Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen & Pensioners ... vs The Secretary To Government on 4 September, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.08.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos. 13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.4696, 19436 & 19437 of 2018, 21631 & 21625 of 2019
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2012, 2 & 3 of 2014
W.P.No.13331 of 2012:
Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen & Pensioners Association,
(Regd.No.341/1968),
Rep. By Genl. Secretary R.S.Baskaran,
Flat No.406, Suresh Block, Chitra Avenue, 9,
Choolaimedu High Road, Ch-94. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary To Government,
Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tambaram, Kancheepuram District.
4. The Thasildhar,
Sholinganallur Taluk,
Sholinganallur, Kancheepuram District.
5. Village Administrative Officer,
Sholinganallur Village, Sholinganallur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/31
W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
6. V.Pandian
[R6 impleaded vide order dated 21.08.2023 in W.M.P.No.38204 of 2018 in
W.P.No.13331 of 2012 by SMSJ] ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not
to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property comprised in Survey No.574, now 574/2 of Sholinganallur
Village and Taluk, previously Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District
measuring of an extent of 20 acres and morefully described in the schedule
hereunder otherwise than due processes of law.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents :
(for R1 to R5) : Mr.R.Raman Laal, AAG, assisted by
Mr.T.Arun Kumar, AGP
W.P.No.30309 of 2014:
Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen & Pensioners Association,
Rep. by its President Mr.T.Dhanapal,
No.1, Abdulla Street,
Choolaimedu High Road,
Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/31
W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
3. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District.
4. The Registrar,
Cooperative Society.
(R4 suo moto impleaded as per order dated 1/10/2019 in WP.30309/2014
and 16309/2018 by VBDJ) ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30.10.2014 in G.O.Ms.No.486
cancelling the earlier G.O.Ms.570 dated 05.09.2006 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior counsel for
Mrs.R.Meenakshi
For Respondents :
(for R1 to R4) : Mr.R.Raman Laal, AAG, assisted by
Mr.T.Arun Kumar, AGP
W.P.No.16309 of 2018:
V.Pandian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Land Adminsitration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 009.
3. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/31
W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
4. The Tahsildar,
Sholinganallur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
5. The Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare,
Kancheepuram District.
6. The Union Of India,
Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Sainik Bhumi, Thathachavani, New Delhi-1
7. Adm-Commandant,
representative of Station Head Quarters,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.
8. The Defence Estate Officer,
Chennai Circle, No.306, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai-600018.
(R6 to R8 are impleaded vide order dared 11/07/2019 made in
WMP.No.4261/19 in WP.No.16309/18 by MKKSJ)
9. The Registrar,
Cooperative Society.
(R9 suo moto impleaded as per order dated 1/10/2019 in WP.30309/2014
and 16309/2018 by VBDJ)
10. The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
11. The Director,
(Military Personnel)-5B,
Army Head Quarters.
AG Branch, Wing-3, West Block-3,
RK Puram, Sector-1, New Delhi-110 066.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/31
W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
12. The Director General Re-Settlement (General),
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare,
New Delhi-1.
(R10 to R12 impleaded as per order dated 25/10/2019 made in
WMP.23821/2019 in WP.16309/2018 by VBDJ) ... Respondents
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
1st respondent impugned G.O. No.486 dated 30.10.2014 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mohan, Senior Counsel for
Mr.G.Mutharasu
For Respondents :
(for R1 to R4 & R9) : Mr.R.Raman Laal, AAG, assisted by
Mr.T.Arun Kumar, AGP
(for R5) : No Appearance
(for R6 to R8, R11 & R12)
: Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar,
Special Government Standing Counsel
(for R10) : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran
COMMON ORDER
Facts of the case:
The present writ petitions are instituted questioning the validity of the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.486 dated 30.10.2014, cancelling the earlier Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
2. The writ petitioner Association is a registered association, serving for the welfare of the ex-servicemen, their families, pensioners, war widows, disabled persons and destitutes. The Government of Tamil Nadu allotted lands to an extent of 20 acres in Survey No.574, new survey No.574/2 at Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, vide G.O.Ms.No.570, dated 05.09.2006. At request of the petitioners to implement the beneficial government order, the lands were classified as “Natham”. The Tahsildar sent a letter on 29.05.2007 to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority seeking approval for the land. The Tahsildar sent a letter to the Deputy Director of the Tamil Nadu Ex- Servicemen Welfare Board, asking to confirm the credentials of 400 members of the petitioner association. There were internal disputes within the Association which resulted in filing of two separate writ petitions in the name of the Association.
