Madras High Court
Zonal Officer vs Anna Nagar Western Extension ... on 1 April, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:906
W.A.No.846 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.No.846 of 2025
1. Zonal Officer
Zone-7, Greater Chennai Corporation
MTH Road, Ambattur
Chennai 600 053
2. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Ripon Building
No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai
Park Town, Chennai 600 003 .. Appellants
v.
Anna Nagar Western Extension Association
rep.by its Secretary Mr.P.Vadivel
Having office at:
R13B, Park Road, Anna Nagar West Extension
Chennai 600 101 .. Respondent
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.5779 of
2024.
____________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
W.A.No.846 of 2025
For Appellants :: Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Ms.P.T.Ramadevi
Standing Counsel
For Respondent :: Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi
for Ms.S.Varsha
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
Under assail is the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition
No.5779 of 2024. The Greater Chennai Corporation is the appellant before
this Court.
2. The writ petition came to be instituted by the respondent-Anna
Nagar Western Extension Association represented by its Secretary. The
writ was instituted challenging the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the
Zonal Officer, Zone-7, Greater Chennai Corporation for eviction of the
respondent from the library cum reading hall and the tennis court situated
adjacent to the park.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
3. The learned single Judge, taking note of the facts, quashed the
order dated 21.02.2024 and directed the Commissioner, Greater Chennai
Corporation to consider the appeal filed by the respondent on 27.10.2023 in
the light of the observations made in the writ order impugned. The writ
Court further observed that the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation
can hold discussion with the respondent Association or any other public
representative and pass appropriate orders/frame any scheme in a
constructive and inclusive manner.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.M.Sureshkumar
appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the
respondent has no right over the property. Admittedly, the subject park
belongs to the Corporation. The erstwhile Ambattur Municipality permitted
the respondent to construct a library cum reading hall in the land measuring
801 sq.ft., situated adjacent to the Corporation park and maintain the same.
Subsequently, the Corporation received many complaints that the
respondent is abusing the Corporation land and building by renting the
building for commercial activities. Thus the Corporation has initiated
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
action. By affording opportunity to the respondent, the order of eviction was
passed and possession had already been taken over by the Corporation and
the building is under lock and seal from 04.05.2022. The respondent was
permitted to take their belongings kept inside the building, which has
already been locked and sealed by the Chennai Corporation.
5. Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent would oppose by stating that the Corporation has not
expressed their grievance about the solution granted by the writ Court. The
writ Court directed the Zonal Officer to dispose of the appeal. A further
direction was issued to the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation to
find out a workable solution between the Association and Corporation.
Instead of resolving the issues, appeal has been filed with a delay and the
said delay has been condoned by this Court. It is further contended that the
respondent is maintaining the library and the tennis court for several years
and the same have been utilized for the benefit of the people residing in the
locality. They have constructed the building in the year 1992 and the public
were permitted to utilize the library and thus there is no reason to evict the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
respondent from the premises. The allegations raised by the Corporation are
false. The respondent has not involved in any commercial activity.
Therefore the writ appeal is to be rejected.
