THE M.D.,CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD Vs N. ISMAIL
Bench: A.K. PATNAIK,FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Case number: C.A. No.-002572-002573 / 2014
Diary number: 22140 / 2013
Advocates: SENTHIL JAGADEESAN Vs
Page 1
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2572-2573 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
The M.D., Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. …Appellant VERSUS
N. Ismail & Ors. …Respondents With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2575-2578 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26199-26202 OF 2013)
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. I.A. Nos.1-2 & I.A. Nos.1-4, applications for impleadment,
filed in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.26020-26021 of 2013
and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.26199-26202 of 2013, are
allowed. Registry to carry out necessary amendment.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu
represented by the Managing Director of Chennai Metro Rail
Ltd. and the Principal Secretary to Government Revenue LD-
1(1) Department. The issue concerned in these appeals
relates to an extent of 5 Grounds and 275 sq.ft. of land in
T.S. No.43/2 in Chennai District, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, Block CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 1 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 2
No.7 of Vepery Village. The abovesaid land along with
another land in an extent of one Cawni 10 Grounds and
1871 sq.ft. in T.S. No.41 of the same Vepery Village, Fort
Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District was granted by the
Government of Tamil Nadu to one Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar
to build a Choultry for the use of persons who come by rail
from different parts of the presidency and who have no
homes or friends in Madras. The Government while
assigning the above lands to Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar
imposed certain conditions to the effect that the Choultry
should be available for the free use of railway travelers, that
the buildings constructed should be approved by the
Government and more importantly, “that the land shall be
liable to resumption, without compensation, if it ceases to
be employed for the purpose for which it is granted or is
used for any other purposes, without the permission of the
Government”.
4. The said lands were granted and assigned in favour of Sir
Ramaswamy Mudaliar by GO Ms. Nos.763 and 253 dated
09.12.1898 and 17.01.1899 respectively whereas the
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 2 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 3
conditions were incorporated in the following words “(1)
that the land shall revert to Government when it ceases to
be used for the purpose for which it is granted and (2) that
should the property be at any time resumed by Government,
the compensation payable, therefore, shall in no case
exceed the cost or the then present value whichever shall
be less of any building erected or other works executed on
the land”.
5. Subsequently, under a Scheme Decree framed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in C.S. No.90 of 1963 all the
above mentioned properties held by Sir Ramaswami
Mudaliar’s Choultry were vested with the Administrator
General and Official Trustee (hereinafter referred to as “the
AG & OT) of Tamil Nadu on 18.08.1970. From then onwards
the management of the Trust and the properties attached
with it were under the control of the AG & OT. As per the
Scheme Decree, the AG & OT of Tamil Nadu leased out the
lands in T.S. No.41 and T.S. No.43/2 to various tenants and
was collecting the rent. As far as T.S. No.43/2 comprised in
an extent of 5644 sq.ft. was concerned, the same was
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 3 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 4
leased out to the first respondent herein under the lease
deed dated 22.12.1972. According to the AG & OT, the First
Respondent is in arrears and as on 31.12.2012, the arrears
payable by the First Respondent works out to a sum of
Rs.94,84,630/- which has been computed and determined by
the High Court of Madras. It is also stated that the First
Respondent has preferred Special Leave Petition(C) No.11-
12 of 2010 against the said determination and claim which is
pending in this Hon’ble Court.
6. According to the First Respondent, pursuant to the lease
granted in his favour, which was registered as document
105 of 1974 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, West Madras, he
constructed a Hotel and started the business in the year
1987. According to him, subsequently, an adjacent piece of
land measuring 4141 sq. ft was granted on lease for a period
of 30 years to one Smt. Vatsala again based on the Order of
the High Court of Madras, which was also supported by a
registered Lease Deed dated 29.04.1982 bearing Document
No.1492/1984 registered in the office of the Registrar,
Madras (North). The said Smt. Vatsala also stated to have
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 4 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 5
transferred her lease hold right in respect of the said extent
to the First Respondent which was also stated to have been
approved by the Official Trustee in the proceeding dated
05.04.1989 in R.O.C. No.2390 of 1989/OT. The First
Respondent claimed to have put up two pucca structures
and running two Star Hotels known as ‘Hotel Central Tower’
and ‘Hotel Howrah’. The First Respondent also claimed to
have got the approval of the Municipality, State Government
and other authorities and that the buildings were duly
assessed for property tax and other statutory dues. By Order
dated 10.12.2004 in Application No.915/2003, the lease in
favour of the First Respondent was stated to have been
extended for a further period of 25 years by enhancing the
rent payable by him. The First Respondent also relied upon
an Order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated
20.08.2009 in support of the extension of the lease passed
in O.S.A. No.298 of 2004 and connected batch cases.
