Madras High Court
Varun P Japee vs State Represented By C.M.D.A on 22 April, 2022
W.P.No.25161 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.No.25161 of 2013
Varun P Japee ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by C.M.D.A
Chief Executive Officer I/c
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
No.1 Gandhi Irwin road
Egmore, Chennai-600 008
2. The District Collector
Kanchipuram
3.The Tahsildar
Chengalpattu
R2 and 3 are suo motu
impleaded vide court order
dated 01.11.2018 order passed by VBDJ ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to reeive the balance cost of Rs.27,356/- of the plot and execute
the lease cum sale agreement and consequently to handover the plot No.A-
2/4, HIG admeasuring 3500 sq.ft vide allotment letter dated 09.06.2007,
1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25161 of 2013
order No.AL8/1008/2000 dated 07.02.2000, Kattankulathur NHI/Town-
Center Scheme in favour of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Elangovan
For Respondents : Ms.P.Veena Suresh, standing counsel for R1
Mr.G.Krishnaraj, AGP for R2 and 3
ORDER
The petitioner was allotted plot at Maraimalai Nagar, Katttankulathur
NHI/Town in the year 2000. But the said plot was encroached. Since there
was encroachment the Plot No.A-2/4,HIG allotted in favour of the petitioner
could not be handed over to the petitioner. This Court appointed an
Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of handing over the property
allotted in Plot No.A-2/4,HIG, in favour of the petitioner in the presence of
officials of the respondents. During the inspection of the Advocate
Commissioner it is reported that more than 100 villagers have surrounded
her as well as the officials of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
(CMDA) and they opposed and objected to inspection of the property in
question. The Police officials who accompanied the Advocate
Commissioner and officials of CMDA could not do anything and they were
2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25161 of 2013
helpless. From the report it is noted that handing over possession of the
property is not possible due to the obstruction made by the entire village.
2. The Hon'ble First Division Bench of this Court in a similar
circumstances, in W.A.Nos.530,535 and 537 of 20222 dated 16.03.2022
passed the following order:
“ 2. The facts of the case show that the respondents
allotted plots to the appellants on certain terms and
conditions, pursuant to which, the appellants paid a
substantial amount, as otherwise, delay was to attract
penal interest apart from regular interest. After the
issuance of the letters of allotment, the possession
thereupon could not be given by the respondents as
encroachments on the lands were found, which are fortified
by the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by
the Court.
3. In the light of the aforesaid, the appellants ought
to have approached the authorities to allot alternate plots
than the plots allotted to them in view of the fact there are
encroachments. In case the plots allotted to the appellants
3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25161 of 2013
are maintained, they would not get possession of the lands
unless it is free from encroachment and it may even take
time. Therefore, as prayed by learned counsel for the
appellants, we are disposing of these appeals without
causing interference with the order of the learned Single
Judge, but with a clarification that pursuant to the
direction in this judgment, the appellants may approach the
respondents for allotment of alternate plots, after
surrendering the plots allotted to them, if the
encroachments in the land cannot be removed immediately.
4. In case the appellants approach the respondents
for the aforesaid, the authorities concerned would
immediately take a decision for allotment of alternate plots,
obviously on payment of due amount as per the terms and
conditions of allotment and if there is any deviation in the
site, namely, if the plot size is bigger or smaller,
appropriate adjustment of the amount either by taking
additional amount or by returning the amount, as the case
may be, would be made. However, decision in this regard
would be taken at the earliest, in any case, not beyond the
period of four months from the date of receipt of the
4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25161 of 2013
representation, along with a copy of this order. There will
be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.3883,
3884, 3900, 3902 and 3921 of 2022 are closed.”
3. The issue on hand in the present writ petition squarely covered by
the judgment of the Hon'ble First Division Bench of this Court. I
respectfully follow the very same order and direct the petitioner to approach
the respondents and a further direction to the respondents to immediately
take a decision for allotment of alternative plots subject to adjustment of
money preferably in the same layout at Kattankolathur.
4. Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Post for reporting compliance on 15.06.2022.
22.04.2022
5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25161 of 2013
M. GOVINDARAJ, J
kpr
To
1.The Chief Executive Officer I/C
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
No.1 Gandhi Irwin road
Egmore, Chennai-600 008
2. The District Collector
Kanchipuram
3.The Tahsildar
Chengalpattu
W.P.No.25161 of 2013
22.04.2022
6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
