299 sq.mtrs in T.S.No.6179/2 and another 10 sq.mtrs in T.S.No.6179/1 in the aforesaid property. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner Trust filed O.P.No.260 of 2022 making the second respondent a party to the said petition. A single Bench of this Court passed an order dated 05.09.2022 permitting the petitioner to vest the schedule property in favour of the second respondent, following which a sale deed

¶22

Page 2 of 8

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶25

was executed by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent on 12.10.2022. The order dated 05.09.2022 passed in O.P.No.266 of 2022 was challenged by the asset reconstruction company Phoenix ARC Private Limited claiming that they hold a charge over the schedule property.

¶26

It is the further claim of the petitioner that the petitioner had obtained the property vide a gift deed dated 23.06.2006 and they are not aware their vendors had allegedly sought for financial assistance from Andhra Bank and the said Bank had allegedly assigned the loan and its right of recovery to the said Phoenix ARC Private Limited. Learned counsel also submits that the land revenue records and Patta in respect of the schedule property stands in the name of the petitioner Trust and they have also filed O.S.No.7264 of 2024 against the original owners / alleged borrowers, wherein a compromise decree was passed on 13.12.2025. The said Phoenix ARC Private Limited had filed an application for setting aside the decree, wherein the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-11) has directed the parties not to act on the decree, keeping the decree intact.

¶27

In the meantime, the said Phoenix ARC Private Limited has moved this Court in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025 challenging the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in O.P.No.260 of 2022. The said appeal was allowed by this Court setting aside the order dated 05.09.2022 thereby permitting the sale of land to the second

¶28

Page 3 of 8

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶31

respondent / CMRL and the right to recover the compensation amount it paid to the petietioner. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent has issued the impugned notices dated 19.02.2026 and 25.02.2026 respectively requiring the petitioner Trust to pay the demanded amount and for attachment of property. Challenging the same, the present writ petition on the ground that the title over the property exclusively stands in the name of the petitioner Trust and in view of the compromise decree dated 13.12.2025, which is subsisting, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property and therefore the impugned notices are untenable.

¶32

Heard Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent / CMRL.

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent / CMRL vehemently contended that the petitioner Trust has not approached this Court with clean hands and this petition has to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of material facts, firstly that the petitioner having suppressed the charge on the subject property has received the compensation amount towards acquisition of the land by CMRL and secondly that, challenging the order passed in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025 dated 25.10.2025, the petitioner Trust had preferred S.L.P.(C) No.36065 of 2025 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated

¶34

Page 4 of 8

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶37

06.01.2026. Therefore, on the above two grounds the writ petition has to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd., who is not a party to this writ petition submits that, they stand by the judgment of this Court in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and they are concerned only with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the second respondent / CMRL.

¶39

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the materials placed on record.

¶40

A careful perusal of the materials placed on record makes it clear that the petitioner Trust has suppressed the factum of dismissal of the special leave petition in S.L.P.(C) No.36065 of 2025 dated 06.01.2026, which was preferred by the petitioner Trust against the order dated 25.10.2025 passed in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025. It is seen that the Division Bench, in the said order has come down heavily on the petitioner Trust, which reads as follows:

¶41

“ 48. The deed of amendment of Trust dated 16.06.2021 has consciously suppressed by the borrowers which, at Clause 29 states

¶42

Page 5 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶45

that the Trust does not hold any immovable property. The amendment was in June 2021 and is a registered document.

¶46

It is thus clear as day light that the borrowers have consciously suppressed / kept away from CMRL to obtain the legal opinion, even though the role of CMRL, as being a partner in crime, is equally crystally clear. That apart, the Patta even, as per the legal opinion, stands in the name of the original borrowers. This is also not been flagged.

¶47

We are left in no doubt that the entire sordid exercise is an attempt by the borrowers and guarantors to wriggle of the financial commitments towards the Bank, for which purpose, a fraudulent scheme has been devised, denuding the public exchequer of a substantial sum of money….”

¶48

Hence, the elaborate discussion and findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 25.10.2025 in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025 having been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 06.01.2026 in S.L.P.(C) No.36065 of 2025, the issue has attained finality. However, the order of the Apex Court has been suppressed by the petitioner Trust before this Court. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner Trust has not approached this Court with clean hands and the petitioner, with an ulterior motive to thwart the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against them, has filed this writ petition, as a last minute measure and to escape the clutches of the initiatives undertaken by the

¶49

Page 6 of 8

¶50

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

¶51

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶52

second respondent / CMRL. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is

¶53

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

¶54

14-05-2026

¶55

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶56

KST

¶57

¶58

The Secretary to Government (Special Initiatives), Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶59

The District Revenue Officer and Project Implementation Officer, Chennai Metro Rail Limited METROS No.327 Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶60

Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Guindy Taluk, Chennai-600 032

¶61

__________ Page 7 of 8

¶62

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

¶63

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶64

L.VICTORIA GOWRI J.

¶65

KST

¶66

WP No. 19442 of 2026

¶67

14-05-2026

¶68

__________ Page 8 of 8

¶69

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notices dated 19.02.2026 (RC. No.973/LND/LC-1/CMRL/2024) and 25.02.2026 (RC. NO.B1/2427/2025) issued by the second respondent / CMRL pursuant to the O.S.A. outcome, requiring the petitioner Trust to pay the demanded amount and for attachment of property.¶¶20
Second respondent – Chennai Metro Rail Limited (Rep. by the District Revenue Officer and Project Implementation Officer) · 19.02.2026 and 25.02.2026
Prior proceeding
CMRL, expanding its rail network project, proposed to acquire 299 sq.mtrs in T.S.No.6179/2 and 10 sq.mtrs in T.S.No.6179/1 of the petitioner's Venkatanarayana Road property.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Petitioner Trust filed O.P.No.260 of 2022 making the second respondent (CMRL) a party.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
A single Bench of this Court passed an order dated 05.09.2022 permitting the petitioner to vest the schedule property in favour of CMRL.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of CMRL on 12.10.2022 pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2022.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
The order dated 05.09.2022 (stated in this paragraph as passed in O.P.No.266 of 2022) was challenged by asset reconstruction company Phoenix ARC Private Limited claiming a charge over the schedule property.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's claim: it obtained the property vide a gift deed dated 23.06.2006.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's claim: its vendors had allegedly sought financial assistance from Andhra Bank, which allegedly assigned the loan and its right of recovery to Phoenix ARC Private Limited.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed O.S.No.7264 of 2024 against the original owners / alleged borrowers; a compromise decree was passed on 13.12.2025.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Phoenix ARC Private Limited filed an application for setting aside the compromise decree.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
The VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-11) directed the parties not to act on the decree, keeping the decree intact.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Phoenix ARC Private Limited moved this Court in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025 challenging the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in O.P.No.260 of 2022.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
O.S.A.No.227 of 2025 was allowed by this Court, setting aside the order dated 05.09.2022 and permitting sale of the land to the second respondent / CMRL.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
CMRL was given the right to recover the compensation amount it paid to the petitioner.¶¶31
Prior proceeding
Petitioner Trust preferred S.L.P.(C) No.36065 of 2025 against the order dated 25.10.2025 in O.S.A.No.227 of 2025; the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (order dated 06.01.2026).¶¶33

M/s.Samarpana Charitable Trust v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Samarpana Charitable Trust v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeppiaar Engineering College Vs Anna University

S.Gnanasekaran Vs The Commissioner

G.Prabakaran Vs The District collector

Archana Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Ms Gnanasekaran Vs State Tax Officer

A.Venkatesan Vs The Secretary to Government