According to the First Respondent because of his old age
and other physical ailments he entered into a partnership
arrangement with the applicant in I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 in
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 5 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 6
Special Leave Petition (C) No.26020-21 of 2013 under the
partnership deed dated 28.03.2013.
7. Be that as it may, having regard to the unprecedented
growth of population in general, as well as with particular
reference to the Metropolitan City of Chennai, there was an
imminent need for providing better transport facilities for
the commuters and office goers, as well as business people,
which persuaded the State to expand the rail transport
facility in the City of Chennai. With that avowed object, the
appellant in Special Leave Petition (C) No.26020-21 of 2013
came into being and the said Chennai Metro Rail Limited
planned a project called ‘Chennai Metro Rail Project’ which
envisaged construction of two corridors under Phase-1.
Corridor 1 starts from Washermenpet and ends at Airport for
a length of 23.1 kms. and Corridor 2 starts from Chennai
Central and ends at St. Thomas Mount Station for a length of
22 kms. As per the project, the portions of Corridor 1 with a
length of 14.3 kms. between Washermenpet to Saidapet and
in Corridor - 2 with a length of 9.7 kms. from Chennai
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 6 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 7
Central to Anna Nagar would be underground corridors and
the remaining in an elevated position.
8. The Chennai Metro Rail Limited is stated to be a Special
Purpose Vehicle (SPV) formed for the purpose of
implementing the ‘Chennai Metro Rail Project’. The Project is
stated to be funded by the Government of India and the
State Government by way of equal equity contribution in
subordinate debt. (Government of India 20%, Government of
Tamil Nadu 20.78% and the balance 59.22% being met from
the loan assistance from Japan International Co-operation
agency). The Government of India is stated to have
accorded sanction for the project as well as for its
participation.
9. The lands concerned in these appeals are covered by the
project, namely, Corridor 1, i.e. from Washermenpet to
Chennai Airport. According to the appellant, in Special Leave
Petition (C) No.26020-21 of 2013, the project is a time bound
project with an objective to ease out phenomenal growth of
traffic congestion in the City of Chennai and any delay in
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 7 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 8
carrying out the project would affect the plans announced
by the Government of India, as well as, the State
Government, the convenience of the public of Chennai and
further will lead to contractual implications such as
extension of time and escalation of project costs, which in
turn would cost the public exchequer several hundred crores
of rupees. According to the Chennai Metro, any further delay
on any account, apart from causing high amount of cost
escalation, would also deprive the citizens of Chennai a safe
and quick means of public transport. It is stated that the
Chennai Metro in its project report has described in detail
the various length of the projects and in the said statement,
designed constructions of underground stations at
Washermenpet, Mannadi, High Court, Chennai Central and
Egmore and associated tunnels, the details of the location,
the description, the access date from commencement of the
works with particular reference to the number of days and
the vacate date from commencement of the work with
particular reference of number of days is specified after
making meticulous calculations.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 8 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 9
10. Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the appellants brought to our notice the work
which was to be carried out in the land concerned in this
appeal which has been noted in the column under
locations/drawing reference bearing No.SCC-14 and the
description has been shown as entrance area. As far as
access date is concerned, it is noted as 365 days from
commencement of the works and the date to be vacated
after completion of the work from the date of
commencement is noted as 1520 days. According to learned
Additional Solicitor General, for the purpose of starting the
work in the land in question, as per the schedule, the
Chennai Metro should have access to the land within 365
days of the commencement of the project and complete the
work in that land within 1520 days from the date of such
access. It was pointed out that such details have been
specified in the contract agreement and that to ensure that
the works are carried out without any deviation and within
the time schedule, the required plans were also prepared in
so far as it related to SCC-14 and was submitted with the
details of lands falling under Survey No.43/2. The learned CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 9 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 10
Additional Solicitor General also submitted that the said land
were earmarked for erecting a mechanical plant room,
electrical plant room, building services, drop-off and pick-up
facilities and Airport check-in facilities. The plan which were
enclosed along with the Special Leave Petition paper book
between pages 164 to 167 disclose the area falling under
Survey No.43/2, the various facilities to be set up in that
land along with the other facilities to be provided in the
lands adjacent to the said Survey No.43/2.
