9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. 2. The said Society consists of resident, non-resident, life members, honorary and extraordinary members and the subscribing members shall consist of four classes, namely 'life', 'A', 'B' and 'C' and according to the Respondent/Society, as on date, they are having 1500 members, including life members. The Governor of Tamil Nadu is the patron of the Society and the Management of the Society is vested in a Committee consisting of 20 members, Chairman, Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer and Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, one of the Respondents herein is the Honorary Secretary of the Society. 3. It is seen from the materials placed on record that the Government, in 1836, purchased lands in Mylapore village, Triplicane-Mylapore Taluk, Madras District, measuring an extent of C.6-18-1673 sq.ft. in O.S. No. 3410 (now part of R.S. No. 13) and an extent of C.4-22-226 sq.ft. in O.S. Nos. 3406 (part), 3407, 3408, 3409 and 3413 (now part of R.S. No. 13 and R.S. No. 64), Mylapore village, Madras District was acquired by the Government and placed at the disposal of the Respondent Agri-Horticultural Society, for the specific purpose of maintaining an Agri-Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said lands in the event of infringement of or failure to observe any of the conditions of the grant or if the lands are required for any public purposes. The decision of the Government on the question of infringement or failure to observe any of the conditions of the grant or the requirement for any public purpose shall be final and binding on the Society. In regard to action against the infringement of conditions of agreement, the procedure laid down in the Board's Standing Order 24 will be followed, and a decision will be taken after obtaining the explanation of the Society for any lapse/violation of condition. The Society may however lease out the produce of the trees or plants standing thereon and put up hoardings without approval or sanction of the Government. (5) The Government hereby ratify the action of the society in granting the lease of the lands and buildings more particularly and fully described in Schedule II for running a Drive-in-Restaurant in favor of Messrs. Woodlands Hotel: (6) The Government also permit the Society to make any further lease of the lands and buildings more particularly and fully described in Schedule I in favour of M/s. Woodla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing two separate writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 10167 and 10168 of 1989 before this Court, on the ground that the impugned action was initiated by the Government as a result of political vendetta, since he is closely associated with AIADMK General Secretary and also a former Minister of the AIADMK Government. A learned single Judge of this Court, considering the fact that it is only a notice to which the Petitioner could very well submit his reply, has dismissed both the writ petitions, by the order dated 1.8.1989. The learned single Judge has observed as follows: ...The first Respondent has asked the Petitioner to submit a reply. As such, it is not proper for me to enter into the merits of the case at this stage. It is open to the Petitioner to file his reply to the impugned notice and await final orders and I am sure that the first Respondent will give an opportunity such as personal hearing to the Petitioner, if the Petitioner so desires, before considering the objections of the Petitioner and pass orders.... 6. Immediately thereafter, on 2.8.1989, the learned Counsel for the Society, addressed a letter to the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, forwarding the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue (LI) Department, dated 5.8.1989, ordering resumption of the lands for the above said public purposes together with the trees, plants and superstructures, if any, found on the lands. This order is challenged by the Society as well as by its Honorary Secretary Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, by filing two separate writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 11058 and 11059 of 1989. Thereupon, on 2.8.1989, the District Registrar/Registration of Societies, Central Madras, had issued a show-cause notice in his proceedings No. 12604/Ma.P/88, dated 2.8.1989 under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975), regarding nine charges mentioned therein. Challenging the said show-cause notice, W.P. No. 11178 of 1989 was filed by the Society. 10. In all these writ petitions, the main thrust of the writ Petitioners, who are the Respondents herein, is that the Honorary Secretary of the Society Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, is a family friend of AIADMK General Secretary Ms. Jayalalithaa and also the relative of Mr. K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran, the former Minister in the earlier AIADMK Government and hence all these proceedings are initiated by the Ruling DMK Government, only as a pol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing judgments, including the ones already cited before the learned single Judge: 1. Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 35, 2. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 872, 3. The Collector (Distt. Magistrate), Allahabad and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal AIR 1985 SC 1622, 4. State of Assam and Ors. v. Banshidhar Shewbhagaan Company AIR 1981 SC 1957, 5. The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 319, 6. Ram Manohar Lohia v. The State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1966 SC 740, 7. S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 and 8. The State of Punjab v. Ramji Lal and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 1228. 13. The learned senior counsel would also argue that there is no material on record to show that there is a proposal for setting up a sport complex or horticultural centre and thus there is no legal satisfaction by the Government regarding existence of public purpose and hence the impugned resumption sought is a non-existing public purpose. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel would rely on the following judgments: 1. Barium Chemicals Ltd. and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Tamil Nadu and Anr. AIR 1974 SC 555, 2. State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 471, 3. Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 877, 4. Srinivasa Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Madam Gurumurthy Sastry and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 675 : 1995 1 L.W. 267, 5. Inder Parshad v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 239, 6. Misbah Alam Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 528, 7. W.B. Housing Board and Ors. v. Brijendra Prasad Gupta and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 207, 8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237, 9. State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 330, 10. Union of India and Ors. v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta Kannadigara and Ors. : (2002) 10 SCC 226, 11. Chairman MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 567, 12. Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764, 13. Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 54 and 14. Bank of India and Ors. v. T. Jogram (2007) 7 SCC 236. 16. We have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... binding on the Society. Thus, there cannot be any dispute or quarrel with regard to the power or authority of the Government in issuing the impugned proceedings for resumption of the lands, being the owner of the lands. 