3. There are allegations that the Association has created bogus membership list and submitted the same before the Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board. The said bogus list was confirmed by the Assistant Director of the Board. Allegations and counter-allegations are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 raised between two sets of office bearers of the same Association in the present writ petitions. Though the relief sought for is to quash the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.486 dated 30.10.2014, the petitioners have stated that there were several irregularities in the matter of admitting Membership for the association so as to avail the benefit of allotment of land in Sholinganallur Taluk. It is contended that Mr.R.S.Baskaran executed a deed of agreement illegally based on the bogus membership list and those who have signed the agreement are not eligible for land allotment. Mr.R.S.Baskaran has executed a deed of agreement of allotment in favour of the Civilians who all are not eligible to avail the benefit of the Government Order. Identity cards and discharge books were created and at the outset, it is stated in the writ petitions that fabricated documents were created.
4. In the first writ petition filed by the Association represented by its President D.Dhanabal, he has stated that the Association has been properly filing annual returns in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. After a very long protracted representations, the Government allotted 20 acres of land in Sholinganallur Taluk to provide house sites to an extent of 2.5 cents to each one of 400 members by way of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 alternate site. The writ petitioners state that they were in physical possession of entire extent of 20 acres of land and therefore, the Government allotted the said land for the benefit of the members of the petitioner association. The petitioner states that several persons who were not related to the petitioner association as well as the said property, attempted to grab the land. Vexatious complaints were filed against the Association. The petitioner Association filed a writ petition in W.P.No.19484 of 2010 and a civil suit was instituted in O.S.No.71 of 2011. Therefore, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. It is contended that the association has expelled certain members for misconduct. At the outset, the Association has contended that the Government Order, granting benefits to the members of the petitioner Association was cancelled without giving any opportunity to the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order issued was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were not even provided an opportunity to put forth their defence, thus, the order impugned is to be set aside. Based on the vexatious allegations and by entertaining false complaints, the lands allotted to the members of the petitioner Association were cancelled through the impugned order. The impugned order is vague and the reasons stated are flimsy. Thus, the order is liable to be set aside. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
5. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly contended that the request made in the year 1994 by the Association to the District Collector was considered and accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006. The Government considered the plight of the poor Ex-servicemen and allotted 20 acres of land for the benefit of 400 members of the petitioner Association. Subsequent to the Government Order, the Tahsildar addressed a letter to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the demanded fees was paid by the petitioner association for approval of the land. A list of beneficiaries / members was also furnished to the competent authorities. This Court passed final orders in W.P.No.22194 of 2008 dated 10.09.2008 and thereafter, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, in proceeding dated 27.05.2009, addressed a letter to the Tahsildar for payment of development charges and layout preparation charges of Rs.2,45,000/- and 22,000/- respectively, which was also paid by the association. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority informed the Executive Officer, Sholinganallur town panchayat, that the association has remitted the development charges. In respect of the deed of agreement of allotment, it is only an agreement for allotment, and the value of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 contract was stated as Rs.5000/- for the purpose of registration and there was no embezzlement of money paid by the members of the petitioner association as wrongly alleged by the rival group of the association. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that all the formalities were completed. The petitioner association instituted a suit for injunction in order to protect the property. Yet another writ petition was filed by the association in W.P.No.29837 of 2007 and this Court dismissed the same on 12.08.2014. The said writ petition was filed by Mr.R.S.Baskaran, General Secretary of the Association.