11. It was also the case of the Chennai Metro that since the
lands in Survey No.43/2 belong to the State Government and
was imminently required for the Chennai Metro Project
which was out and out in public interest, the State
Government came forward to allot the said lands after
retrieving it from Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry through
the AG & OT and by GO Ms. No.168 dated 21.05.2012
passed orders to that effect. Before issuing the said GO, the
procedure to be followed for transfer of the said lands in
favour of the Chennai Metro Pvt. Limited were also carried
out. As the lands belong to the State Government there was CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 10 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 11
no necessity for any acquisition being involved or any
payment of compensation to be made in favour of anyone
except for the Buildings standing thereon. Since the State
Government’s participation is equal in proportion along with
the Government of India and inasmuch as the development
of the project was in the interest of the public at large the
GO dated 21.05.2012 came to be issued.
12. Aggrieved by the Order of the Government in GO Ms. No.168
of 21.05.2012, the First Respondent and various other
persons who were in possession of the other adjacent lands,
which were also covered by the abovesaid GO, approached
the High Court by filing Writ Petitions. The First
Respondent’s Writ Petitions were Writ Petition
Nos.19469/2012 and 19470/2012 wherein he sought for
issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the
proceedings in GO No.168 of 21.05.2012 and the
consequential proceedings of the Tehsildar dated
21.06.2012 as well as the proceedings of the AG & OT dated
25.06.2012 and for quashing the said proceedings. It is
stated that pursuant to the issuance of the GO Ms. No.168
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 11 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 12
dated 21.05.2012, the Tehsildar of Fort Tondiarpet Taluk
issued a notice to AG & OT on 21.06.2012 for resumption of
the land and handover vacant possession. Individual notices
were also stated to have been issued to all the occupants
including the First Respondent asking them to vacate the
premises and remove their belonging and handover vacant
possession. In turn, the AG & OT by its notice 25.06.2012
called upon the First Respondent and the other tenants to
vacate the premises immediately to enable the AG & OT to
handover possession to Chennai Metro.
13. By Order dated 26.11.2012, the Writ Petitions filed by the
First Respondent and other occupants came to be allowed
by the learned Single Judge and the GO Ms. No.168 dated
21.05.2012 was set aside. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the
learned Single Judge the appellants herein preferred Writ
Appeals 68 to 106 of 2013. The Division Bench after a
detailed discussion allowed Writ Appeal Nos. 70 to 88 and 91
to 106 of 2013 holding that the said Chennai Metro Rail
Project, a joint venture of Central Government was to
enhance the public transport system in Chennai and being a
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 12 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 13
public project, any delay in implementation would oust the
public purpose for which the lands were sought to be
retrieved. However, Writ Appeal Nos.68, 69, 89 and 90 of
2013 which related to the lands falling under Survey No.43/2
which are in the possession of the First Respondent were
concerned, according to the Division Bench the same stood
on a different footing. The Division Bench in its order held
as under in paragraph 28:
“28. The map published by CMRL, showing various structures they are going to erect in the area, indicate that the area earmarked for CMRL project does not include the ease area of the writ petitioner in W.P. Nos.19469 and 19470 of 2012 (connected to W.A. Nos. 68, 69, 89 and 90 of 2013). It is also clear from the map that the entire lands required for the CMRL projects like the Underground Metro Station etc. are on the Northern side of the Poonamalle High Road, where vast extent of other vacant lands are available, including the erstwhile Hotel Picnic area. As already stated supra, pursuant to the lease deed entered into by this petitioner with AG & OT, this petitioner raised a huge construction with his own funds and doing his own business and the said lease has been extended upto the year 2027. No default of any sort on his part has been alleged by any of the parties. When the lands and building in possession and occupation of this petitioner are outside the purview of the CMRL project, as has been discussed supra, ordering handing over of the vacant possession of the said lands by this petitioner for the purpose of CMRL, is nothing but requiring him to demolish the building in his possession. At this juncture we feel it apt to hold that ordering demolition of buildings, for no legal or useful
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 13 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 14
purposes, is nothing but wastage of public resources. Given the facts and circumstances of the case that the lands and building raised by this petitioner are outside the purview of the CMRL and not in violation of any law, including the building and tenancy laws, we have no doubt to hold that the lands and building in possession and enjoyment of this petitioner are entitled to be excluded from the project area. Thereafter, the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 19469 of 2012 and 19470 of 2012 stands modified and both the above writ petitions stand allowed. Consequently, W.A. Nos. 68, 69, 89 and 90 stand dismissed.”
