Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Government ... vs The Chief Engineer (Building & ... on 7 July, 2023
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
The Tamil Nadu Government Department
Drivers Central Association
Rep. by its State President M.Subramani
4/20, Mayor V.R.Ramanathan Road
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Chief Engineer (Building & General)
Public Works Department
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Assistant Engineer
Public Works Department
Egmore Section, Museum Compound
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer
North West Sub Division
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4. The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department
Chennai City Division
Chepuk, Chennai – 600 005.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
5. N.Malathi
6. G.Pramila Devi
7. K.Usha
8. Nagarajan
9. K.Sagadevan
10. T.Umapathy
11. R.Somasundaram
12. A.Lakshmana Perumal
13. S.Senthil
14. A.Raghu
15. C.K.Chandran
16. A.Kumar
17. G.Rajesh Kumar .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order in W.P.No.29319 of 2012 dated 31.03.2023.
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Illamvaludhi
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The present appellant had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29319
of 2012 challenging the order passed by the respondents 2,3 and 4.
It further sought directions against the respondents to initiate steps
to evict the shopkeepers to enable the Association to utilize the entire
building.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
2. We have heard Mr.S.Illamvaludhi, learned counsel for the
appellant / original writ petitioner.
3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the writ land
was allotted to the appellant by the Government on lease initially for
a period of ten years. However, impliedly, the same was continued for
a further period also. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
steps were being taken by the appellant to evict the encroachers. The
encroachers filed various suits, which were contested by the present
appellant. The suits were dismissed and the appeals were dismissed.
It is not that the present appellant is responsible for inducting the
encroachers. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned Single Judge ought not to have directed eviction of the
present appellant.
4. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the
appellant on the communication dated 31.03.2023 i.e, a Government
Order, wherein, the maintenance amount has been enhanced to the
appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
5. Learned State Government Pleader submits that the
appellant illegally inducted the tenants in the shape of shopkeepers
and violated the conditions. The appellant failed to take steps to evict
them and so rightly, the impugned order in the writ petition is
passed.
6. It is not a dispute that under the Government Order dated
30.11.1978, the appellant Association was allotted land to the extend
of 2 grounds and 126 Sq.Ft. by way of lease, initially for a period of
ten years with a condition that the land can be utilized for the
purpose of Association Office. It was to be utilized by the members of
the appellant Association and that the premises was not to be rented
for any other commercial activities.
7. It was the case of the present appellant that the present
Office Bearers took charge in 2011 and the erstwhile Office Bearers,
in order to meet the deficit of funds, rented out the portions to the
tenants i.e., the shopkeepers and advance was also received from
those shopkeepers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
8. The Office Bearers may have changed, but the Office Bearers
have performed the functions on behalf of the Association, by
indicting the shopkeepers and taking advance amount from them, is
certainly a breach of the condition. The steps taken by the appellant
now, to evict them, would be an action too late in the day.
9. There is no agreement renewing the lease for further period.
The condition is violated, still, the respondent State gave an
opportunity to the appellant to evict the encroachers. It is only after
the order was passed by the State Authorities, the appellant moved
the Court by filing the writ petition.
10. We do not find any error committed by the learned Single
Judge while passing the impugned order.
11. If the appellant seeks continuation of the lease, it would be
the choice of the Government, either to continue the lease or not. The
appellant may approach the Government in that regard and it would
be at the discretion of the Government to take a decision. Naturally, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
the Government wants to evict the appellant, they will certainly have
to follow the process of law.
12. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There
will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.13930 of 2023 is
closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
07.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
To
1. The Chief Engineer (Building & General)
Public Works Department
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Assistant Engineer
Public Works Department
Egmore Section, Museum Compound
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer
North West Sub Division
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4. The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department
Chennai City Division
Chepuk, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(drm)
W.A.No.1433 of 2023
07.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