6. Heard the parties to the lis on hand.
7. By order dated 01.07.1991, the Commissioner, erstwhile Ambattur
Municipality granted permission to the respondent to construct the library
building and maintain the same. Perusal of the said order reveals that it is a
permission granted to the respondent and no rent has been collected for the
land or the building constructed. Thereafter, the Commissioner, erstwhile
Ambattur Municipality passed an order in proceeding dated 30.08.1995
permitting the respondent to maintain the park situated adjacent to the
library building with a specific condition that the public must be permitted
to use the library and tennis court and the second condition is that the land
should be handed over to the Municipality whenever the Municipality
require the land. In the said permission order, there is no indication about
the leasing of land or payment of rent by the respondent.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
8. The permission granted to maintain the library cum reading hall
and the tennis court in proceedings dated 01.07.1991 and 30.08.1995
respectively, would clearly indicate that the respondent is neither a tenant
nor a leaseholder, but only a permissive occupant. Therefore, a mere
permission to utilize the Corporation land would not confer any right
whatsoever for permanent possession or otherwise. Pertinently, the
erstwhile Ambattur Municipality had been merged with the Greater Chennai
Corporation with effect from 30.10.2011. After merger, the land vest with
the Greater Chennai Corporation absolutely and the permission granted by
the erstwhile Ambattur Municipality was neither renewed nor the Greater
Chennai Corporation has granted any lease to the respondent. Admittedly,
the respondent has not paid any charges or rent for running the library or
tennis court. Since the Corporation received several complaints against the
respondent Association stating that they are utilizing the public land for
commercial activities and earning money, the Corporation has conducted an
enquiry and thereafter initiated action to evict the respondent.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
9. The notice dated 08.04.2022 was issued to vacate the Corporation
premises. The respondent filed W.P.No.11072 of 2022 challenging the said
notice. The writ Court passed an order on 11.07.2023 directing the Zonal
Officer, Zone-7, Greater Chennai Corporation to consider the representation
submitted by the respondent and pass final orders and till such time final
orders are passed, status quo was directed to be maintained. Thereafter, the
respondent submitted a representation to consider their case. The Zonal
Officer passed orders rejecting the request of the respondent. Thereafter,
further writ petition was filed in W.P.No.5779 of 2024, which has been
disposed of by the writ Court on 05.03.2024, which is under challenge in
the present writ appeal.
10. The writ Court, instead of determining the right of the respondent
to hold the Corporation land, provided scope for negotiations and to resolve
the issues amicably. When the subject land belongs to the Greater Chennai
Corporation and the respondent is not paying any rent or charges to the
Corporation and only being a permissive occupant pursuant to the
permission granted by the erstwhile Ambattur Municipality, the writ Court
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
ought to have determined the right of the parties for the purpose of granting
any relief in the writ proceedings.
11. When the land, being a public land, belongs to Greater Chennai
Corporation, such negotiations would be impermissible. Public lands are to
be protected for the benefit of the people by the Corporation. Even the
Corporation cannot utilize the land, except for the purpose for which the
land is to be maintained under law. That being the legal position, the
solution for negotiations would yield no result nor do any service to the
cause of justice. The Corporation is the trustee of public property and the
authorities are bound to maintain the same as per the procedures
contemplated. Therefore, the Commissioner has no option, except to decide
the issues in accordance with law. Thus there is no scope for negotiations
with a private association. The Commissioner cannot exercise his discretion
in the matter of allotment of land to his whims and fancies and therefore the
writ order is impracticable and no such discretion can be conferred on
Chennai Corporation to negotiate with a private association in the matter of
allotment or granting permission to the private association to utilize the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
Corporation land, more specifically, within the Chennai City limits. As far
as Greater Chennai Corporation is concerned, decisions are taken by
following the due procedures as contemplated. The Commissioner is not
empowered to take individual decision in all circumstances, except
otherwise that such power has been conferred under the provisions of the
Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules. Therefore,
negotiations with private parties to deal with the Corporation land may go
against the public interest. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that
in pursuance of the contempt proceedings initiated, the appeal submitted by
the respondent Association was disposed of by the Commissioner, Greater
Chennai Corporation in proceeding dated 30.01.2025.
12. In the present case, the respondent has not produced any
document to establish that they are lessee or paying rent or charges to the
Corporation. Thus they have no right or vested interest to possess the
property. At last, the respondent can be construed as permissive occupant
and such permissive occupant has no right to claim permanent possession of
the Corporation land. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
the respondent has not established even a semblance of legal right for
claiming the Corporation land, which is a public property and the
Corporation, being a trustee, cannot be allowed to part with the property to a
private association for the purpose of constructing any building or running
tennis court or library cum reading hall. Even if such decision is taken, an
agreement or lease must be entered into by following the procedures as
contemplated.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to interfere
with the order impugned. Accordingly, the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in
W.P.No.5779 of 2024 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.7168 of 2025 is closed. No costs.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes 01.04.2025
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
To
1. The Zonal Officer
Zone-7, Greater Chennai Corporation
MTH Road, Ambattur
Chennai 600 053
2. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Ripon Building
No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai,
Park Town
Chennai 600 003
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss
01.04.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 11:36:47 am )