14. A reading of the said paragraph disclose that in its opinion
the lands required for Central Chennai Metro Rail Project for
locating its underground Metro Station etc. were all noted on
the northern side of the arterial road namely Poonamallee
High Road, that vast extent of other vacant lands were
available including the erstwhile hotel called ‘the Hotel
Picnic’ and that in so far as the first Respondent was
concerned, he was granted a lease which is to be in
operation till the year 2027 and on these two grounds the
Division Bench took the view that the GO Ms.168 dated
21.05.2012 cannot be justified and confirmed the order of
the learned Single Judge in WP 19469 of 2012 and 19470 of
2012 and dismissed the Writ Appeal Nos.68, 69, 89 and 90
of 2013. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 14 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 15
15. Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General in
his submission while assailing the Judgment of the Division
Bench contended that the basis for setting aside the
impugned GO Ms. No.168 dated 21.05.2012 by the Division
Bench was that the land in question, namely, the one which
fell within Survey No.43/2 was not part of the project land
and that the First Respondent has been granted a lease by
the AG & OT till the year 2027 and, therefore, the impugned
GO cannot be sustained. The learned Additional Solicitor
General by referring to the above paragraph 28 of the
Division Bench submitted that the Division Bench thoroughly
misled itself when it stated that the underground Metro
Station has been planned in the project on the Northern side
of the Poonamallee High Road where certain other lands are
available which can be acquired and inasmuch as the First
Respondent has got a long lease in his favour from the AG &
OT, the Chennai Metro as well as the State Government was
not justified in passing the impugned GO dated 21.05.2012.
In so far as the lands in Survey No.43/2, the learned
Additional Solicitor General took us to the plans which were
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 15 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 16
part of the material papers placed before the High Court
which are now annexed and found in pages 164-167 and
submitted that while on the Northern side of the
Poonamallee High Road the underground Metro Station has
been planned, the present lands situated in Survey No.43/2
as well as the adjacent lands in Survey No.41 have been
earmarked for various other important developments to be
carried out as part of the project such as the setting up of
mechanical plant rooms, electrical plant rooms, building
services, drop-off and pick-up facilities and the Airport
check-in facilities in Survey No.43/2 and ventilation shaft,
entry/exit, sub way, feeder bus stand, multi-model facilities,
pick-up and drop-off bay, MTC Bus bay and fireman staircase
in Survey No.41 and that the entire lands in Survey No.41
and 43/2 belong to the State Government and, therefore,
the Division Bench unfortunately failed to advert to the
above details which were placed before it which resulted in
the passing of the impugned judgment.
16. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that as
against the Division Bench Judgment relating to the other
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 16 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 17
Writ Appeals which were allowed in favour of the Chennai
Metro and State Government, Civil Appeal Nos.6065-6068 of
2013 and connected Special Leave Petitions were filed
wherein this Court taking note of the submission of learned
Solicitor General that the State of Tamil Nadu would issue
notices inviting all the stake-holders liable to be affected by
adverse orders an opportunity to respond to the reasons
which weighed with the State Government to evict them
from the premises in question permitted the State
Government to issue such notices and after getting the
response from those parties pass appropriate orders.
Learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that the
said exercise was carried out by issuing notices and after
receipt of the response, orders were passed for taking over
of the lands from the concerned occupants and that fresh
proceedings have been initiated by those occupants which
are stated to be pending consideration before the High
Court.
17. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the First Respondent also confirmed the said statement
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 17 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 18
of learned Additional Solicitor General. Mr. Gopal
Subramanium, however, contended that similar orders can
be passed in these appeals also to enable the First
Respondent to submit his response and, thereafter, the
Appellants can pass appropriate orders. The learned Senior
Counsel for the First Respondent in his submission
contended that in the sketch which are enclosed and kept at
page 164 to 167 of the Special Leave Petition papers
adjacent to the Survey No. 43/2, there were some other
structures belonging to different parties and that the
Appellants have excluded those lands on the footing that
some heritage building was located and, therefore, the First
Respondent, whose leasehold lands are located closely
adjacent to those left out built-up area, in the event of an
opportunity being extended to the First Respondent, he will
be able to satisfy the authorities to exclude his leasehold
lands also from the purview of taking over by the Chennai
Metro. Mr. Gopal Subramanium also referred to an affidavit
on behalf of Chennai Metro dated April, 2011 in O.S.A.
No.100-101 of 2011 to contend that the averments
contained therein support the stand of the First Respondent CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 18 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 19
to persuade the Chennai Metro to look for some other
alternate lands.