19. As has already been pointed out supra, the entire averments and the arguments advanced on the part of the Respondents/Society revolves around the point that the impugned actions have been initiated by the Government, since the Respondent Mr. V. Krishnamurthy is the family friend of Ms. Jayalalithaa and that he is also related to one of the former Ministers of the AIADMK Government. On a perusal of the entire materials placed on record, relied on by either side, we are able to see that the AIADMK Government, with which, it is said by the Respondent that he is closely associated with, itself has initiated proceedings against the Respondent Society to maintain the land as a modern park like the Botanical Garden at Ooty, in order to develop the chief objectives of horticulture. As a matter of fact, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that Mr. K.K.S.S.R. Ramachandran, the former Minister of AIADMK, with whom, it is said that the Respondent Mr. V. Krishn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r certain public purpose. 3. Schemes if any drafted by the Government for developing sport activities. 4. The details of Budget allocation for the promotion of sports. 22. The contention of the Respondents is that neither any order has been passed on such a representation of the Respondents nor they were permitted to peruse the said documents. Coming to the point of relevance of these documents, it is to be pointed out that it is only a point of resumption of the land by the owner i.e. the Government, and not an acquisition of the lands belonging to the Respondents, so as to say that the purpose of the acquisition must be made known to the owner of the land. It is to be pointed out that it is not for the Respondents/Society to decide whether the public purposes proposed by the Government could co-exist or not. In the agreement in Clause (4) itself, it has been agreed by both the parties, that the resumption of the land by the Government for public purpose shall be final and binding on the Society. Even though it is contended on the part of the Society that such unilateral induction of the clauses will not prevent them from challenging the action of the Government, since, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s down that the Government lands, placed at the disposal of a person, an Institution or a Local Body can be resumed, if in the opinion of the Government, the land is required for a public purpose and and it does not envisage issue of any notice to the grantee to show-cause against such resumption of land already granted and under possession of the grantee for public purpose. In spite of such being the position, in due compliance of the principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice was issued by the Government, which cannot be permitted to be commented upon, other way round, by the Respondents. 24. The Chief Secretary of the State has filed an affidavit, dated 31.3.2008 before us. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: 5. When the original impugned orders were passed, the stated public purpose and intention of the State was for the development of Horticulture and Horticultural Research as well as the development of some sport facilities in the resumed land without affecting the environment in any manner. 6. The requirement of parks and lung spaces in the city are only more extremely required today than ever before. The State is no longer considering any sports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. 26. There is no quarrel with regard to the proposition laid down by the Honourable Apex Court and transparency is required in all the public actions of the Government. In the case on hand, in the impugned notices itself, the Government has mentioned the purposes for which the land is required and therefore, it cannot be said that the Government has not applied its mind, as has been wrongly argued on the part of the Respondents/Society. When the Government, in the capacity of the owner of the lands, required the lands for the stated public purpose and had also found misuse of the lease by the allottee, we cannot find fault with the actions of the Government. 27. It is also to be mentioned that without prior permission of the Government, the Society has sublet the property to the Woodlands Drive-in Restaurant and as a matter of compromise, the Government has ratified the action of the Society and even thereafter, they have extended the term of the Restaurant for another five years time, for which the permission of the Government was not obtained. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even in the affidavit, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy has stated that he is owning the car business and advertisement business. Considering the fact that the land was already taken possession by the Government, we hope that the Government will respect the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary in using the land for public purpose. Though the sublettee Woodlands Drive-in Restaurant is not a party to these proceedings, but he is also bound by this judgment, since the Respondent/Society, who has sublet the property to the said Restaurant, himself has no power to sublet the property, without the permission of the Government and no such permission was granted by the Government and therefore when once we hold that the resumption is valid, automatically the sublettee is also liable for vacating the premises and therefore, the Government is directed to resume the total extent including the land given on subletting, except, of course, the lands owned by the Society, having been purchased by them under valid sale deeds. 29. It is also to be placed on record that all these writ appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on 21.12.2004, since the then Government Advocate has endorsed to permit him to withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the learned Counsel for the Respondents cannot augment their case and thus are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 31. The Government has power to resume the land and the allegations of political vendetta are invented for the purpose of the case, and in the absence of any substantive proof or material on record to prove the same, the learned single Judge should not have gone into that aspect and given much weightage to it. But, unfortunately, the learned single Judge has fell into the ferry of the Society and instead of rejecting the said allegations of political vendetta, has entertained the same and given undue advantage to the same. 32. For all these reasons, we find force in the contentions raised on the part of the Government and we find no political vendetta, that too capable of vitiating the genuine proceedings initiated by the Government, after complying with all formalities and complying with the principles of natural justice and the contention of the Government that the lands are required for a stated public purpose is also well established. 33. In view of our above discussions, the following conclusions would emerge: (1) The political ven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t permit him to do so. Thus, it is clear that he is making use of the Government lands for his personal use and enjoying the vast extent of the land situated in the heart of the city, for his personal gains, without paying any single pie to the Government. Therefore, the Government is also entitled to recover the amounts derived by the said Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Honorary Secretary, by illegally making use of the Government lands for his personal gains that too for his commercial purposes, by way of rent etc. (4) It is also brought to our notice that after passing the impugned order, the possession of the suit schedule land was taken by the Government in 1989 itself, from that the lands were in the possession and enjoyment of the Government and because of the pendency of these proceedings, they are not able to proceed with the proposed developmental activities in the said lands. In view of our above categorical findings, now the Government is at liberty to make best use of the lands for the public purpose. (5) Adequate and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Respondents/Society by the Government, in due compliance of the principles of natural justice, even though RSO 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