6. The impugned order has been issued in G.O.Ms.No.486, based on untenable reasons. The alleged fraudulent registration of the agreements are unconnected with the government allotment and it is an internal arrangement made between the members for the purpose of crystallizing their right regarding the allotment of 2.5 cents per member. Such registrations cannot be construed as fraud. The other reasons stated, that the value of the land is high cannot be considered by the Government now after allotting the lands to the members of the petitioner Association in the year 2006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 Reply by the respondents:
7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 'State' strenuously objected the contentions raised by the petitioners. Several agreements were executed fraudulently in the year 2012. There are two rival groups claiming the benefit of the Government order originally issued in G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006. The two rival groups have committed several irregularities and illegalities in the matter of admission of members by admitting the civilians and by executing the agreement in an illegal manner. There is no mala fide intention on the part of the Government to cancel the Government Order issued in the year 2006. The circumstances and the public interest were taken into consideration for the purpose of issuing the impugned order. Vast extent of land measuring to an extent of 20 acres in Sholinganallur is now required for developing public infrastructures and after the formation of the OMR road and establishment of IT parks and industries, the Government has to provide infrastructural facilities to the public at large in that locality. Therefore, the Government thought fit that the lands originally allotted in the year 2006 in G.O.Ms.No.570 is to be cancelled since the petitioners association have violated the condition stipulated in the Government order in the year 2006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 Since the petitioner associations have not followed the condition stipulated in the Government Order and committed serious violations and more so, the dispute between the rival group are going on for several years, and G.O. was not implemented by allotting the lands to the members within a reasonable period of time, the Government considered the overall facts and circumstances and taking note of the public interest involved, the order impugned was passed and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed
8. The 4th respondent filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the land bearing S.No.574/2 that is to an extent of 8.10.0 hectares (20 acres) is now under the Government possession. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.01 and G.O.Ms.No.191 had merged the Sholinganallur Taluk in Chennai District and actual agglomeration of Sholinganallur Taluk was on 16.08.2018. This Sholinganallur Taluk is now in Chennai District, wherein the Government land is much required for various Government Department for the following purposes:
(i). Proposal for land transfer for National Institute of Open School is under consideration, which is a Central Government Project.
(ii). A Multi Speciality Hospital will be established at Pallikkaranai Area.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai vide letter dated 17.07.2017 had requested the District Collector, Chennai to allot one hectare of land for construction of 100 bedded Multi Speciality Hospital, the same is under consideration of the Government.
(iii). The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thuraippakkam Range vide letter dated 03.01.2019 had requested the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur to allot 10 acres of land for construction of housing complex for 1000 police personnel and the same is under consideration of the Government.
(iv). The Tamil Nadu State Olympic Association had requested the Government to allot one acre of land for construction of "TAMILNADU OLYMPIC BHAVAN" and the same is under consideration of the Government.
(v). The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board had requested the Government to allot land for the Department and the same is under consideration of the Government.
(vi). The said S.No.574 is near to Chemmancherry Perumbakkam Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board settlement, the above land may be utilized for developing Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board tenements. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
9. It is further stated that there is much scarcity of lands within the Chennai District to cater to the needs of Government Department. The above said proposal are essential to the general public and same has to be implemented within the said Taluk. As per G.O. Ms.No.1135 Revenue dated 16.03.1962, the Government has passed an order that the agricultural lands near Collectorate of Madras and Chengalpattu should not be assigned or otherwise dispose of vacant lands in Madras or in belt area of 5 miles beyond the limits of Madras city lying within the Chengalpattu District.
10. The 12th respondent the Director General Re-settlement, Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, contended that only 5 Ex- Servicemen Associations have been recommended and they have been registered with Ministry of Defence. The said Associations whose requests were received and registered are as follows:
“7.Only Five Ex Servicemen Associations have been recommended and they have been registered with Ministry of Defence. The said Associations whose requests were received and registered are as following:
(a) Disabled War Veterans (India),
(b) Indian Ex-Servicemen League, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018
(c)Air Force Association,
(d)National Ex-Servicemen Coordination Committee, and,
(e)Akhil Bhartiya Poorva Sainik Seva Parishad.