18. While considering the submissions of learned Additional
Solicitor General and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned
Senior Counsel for the First Respondent, inasmuch as we
find that the reasoning of the Division Bench in having
stated that the underground Metro Station has been planned
in a stretch of Land on the Northern side of the Arterial
Road, namely, Poonamallee High Road and that certain
other lands were available in that side and, therefore, there
was no necessity for taking over the lands in the possession
of the First Respondent is patently a conclusion which was
contrary to the records placed before the Division Bench and
the same cannot be sustained. In other words, as rightly
pointed out by learned Additional Solicitor General, the
conclusion of the Division Bench that the lands concerned in
these Appeals, namely, the one situated in Survey No.43/2
were not part of the project of the Chennai Metro was a
wrong assimilation of facts. When it has been demonstrated
before us based on the project details and the plan annexed
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 19 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 20
with it, which disclose that the lands situated in Survey
No.43/2 as well as Survey No.41 were all part of the projects
for putting up various other ancillary units such as
mechanical plant rooms, electrical plant rooms, building
services, drop-off and pick-up facilities, airport check-in
facilities, ventilation shafts, subway, feeder bus stand, multi-
modal facilities, pick-up and drop-off bay, MTC Bus bay,
fireman staircase, entry and exit points, if the taking over of
the lands by the Chennai Metro is not allowed, the same
would seriously prejudice and cause unnecessary hurdles in
proceeding with the project. In our considered view, the
failure of the Division Bench in noting the details displayed
in the plan and the project which were placed before it has
resulted in the passing of the impugned Order. The Division
Bench failed to note that the project details pertaining to the
proposed underground Metro Station and the other
supporting provisions to be made such as mechanical plant
rooms, electrical plant rooms, bus bay and other
developments to be carried out spread over a vast extent of
land both on the Northern side of the Poonamallee High
Road as well as the lands situated on the Southern side of CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 20 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 21
the said Road with which we are now concerned. Therefore,
in the light of the above details placed before the Court
which according to learned Additional Solicitor General was
made available before the Division Bench also, we have no
reason to reject the said submission in order to sustain the
conclusion of the Division Bench. In other words, the
conclusion of the Division Bench having been reached
without properly examining the relevant documents relating
to the Chennai Metro Project, namely, the plans, the project
schedule and the other averments placed before the
Division Bench, the impugned order of the Division Bench
cannot be sustained.
19. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the First Respondent in support of his submission that
the lands situated in Survey No.43/2 were not required at all
for the purpose of carrying out the Metro Project and
referred to an affidavit filed before the Division Bench by the
Managing Director of Chennai Metro Rail Limited. The
learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the said affidavit
the reference to the Metro Rail Station planned along the
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 21 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 22
Poonamallee High Road has been stated and while referring
to the same, a specific reference was made to the private
buildings located opposite to Picnic Hotel and that
acquisition of those private lands would cost dearly to the
State Exchequer apart from evacuation of the
tenants/owners would consume considerable length of time
which would in turn cause delay in the construction of the
underground Station. When we perused the said affidavit
which has been extracted in the reply affidavit filed by the
Managing Director of Chennai Metro in W.P. No.19469 of
2012, we find that statement came to be made when a
litigation was launched at the instance of Hotel Picnic and
while meeting the stand of Hotel Picnic, it was stated that
the above statement came to be made. We do not find any
scope to reject the stand of the Appellant with reference to
the lands situated in Survey No.43/2 which had nothing to
do with the construction of the underground Metro Station.
Though, the various other units to be set up in the lands in
Survey No.43/2 were also part of the Metro Project as has
been demonstrated before us based on relevant documents,
the reference to the Heritage Buildings and other private CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 22 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 23
buildings situated opposite to Hotel Picnic was referred to by
Chennai Metro while pointing out its inability to plan the
setting up of underground Metro Station in any other land
except the lands where Hotel Picnic was situated. Therefore,
the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the
First Respondent does not in any way support the stand of
the First Respondent. As far as the contention of Mr. Gopal
Subramanium that like in the case of other occupants
wherein a direction was issued by this Court to give a show
cause notice and decide the matter, the said contention
cannot be countenanced in this case inasmuch as before the
Division Bench of the High Court as well as before us the
issue was argued on merits. In fact, the Division Bench after
hearing the Appellants and the First Respondent allowed
both his Writ Petitions by modifying the order of the learned
Single Judge and thereby held that there was no necessity
for a remand. Therefore, since we have also decided the
whole controversy on merits there is no need for a remand.
