Madras High Court
C.Moorthy vs The District Collector on 20 October, 2022
W.A. No.4335 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A. No.4335 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.27871 of 2019
C.Moorthy .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Chennai District
Singaravelan Building, Chennai - 1
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Chennai-3
3.The Assistant Commissioner
Zone-12 - Alandur
Corporation of Chennai
Alandur, Chennai - 16
4.The Special Tahsildar
Alandur Municipality
Alandur, Chennai - 16
5.R.Jayachandran .. Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to
set aside the order of the learned Judge made in W.P. No.21101 of
2019 dated 12.09.2019.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/6
W.A. No.4335 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1, R4
Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi,
Standing Counsel for R2, R3
Mr.G.Krishnakumar for R5
JUDGMENT
(delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Aggrieved by the order of the writ court dismissing the writ
petition filed by him in his capacity as the President of Kesari Nagar
Welfare Association, Adambakkam, Chennai, with costs of Rs.10,000/-
the petitioner in the writ petition, has come up with this appeal.
2. The petitioner sought for a mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 4 to pass orders on his representation dated
28.10.2018 and the reminder dated 27.06.2019 seeking cancellation
of patta granted to the 5th respondent.
3. The petitioner claimed that the site in question to which patta
has been granted to the fifth respondent, was designated as open
space in the planning permission of the Alandur Municipality bearing
PPA No.273/1973. It was claimed that the patta issued to the said
open space, which has been dedicated to the public, should be
cancelled.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/6
W.A. No.4335 of 2019
4. The fifth respondent resisted the writ petition contending that
the land in question was never reserved for public purpose, but it was
meant for Kalyana Mandapam and in fact, he has put up a Kalyana
Mandapam in the said area. The fifth respondent had made a
representation to the CMDA to convert the area reserved for
Kalyanamandapam into residential plots, which was rejected by the
CMDA and the appeal against the said order before the Housing and
Urban Development Department, was rejected by the Government
vide G.O. Ms. No.195 dated 19.12.2016. It is thereafter, the CMDA
has granted the planning permission for putting up a Kalyana
Mandapam in the said site, which is reserved for Kalyana Mandapam.
5. The writ court, considering the counter filed by the 5th
respondent, in which it been has specifically stated that the site in
question was never reserved for public purpose, it was allotted for a
Kalyana Mandapam in the original lay out plan and it has now been
used for the said purpose only, and taking note of the conduct of the
petitioner in sending repeated representations to the authorities,
dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
6. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, would vehemently contend that the writ court erred in
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/6
W.A. No.4335 of 2019
dismissing the writ petition, which was only for a mandamus to
consider the representation for cancellation of a patta. According to
the learned counsel, in the original lay out, the plot in question was
shown as open space or a public utility. It was subsequently converted
as a plot reserved for Kalyana Mandapam. It is this conversion, which
had happened illegally and hence, the fifth respondent should not be
allowed to enjoy the benefit of such conversion. The counter filed by
the CMDA itself would demonstrate that the said contention of the
petitioner cannot be correct. The CMDA has very categorically stated
that this plot in question was never allotted for any public purpose and
it was reserved only for a Kalyana Mandapam and the request for
conversion of the same into residential plots was rejected by the
CMDA as late as 2016 and the said order was confirmed in 2018. We,
therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the dismissal of the
writ petition by the writ court.
7. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that the direction to pay costs is onerous,
particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner was only attempting
to espouse the public cause and he was not attempting to make any
illegal gain out of the litigation.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/6
W.A. No.4335 of 2019
8. Mr.G.Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the fifth
respondent would submit that the direction to pay costs may be
waived taking a liberal view. Accepting the said submission, the writ
appeal is partly allowed. While confirming dismissal of the writ
petition, the direction to pay costs alone shall stand deleted. No costs.
Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M., J.] [K.B., J.]
20.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Asr
To
1.The District Collector
Chennai District
Singaravelan Building, Chennai - 1
2.The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Chennai-3
3.The Assistant Commissioner
Zone-12 - Alandur
Corporation of Chennai
Alandur, Chennai - 16
4.The Special Tahsildar
Alandur Municipality
Alandur, Chennai - 16
5.The Government Pleader
High Court, Madras
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/6
W.A. No.4335 of 2019
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Asr
W.A. No.4335 of 2019 and
C.M.P. No.27871 of 2019
Date : 20.10.2022
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/6