8. The Petitioners are not registered with Ministry of Defence and accordingly no data qua any member of the Petitioners association is held by the office of the answering respondent.
9. That, since there is no data available with the answering respondent and also the fact that the Office of the answering respondent only have data of those Ex- Servicemen who approach DGR for availing the various Government welfare facilities, and the data of all ESM is not held by the Office of answering respondent, this Office in the absence of any data qua the said list of 407 Ex- Servicemen is unable to comment on its veracity. It is germane to point out here that the said list may be available with the Rajya Sainik Board of Tamil Nadu and the various Zila Sainik Boards of Tamil Nadu Government and can be collectively collated, collected and verified through the Offices of the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Tamil Nadu Government, under whom the said Zila Sainik Boards function. It is also most respectfully brought out that whenever an Ex- Serviceman retires from Service, they register with their local Zila Sainik Boards and their data is therefore held by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 the Zila Sainik Boards.
10. They are in no way been involved with the petitioner Ex-Servicemen Association till date and no data of the said Association is held by the answering Respondents.” Legal Principles:
11. The concept of "Public Policy" and "Public Interest" as defined is that, the practical implications concerning strategies for protecting human rights and promoting democracy and the rule of law. "Public Interest" means "People" thereafter, "which is best for the society as a whole". General welfare of the public that warrants, recognition and protection and something in which the public as a whole has a stake.
12. The true measure of whether someone is acting in the public interest lies in the confidence of those affected, not those making the pronouncements. The way a public action is determined, and seen to be determined, and the public interest appropriateness of the solution, will influence the acceptance of the measure. Justification in influences, the amount of trust endangered in the relevant public. The purpose of seeking https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 to invoke the public interest is also to be looked into. Whether the matter is really intended to be for the benefit of the society and public interest theory is a part of welfare economics. It is the outcome attained, when the Government discharged its obligations for long run survival and well being of the society. Serving the public is the Fundamental Mission of the Government. Unfortunately, individualism dominates today's public life at the expense of common benefit. A policy is purposive or goal oriented action. The policy consists of courses of action rather than mere decisions. The public confidence rest on the fairness and impartiality.
13. “Concept of public interest must as far as possible receive its orientation from the Directive Principles.
What according to the founding fathers constitutes the plainest requirement of public interest is set out in the Directive Principles and they embody par excellence the constitutional concept of public interest. If, therefore, any governmental action is calculated to implement or give effect to a Directive Principle, it would ordinarily, subject to any other overriding considerations, be informed with public interest. Where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 reasonableness and public interest discussed above and is found to be wanting in the quality of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid. It must follow as a necessary corollary from this proposition that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party at the cost of the State; such an action would be both unreasonable and contrary to public interest.
The Government, therefore, cannot, for example, give a contract or sell or lease out its property for a consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so. Such considerations may be that some Directive Principle is sought to be advanced or implemented or that the contract or the property is given not with a view to earning revenue but for the purpose of carrying out a welfare scheme for the benefit of a particular group or section of people deserving it or that the person who has offered a higher consideration is not otherwise fit to be given the contract or the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 Illustratively, there may be an infinite variety of considerations which may have to be taken into account by the Government in formulating its policies and it is on a total evaluation of various considerations which have weighed with the Government in taking a particular action, that the Court would have to decide whether the action of the Government is reasonable and in public interest.
But one basic principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its determination on this question is that there is always a presumption that the Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate material.
The Court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or without public interest because, as said above, there are a large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weigh with the Government in taking action and therefore the Court would not strike down governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action is unreasonable or not in public https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 interest. But where it is so satisfied, it would be the plainest duty of the Court under the Constitution to invalidate the governmental action. This is one of the most important functions of the Court and also one of the most essential for preservation of the rule of law. The second limitation on the discretion of the Government in grant of largess is in regard to the persons to whom such largess may be granted.