20. Therefore, once we are convinced that the entitlement of
the Appellant to hold the lands belonging to the State falling
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 23 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 24
under Survey Nos.43/2 as well as 41 which the Appellant is
able to take possession of from the State Government
without payment of any compensation, the only other
question to be examined is as to whether the lease granted
in favour of the First Respondent by the AG & OT based on
the directions of the High Court can have any implication in
preventing the Appellant from taking over the lands. As
noted earlier, indisputably the lands in Survey No.43/2
belong to the State. At the time when the lands were
granted and assigned in favour of Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar
Trust vide GO Ms. Nos.763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898 and
17.01.1899 respectively, conditions were imposed to the
effect that the lands would revert back to the Government
when it ceases to be used for the purpose for which it was
granted and that should the property at any time resumed
by Government, the compensation payable should in no
case exceed the cost or the then present value whichever
shall be less of any building erected or other works executed
in the land. Though, learned Additional Solicitor General
sought to contend as was also contended before the High
Court that by leasing out the lands to different parties the CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 24 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 25
condition No.1 was violated, namely, that the land was put
to different use than for what it was granted, we do not find
any good grounds to accept the same. On the other hand,
we find that the Trust itself was vested with the AG & OT on
18.08.1970 pursuant to a Scheme Decree framed by the
High Court in C.S. No.90 of 1963. From then onwards, the AG
& OT was administering the Trust and was apparently
fulfilling the purpose for which the Trust came to be created,
though, by leasing out the lands to different individuals for
the purpose of generating income from the lands. The AG &
OT by approaching the High Court, as and when required,
seem to have granted the lease of the lands to different
parties based on the orders passed by the High Court.
21. In so far as the First Respondent was concerned, his lease
came into existence initially on 22.12.1972, and by Order
dated 10.12.2004 in Application No.915 of 2003, the lease in
favour of the First Respondent was extended for a further
period of 25 years by enhancing the rent. The said order was
also confirmed by the Division Bench in the Order dated
20.08.2009 in O.S.A. No.298 of 2004. In the said
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 25 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 26
circumstances, it cannot be held that the said possession
with the First Respondent was unlawful. However, on that
basis when it comes to the question of resumption of the
land by the State Government when the Government
through the AG & OT thought it fit to resume the lands which
was in accordance with the terms contained in the Original
Grant, namely, GOS No.763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898 and
17.01.1899, there would be no scope for the First
Respondent to contend that the Appellants are not entitled
for the resumption of the lands situated in Survey No.43/2.
22. We, therefore, hold that the State Government as the owner
of the land and having regard to the right retained by it
while making the grant in the years 1898 and 1899 and in
the larger public interest of setting up of the Chennai Metro
Project the lands were required by it, the same cannot be
questioned by the Original Grantee or by the lessees whose
holding was subordinate in character to the Original
Grantee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the
Division Bench in having interfered with the impugned GO
Ms. No.168 dated 21.05.2012 and the consequential orders
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 26 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 27
of the Tehsildar dated 21.06.2012 and that of the AG & OT
dated 25.06.2012 directing the First Respondent to
handover possession of the lands.
23. Therefore, while the impugned GO and the consequential
orders of the Tehsildar and AG & OT can be sustained,
having regard to the condition contained in the initial GO Ms.
Nos.763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898 and 17.01.1899 since
based on valid orders of the High Court and the AG & OT the
First Respondent developed its Hotel business in the lands in
question, while resuming the lands, the State Government
along with the Chennai Metro is bound to compensate the
First Respondent for the buildings which were erected in the
said land in Survey No.43/2 based on the valuation to be
made by the appropriate Authorities.
24. Therefore, while allowing the Appeals of the State
Government as well as the Chennai Metro and while setting
aside the Judgment of the Division Bench, Writ Appeal
Nos.68, 69, 89 and 90 of 2013 are allowed. We, however,
direct the Appellants to value the buildings belonging to the
First Respondent standing in Survey No.43/2 and determine
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 27 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)
Page 28
the compensation and pay the same to the First
Respondent. The said exercise of valuation and payment of
compensation shall be effected within three months from
this date.
25. In the light of our above orders, the First Respondent is
directed to surrender possession of the lands in Survey
No.43/2 in an extent of 5644 sq. ft. through the AG & OT
within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. With the above directions, these appeals are
allowed.
…..……….…………………………...J.
[A.K. Patnaik]
…………….………………………………J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim
Kalifulla] New Delhi; February 21, 2014
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2014 28 of 28 (@ SLP (C) NOS.26020-26021 OF 2013)