Madras High Court
N.M.Karunanidhi vs The Commissioner on 27 April, 2023
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
1.N.M.Karunanidhi
2.Malliga Jayakumar
3.Kuppusamy Jayaraman ... Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The Commissioner
Tindivanam Municipality
Tindivanam- 604 001.
2. District Collector
District Collector Office
Villupuram- 605 602.
3. Sub Collector
Sub Collector Office
Tindivanam- 604 302.
4. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board
No.31, Kamarajar Salai
Chepauk, Chennai – 5. .. Respondents
(R4 Suo motu impleaded vide
Order dt. 09.03.2023 made in
WP.No.7565/2023 by TKRJ)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men, agents and
subordinates from in any manner, constructing an “underground drainage system” in S.No.96
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
/1B, 95/1C1C2, 97/1B, 97/2A, Dr.Wahab Nagar layout, Tindivanam Town, which was
originally earmarked as plots and road for public purpose.
For Petitioner Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Cousnel
for Miss.K.Abhirame
For Respondents Mr.P.Srinivas
Standing Counsel
for R1
Mr.A.M.Ayyathurai
Government Advocate
for R2 and R3
Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.Y.Kavitha
Standing Counsel
for R4
ORDER
This writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the
respondents from constructing “underground drainage system” in S.No.96 /1B, 95/1C1C2,
97/1B, 97/2A, Dr.Wahab Nagar layout, Tindivanam Town.
2. The back ground facts of this case are as under:
2.1. According to the petitioners, they are the residents of Dr.Wahab Nagar Layout
and it was formed and approved by the 1 st respondent in 1986. The said layout was formed
with 33 plots by one Salaudeen, the power agent of Ameena B, the developer. According to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
the said layout, a portion of land was left behind for the formation of the park. A Gift Deed
dated 24.07.1987 was executed vide Doc.No.1052 of 1987 by the power agent of the
developer in favour of the 1 st respondent. On 08.05.1992, vide proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.4200/92, the 1 st respondent had annulled the deed of gift on account of the
reasons assigned in the deed dated 15.06.1992.
2.2. According to the petitioners, the Gift Deed dated 24.07.1987 registered as
Doc.No.1052/1987 stood modified in so far as the park area is concerned. According to the
petitioners, under the deed of gift dated 15.06.1992 registered as Doc.No.569/1992 would
indicate that the earlier gift was partially modified. A portion of land that was earmarked as
park was converted into house plots and the remaining portion was gifted to the 1 st
respondent for the purpose of forming the road for public use.
2.3. On 01.03.2023, the 1 st respondent, without any prior notice, started to dig
deep pits in the petitioners plots. When the petitioners questioned the same, the 1 st
respondent stated that it was dug for construction of an “underground drainage system”. The
1 st respondent is illegally trying to convert the house plots into a sewage collecting area.
Hence, the writ petition.
3.When the matter came up for hearing on 24.4.2023, this Court passed the following
order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side in extentso. When this
Court was about to reserve the case for pronouncing judgment, one fact was
brought to the notice of the Court at the fag end and that is the suit filed in
O.S.No.339/1992, before the District Munsif Court which directly touched upon the
gift deed dated 15.06.1992. When the interim order was passed on 24.03.2023,
dismissing the injunction petition, it has been recorded, as if it was decreed in
favour of Municipality. This judgment may have a major impact while dealing with
the issue on hand. Hence, there shall be a direction to either side to produce this
judgment passed in OS.No.339/1992. In other respects, this Court has heard either
side.
2.Post on 27.4.2023, under the caption part heard case.
4.The matter was taken up for hearing today, the judgment that was passed in
OS.No.339/1992, by the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, was placed before this
Court. On carefully going through the same, the third issue that was framed in the suit is
extracted hereunder:
3/ 11/5/92?e; njjpapll; jhdg;gj;jpuj;jpd; go jhth ,lj;jpy; 2?k;
; chpik fpilahjh ?
gpujpthjpfF
5.The above issue was dealt with by the Trial Court in the following manner and the
following finding was given.
14/ ,e;j tHf;fpy;. jhth brhj;J g{';ghttpw;F vd;W xJf;fg;gl;l ,lk;
MFk;/ me;j ,lj;ij bghWj;J 1?k; gpujpthjp efuhl;rpf;F 24/7/87?nyna
jhdg;gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLj;Js;shh;/ mJ gp/th/rh/M/7 Mf jhf;fy;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mt;thW jhdk; bfhLj;Jtpl;l gpuF mij jpUj;jy; VJk; bra;a
ntz;Lbkd;why;. 1?k; gpujpthjp efu Cuikg;g[ Jiz ,af;Fdh; br';if
bjd;ddhw;fhL khtl;l mth;fSf;Fj;jhd; kD bfhLj;J mDkjp bgw;wpUf;f
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
ntz;LnkbahHpa 2?k; gpujpthjpaplk; jpUj;jy; jhdg;gj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhs;s
chpikapy;iybad fUJfpnwd;/ Vbdd;why; Vw;fdnt ,e;j nymt[l;. m';fPfhuk;
bra;ag;gLtjw;F rpy epge;jidf;F cl;gl;L jhd; ,e;j ny mt[l;. m';fPfhuk; efu
Cufikg;g[ Jiz ,af;Fduhy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mg;go mjpy;. epge;jid
bfhLj;J mjiz kPwp 1?k; gpujpthjp 2?k; gpujpthjpaplk; jpUj;jy; jhdg;gj;jpuk;
Vw;gLj;jpbfhz;lhYk;. mJ bry;yj;jfhj xd;whFk;/ 2?k; gpujpthjp 1?k;
gpujpthjpf;F jhth brhj;ij bghWj;J jhdg; gj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhLf;f
chpikapy;iybad jPh;khdpff; pnwd;/ mt;thW 2?k; gpujpthjp 1?k; gpujpthjpf;F
jpUj;jy; jhd gj;jpuk; vGjpf;bfhLj;jpUe;jhYk; mjd; mog;gilapy; 1?k; gpujpthjp
me;j brhj;ij kidfshf gphpj;J tpw;f ,ayhJ vd fUjpfpnwd;/ Mfbt
11/5/92?njjpapl;l jhdg;gj;jpuk; bry;yj;jf;fJ my;y vdt[k; me;j jhdg;gj;jpuj;ij
vGjpf; bfhLf;f 2?k; gpujpthjpf;F chpikapy;iy badt[k; ,e;j vGtpdhtpw;F tpil
fhd;fpnwd;/
6.In the light of the above finding given by the Trial Court which has become final,
it is clear that the earlier gift deed dated 24.07.1987 alone will hold the field and the
subsequent gift deed dated 11.05.1992 is held to be non-est in the eye of law. The
petitioners are tracing their right only by virtue of the subsequent gift deed dated
11.05.1992.
7.In the light of the above discussion, the very right of the petitioners over the subject
property becomes questionable due to the above judgment of the Civil Court. In view of the
same, the petitioners lack the legal right to seek for the issue of a writ of mandamus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
8.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
27.04.2023
KP
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
To
1. The Commissioner
Tindivanam Municipality
Tindivanam- 604 001.
2. District Collector
District Collector Office
Villupuram- 605 602.
3. Sub Collector
Sub Collector Office
Tindivanam- 604 302.
4. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and
Drainage Board
No.31, Kamarajar Salai
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
W.P.No.7565 of 2023
27.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