14. In the case of M/S Style (dress land ) vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and another reported in (1999) 7 SCC 89, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the observations of Mathew, J., in Punnan Thomas v. State of Kerala AIR 1969 Ker 81 (FB) that:
"The Government, is not and should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largess. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal" The same point was made by the Supreme Court in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West bengal (1975) 2 SCR 674; (AIR 1975 SC 266) where the question https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 was whether black-listing of a person without giving him an opportunity to be heard was bad? It was argued for the Government that no person has a right to enter into contractal relationship with the Government and the Government, like any other private individual, has the absolute right to enter into contract with any one it pleases.
But the court, speaking through the learned Chief Justice, responded that the Government is not like a private individual who can pick and choose the person with whom it will deal, but the Government is still a Government when it enters into contract or when it is administering largess and it cannot, without adequate reason, exclude any person from dealing with it or take away largess arbitrarily. The learned Chief Justice said that when the Government is trading with the public, "the democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness....The activities of the Government have a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with anyone, but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure." This proposition would hold good in all cases of dealing by the Government with the public, where the interest sought to be protected is a privilege. It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non- discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory."
While exercising the powers of judicial review the Court can look into the reasons given by the Government in support of its action but cannot substitute its own reasons. The Court can strike down an executive order, if it finds the reasons assigned were irrelevant and extraneous. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 Discussion:
15. The internal disputes between the Association office bearers are visible, since two writ petitions are filed, one by the Tamil Nadu Ex- Servicemen and Pensioners Association represented by its General Secretary Mr.R.S.Baskaran and another writ petition filed by the very same Association by its President Mr.T.Dhanapal. The third writ petition was filed by one Mr.V.Pandian, who also claims to be the President of the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen and Pensioners Association. Two different addresses were given with reference to the Association address, but in all the writ petitions they have mentioned the same registration number i.e., 341 of 1968. The very institution of writ petition by three different persons in the name of the Association would be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the internal disputes between the office bearers and the members exist for long time.
16. No doubt, the Government allotted land to an extent of 20 acres in Sholinganallur Taluk in G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006 for the benefit of the 400 members of the Association. The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur has addressed a letter to the C.M.D.A. and the C.M.D.A. also asked the Tahsildar to pay the development charges. On payment of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 charges, the C.M.D.A. informed the same to the Sholinganallur Panchayat Union. However, the internal disputes developed during the relevant point of time and several violations were noticed by the competent authorities. The said land has been classified as Government Poromboke and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.560 allotting 20 acres of land on certain conditions. Accordingly, for a layout to be formed approval from the C.M.D.A. is to be obtained. More specifically the Government order stipulates that the Ex-Servicemen / Pensioners, who did not possess any property prior to the year 1987 alone, must be given allotment of land in the subject property. In other words, any member possessing property prior to the year 1987 is ineligible for allotment under the scheme. Those eligible members, who did not own any land prior to the year 1987, should submit B-memo and evidences to establish that they were in occupation of the subject property to the satisfaction of the District Collector. Thirdly, the genuinity of the members, their legal heirs, pensioners must be verified through the Joint Director of the Department concerned.
17. Pertinently, the condition in the Government order stipulates that from the date of handing over of the land, the houses must be constructed within a period of two years. Considering the development of that locality, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 the houses must be constructed in a coordinated manner and following the uniform models. The land to be allotted cannot be sold to any other person nor can be transferred. In the event of any such transfer or otherwise, the Government will resume the property. The Property cannot be utilised for any other purpose except for construction of house. The impugned Government order deals with the violations committed by the petitioner Association. Criminal cases were registered and some office bearers have executed agreement of allotment and received Rs.5000/- as advance. In this regard, a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- was recovered by one Mr.R.S.Baskaran office bearer of the Association.
18. The Government regarding the second condition has stated that the authorities found it very difficult to ascertain the eligibility of the members. Ultimately the authorities formed an opinion that it is very difficult to ascertain the eligibility of the members and even if it is ascertained, there is no possibility of genuinity, since the beneficiaries are doubtful. The very claim of the petitioner that they were in occupation of the subject property was also found to be false. There was no construction of house or any other building in the entire 20 acres allotted in the G.O.Ms.No.560 except one thatched shed, wherein a watchman is residing. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 Therefore, the members of the Association are not eligible as per the conditions stipulated, since they were not in occupation of the subject land.
