R RAMADOSS SECRETARY AYYAVOO NAIDU COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION CHENNAI Vs. SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner as a Public Interest Litigation. He prays therein for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 7 to restore the lands in T.S.No.79 and 32 Part Block No.24, 107, Arumbakkam Village, Ayyavaoo Naidu Colony, Chennai-29 and establish a ?park? in the abovesaid land. By way of an interim relief, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents and their subordinates should be restrained from granting patta in respect of the above mentioned lands.

(2.) THE petitioner has described in the petition in the following manner: ?R.Ramadoss S/o R.Ramiah Secretary Ayyavoo Naidu Colony Welfare Association 20, Govindan StreetAyyavoo Naidu ColonyChennai600 029.? In order to highlight his bona fides in the matter, the petitioner claims that he is a resident of Ayyavoo Naidu Colony and Secretary of Ayyavoo Naidu Colony Welfare Association, Chennai, which association was formed to protect and maintain the environment of the locality free from pollution and also to serve for the welfare of the inhabitants of the locality. Shortly stated, the case of the petitioner is that this colony was formed in the year 1958 on the basis of a lay-out sanctioned by the Corporation of Madras in L.O.No.96/58 and originally the land was owned by one Ayyavoo Naidu and his brother Duraiswamy Naidu. It is maintained that when they applied for permission to sell their lands as house sites, the above mentioned lay-out was approved by the Corporation of Madras wherein, the land described in the first paragraph was allotted as ?Park Land?. He then claims that the land, which was reserved for the purposes of park, was sold as house sites by the successors-in-interest, viz., respondents 9 to 11. He makes a statement that few plots of that park land are still vacant. He claims that this park land was sold to several people, including L.V.Varadarajan and K.B.Sampath, but they did not get the plots on account of the delay and denial on the part of the respondents 9 to 11 to sell the agreed plots to them. THEy, therefore, probed in the matter and found that in fact the land, which was sought to be sold to them, was a park land. Ironically, L.V.Varadarajan had filed a suit for specific performance against respondents 9 to 11 and the matter is said to be pending in appeal in the City Civil Court, Madras while the person K.B.Sampath had filed a complaint to the Crime Branch C.I.D. in the year 1994, but, since in spite of the enquiry no case was registered, subsequently a case in F.I.R. No.600 of 1995 was registered for the offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy, etc. against the three abovementioned respondents. However, even this case was not pursued till the end. It is then pointed out that the Corporation placed a notice board in the alleged park land suggesting that it is corporation-property and the encroachers would be prosecuted in pursuance of a representation made by one L.D. Mukesh, who was claimed to be a member of the aforementioned association. It is then claimed, it is only thereafter the residents came to know about the details of the alleged park land and its unauthorised conversion and sale as house sites. THE petitioner also says that L.V.Varadarajan gave a complaint to the C.B. C.I.D. against the aforementioned respondents for the offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy for which, a case was registered vide F.I.R. No.25 of 1997, which was being investigated by the Sub Inspector, C.B. C.I.D. It is then contended that the respondents 9 to 11 and some other persons were moving the Corporation, Collector and the Revenue Department for grant of pattas to the private individuals in respect of the lands from this very allegedly park land and and the basis for this was the return of the said park land and by the Corporation in June, 1973 to those who got the lay-out sanctioned in 1958. It is then pointed out that the said land was shown as Corporation Park Land in the corporation records; that there was no approved lay-out or plan showing that the above land was given back to respondents 9 to 11 and that there were no documents of any nature suggesting that the land was given back to the original owners. It is suggested that the so-called transfer of park land in 1973 was disclosed only in the year 1998-99 and it was never communicated to the other authorities nor was it even given effect to. So, also, the respondents never stated so in their pleadings before the civil courts (probably in the suit filed by L.V.Varadarajan). In short, it is suggested that there was no valid re-conversion of this alleged park land into the house sites in the year 1973 or the said re-conversion process was surreptitious and illegal. In paragraph 16, it is claimed that the present value of the park land would be more than Rs.10 crores and the Corporation could not have allotted the land to the respondents 9 to 11. In paragraph 17, it is claimed that there is no park in Ayyavoo Naidu Colony nor can any other land be utilised for providing a park and one has to walk atleast 4 Kms. to reach either Shenoy Nagar Park or the Tower Park, Anna Nagar by crossing E.V.R. Salai. THErefore, the residents of Ayyavoo Naidu Colony are deprived of the recreation facility provided by the Corporation. It is then claimed that despite the oral and written representations, the land was not restored by the Corporation authorities. THE details of the representations/letters have also been given. It is on these grounds, the petitioner seems to have taken up the cause of the inhabitants of Ayyavoo Naidu Colony.

(3.) IT has, therefore, to be seen: (1) Whether petitioner can really maintain this as a Public Interest Litigation. (2) Whether the petitioner is guilty of laches. (3) Whether the transaction of conversion was irregular in any manner so that this Court should interfere in its writ jurisdiction.