Madras High Court
S.R.Booshanam vs The District Collector on 24 August, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.16995 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P. No.16995 of 2022
S.R.Booshanam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
GST Road,
Chengalpattu 603 001.
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan House,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Ansari Estate,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3.The Commissioner,
Tambaram Municipal Corporation,
Tambaram, Chengalpattu District.
4.Selvaraj Arun Kumar
5.S.Amudha Ganesan
6.A.Akshra
7.A.Praveena
8.Tributo Holdings Pvt.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director Gopalakrishna Shetty,
No.3, Club Road,
Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.16995 of 2022
9. Huracan Holdings Pvt.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director Gopalakrishna Shetty,
No.3, Club Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
10.Portfino Holdings Pvt.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director Gopalakrishna Shetty,
No.3, Club Road, Chetpet,
Chennai 600 031. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed
further in respect of the property situated at No.181, Kovilacheri Village,
Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District, (i) Survey No.92, 1 Acre 30
Cents (ii) Survey No.93, 1 Acre 77 Cents (iii) Survey No.94, 1 Acre 47
Cents, totally measuring 4 Acres 54 Cents by way of providing planning
permission, statutory Building Approvals, developing of the above said
land and Building Permits to respondents 8 to 10 based on the petitioner's
representation dated 09.05.2021 and 17.06.2022.
For Petitioner : M/s.R.Viduthalai
Senior Counsel
For R1 : M/s.B.Tamil Nidhi
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
For R2 : M/s.Y.Bhuvanesh Kumar
Standing Counsel for CMDA
For R3 : M/s.P.Srinivas
For R4 to R7 : M/s.Kavitha Deenadayalan
For R8 to R10 : M/s.S.Prem Auxilian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/10
W.P.No.16995 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to not to proceed further in respect of the property situated at No.181, Kovilacheri Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District, (i) Survey No.92, 1 Acre 30 Cents (ii) Survey No.93, 1 Acre 77 Cents (iii) Survey No.94, 1 Acre 47 cents, totally measuring 4 Acres 54 cents by sanctioning planning permission, statutory Building Approvals, developing of the above said land and Building Permits to respondents 8 to 10 based on the petitioner's representation dated 09.05.2021 and 17.06.2022.
2. The petitioner is a aged person, 84 years. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased an extent of 4 acres 54 cents of land in Kovilacheri Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District, way back in the year 1974.
3. It appears that the petitioner had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of her sons and her husband giving life interest to herself and her husband during their life time. No rights were vested with the three daughters. It appears that the two sons got a Release Deed executed on 21.09.2012 and thereafter later filed Rectification Deed for rectifying https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P.No.16995 of 2022 boundary in the Settlement Deed on 08.03.2021. It appears that the fourth respondent had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife Smt.N.Jayanthi and his daughter namely, Akshara, 6th respondent and registered the same vide Document No.2040 of 2020 dated 19.03.2020 . The fifth respondent had executed the Settlement Deed in favour of his wife namely, A.Praveena, seventh respondent and registered vide Document No.2041 of 2020 ad 19.03.2020. The petitioner's son, daughter-in-law and grand daughter who are the private respondents herein ( respondents 4 to 7) sold the entire extent of land measuring 4 acres 54 cents in the aforesaid village to the private respondents 8 to 10 by three separate Sale Deeds dated 24.03.2021 vide registered Doc.Nos.2566 to 2568 of 2021 before the Sub Registrar Office, Tambaram.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the Release Deed, Settlement Deed and also Rectification deed were obtained taking advantage of the petitioner's age and that the petitioner was left in the lurch and had to be taken care of by her daughters.