19. Beyond all the violations committed by the petitioner Association stipulated in the Government order of allotment, the Government has categorically stated that the genuinity of the members was not endorsed by the Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board. When the genuinity of the membership list is not approved and authenticated by the Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare Board, the Government may not be in a position to finalise the list of beneficiaries.
20. Pertinently, the subject land measuring an extent of 20 acres, even on the date of issuance of impugned order on 30.10.2014 was worth about Rs.260,00,00,000/-. It is an approximate market value assessed by the Government in the year 2014 and even at that point of time, the genuinity of members and the list of beneficiaries were unable to finalised by the Government. The present market value of the subject property is for beyond the market value mentioned in the impugned order, since the IT Parks were developed in the Old Mahabalipuram Road (OMR) and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 necessarily the Government has to provide infrastructural facilities, since residential complexes / apartments were drastically developed in Sholinganallur Taluk. Thus, the Government thought fit to utilise the said land for the benefit of the public at large. The said lands are required for the development of infrastructures in that locality, since large number of apartments have already been constructed and the families are in occupation. Considering the public interest involved and the requirement of land for the Government to develop public infrastructural facilities in that locality, the Government issued the impugned order cancelling the order of allotment issued in G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 05.09.2006. It is important to note that the allotment order was passed on 05.09.2006 and even after a lapse of eight years, the petitioners were unable to finalise the list of beneficiaries to the satisfaction of the Government authorities and more so, several fraudulent activities inclusion of ineligible members execution of illegal agreement of allotments in favour of few members were taken note by the Government authorities and consequently, the impugned order has been passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 Conclusion:
21. In the present case, the subject property is a vacant land and the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur has categorically stated that the land bearing Survey No.574, now 574/2 to an extent of 8.10.0 Hectare (20 Acres) is now under the Government possession. The Government land is much required for various Government Departments and the purposes for which such lands are required are also categorically stated in the additional affidavit. The Government has proposed to allot land for National Institute of Open School and the Hon’ble Chief Minister announced in Assembly that Multi-Speciality Hospital will be established in Pallikaranai, construction of housing complex of thousand Police personnel are proposed, Tamil Nadu State Olympic has requested for allotment of one acre of land for construction of Tamil Nadu Olympic Bhavan. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board also requested the Government to allot land. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board settlement is also require land for the benefit of the tenants.
22. In view of the fact that the Government expressed scarcity of lands in and around Chennai District and such valuable lands are required to cater the needs of the Government Departments, this Court do not find https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 any infirmity in respect of the reasons stated in the order impugned.
23. The respondents are directed to evict the encroachments, if any found in the subject land, fence the property and utilise the same for public purposes. The respondents are directed to file a compliance report on 18.09.2023.
24.Thus, the Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25. Registry is directed to list the case under the caption “For Reporting” compliance on 18.09.2023.
(sha/jeni) 04.09.2023
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29/31
W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 To
1. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 009.
3. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District.
4. The Registrar, Cooperative Society.
5. The Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
6. The Assistant Director of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, Kancheepuram District.
7. The Union Of India, Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Sainik Bhumi, Thathachavani, New Delhi-1
8. Adm-Commandant, representative of Station Head Quarters, Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.
9. The Defence Estate Officer, Chennai Circle, No.306, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018.
10. The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/31 W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM. J., (sha/jeni)
11. The Director, (Military Personnel)-5B, Army Head Quarters.
AG Branch, Wing-3, West Block-3, RK Puram, Sector-1, New Delhi-110 066.
12. The Director General Re-Settlement (General), Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare, New Delhi-1.
13. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, Kancheepuram District.
14. Village Administrative Officer, Sholinganallur Village, Sholinganallur.
W.P.Nos.13331 of 2012, 30309 of 2014 & 16309 of 2018 04.09.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/31