The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed a writ petition filed by the Agri-Horticultural Society claiming title over four cawnies (each cawny measures 1.322 acres approximately), 18 grounds and 1,683 square feet of land next to Semmozhi Poonga on Cathedral Road in Chennai. The property is believed to be worth over ₹500 crore.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam refused to quash the Land Administration Commissioner’s June 5, 2023 order setting aside the Chennai Collector’s 2011 proceedings for grant of ‘patta’ to the society with respect to the lands in question by recognising them as private lands and not government property.
The judge agreed with Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran and senior counsel P. Wilson, for impleading petitioner Y. Bhuvanesh Kumar, that the society must prove its title, if any, by approaching the civil court concerned and not by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
The judge also stated that all contentions raised by the society were negatived by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court in the first round of litigation initiated by it challenging the show-cause notice issued by the Land Administration Commissioner in 2011 for suo motu review of the Collector’s orders.
Then, the courts had taken note that a Collector (in-charge) had passed orders in favour of the petitioner society on August 28, 2011 without reference to the nature of documents verified by him and had come to a conclusion that the disputed property was private and not government.
“This court also made an observation that the very urgency shown in passing the said order, within a period of five months that too by the In-charge Collector clearly indicates that someone is behind in getting undue advantage for the petitioner society. Therefore, the petitioner has no legs to stand,” Justice Subramaniam wrote. He further stated the allegations of mala fide intention and political bias behind the present government wanting to take away the property from the petitioner society too, were raised in the earlier round of litigation before the High Court and they were consistently negated by the court.
“As far as the impugned (under challenge) order is concerned, the Commissioner of Land Administration categorically considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and made a finding in unambiguous terms... The petitioner society has been in possession of the government land for several decades and therefore it is liable to pay minimum lease rent,” he held.
Arriving at an inevitable conclusion that the petitioner society had not established even a semblance of legal right to occupy the land belonging to the government, the judge said, since the government had now resumed the property, it must be protected and used in the interest of the public at large.