5. It is submitted that Release Deed, Settlement Deed and the Rectification Deeds are fraudulent and not binding on the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P.No.16995 of 2022 Therefore, the permission sought for by the private respondents 8 to 10 for putting up construction should not be allowed. It is further submitted that the petitioner's three daughters have also filed O.S.No.201/2021 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu in which an interim order was also secured by the petitioner's daughters in I.A.No.2/2021 in O.S.No.201 of 2021 on the file the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, CMA.No.2154 of 2021 and by the interim order dated 03.08.2021. The interim order passed by the Trial Court namely Principal District Judge was suspended till 19.08.2021 and that eventually the aforesaid CMA was disposed by order dated 05.10.2021 by directing the trial Court to dispose I.A.No.2/2021 in O.S.No.201/2021 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the private respondents 8 to 10 stating that there are several misrepresentations in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition and therefore equitable relief Article 226 of the Constitution of india should not be extended to the petitioner. The case of the private respondents 8 to 10 supported by the learned counsel for the private https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P.No.16995 of 2022 respondents 4 and 5. The fourth and fifth respondents are the sons of the petitioners. The sixth respondent is the daughter of the fourth respondent and the seventh respondent is the wife of the fifth respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the official respondent Nos.2 submits that the petitioner has given a representation on 17.06.2022 It is submitted that the petitioner may be directed to produce all the documents before the second respondent so that the second respondent can consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.
9. There is a family dispute between the petitioner and her sons namely 4th and 5th respondents and three daughters who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.201 of 2021. Whether the settlement deed, release deed and ratification deed are fraudulent or not cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any event, a suit which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P.No.16995 of 2022 is pending before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu , wherein the petitioner herself is the eighth defendant . The petitioner's daughters had obtained an interim order from the Trial Court earlier on 29.04.2021. A case was thereafter to be taken up for further hearing. However, it was not taken up for further hearing. Meanwhile, the private respondents 8 to 10 filed petition in C.M.P.No.11909 of 2021 in C.M.A.No.2154 of 2021 before this Court. The order of the Trial Court granting interim relief to the petitioner's daughter was disposed on 03.08.2021 and thereafter the case was called for hearing on 19.08.2021 eventually C.M.A.No.2154 of 2021 was disposed by an order dated 05.10.2021 with the following observations:-
“6. For the foregoing reasons, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court directs the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu to dispose of I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.201 of 2021 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the respondents 1 to 3 and 8 in this appeal who are the daughters and the mother respectively who have not been paid any sale consideration, they are granted liberty to file any other interim applications if they so desire before the trial court to protect their interest and the trial court shall dispose of those application as and when filed, on merits and in accordance with law. If the trial court deems it fit to refer the dispute between the respondents to mediation, it is at liberty to do so. Since the impugned order was already suspended on 03.08.2021, the said order shall continue till the disposal of I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.201 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P.No.16995 of 2022 With the above directions, this civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.”
10. The issue regarding the grant of permission to the private respondents by the second respondent for putting up the construction for the land which was transferred to them can be decided by the second respondent subject to interim order by the Trial Court in O.S.No.201 of 2021. There is an application filed for injunction by the petitioner's daughters in the said suit against the petitioner's sons i.e. fourth and fifth respondents and the private respondents who have purchased the land who have filed the application for rejecting the plaint Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C,
11. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed by directing the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu to consider and dispose the application filed for injunction and the other application filed by the fourth and fifth respondents herein and the private respondents 8 to 10 for rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C within a period of three months. All the parties are directed to co-operate with the Court. The second respondent thereafter shall take an independent decision as to whether the applications filed by the private respondents 8 to 10 can be granted or not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The learned Principal District Judge shall 8/10 W.P.No.16995 of 2022 consider and dispose further application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court. No costs.
24.08.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking : Non Speaking Order kkd To
1.The District Collector, Chengalpattu District, GST Road, Chengalpattu 603 001.
2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan House, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Ansari Estate, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3.The Commissioner, Tambaram Municipal Corporation, Tambaram, Chengalpattu District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 W.P.No.16995 of 2022 C.SARAVANAN, J.
kkd W.P.No.16995 of 2022 24.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10