ADIRAMPATTINAM EDUCATION TRUST Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.Dilip Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.Angappan, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First to Third Respondents and Mr. M.Rajarajan, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Fourt Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The land measuring 52 cents in S.No. 313/2 in Adirampattinam Taluk, Thanjavur District was acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the benefit of the Fourth Respondent, viz., Adirampattinam Town Panchayat for the formation of Radio Park for the use of general public. After the property was vested with the Fourth Respondent, the Radio Park named as 'Hazan Radio Park' was formed in the year 1946, but went into disuse later. At that stage, it appears that for the purpose of augmenting income of the Fourth Respondent, it was decided to lease out that land pursuant to which it was initially leased for a period of three years in the year 1975 to the Petitioners, who continued to be in occupation of the same. A fresh Lease Deed was executed between the Fourth Respondent and the Petitioner on 30.06.2006 for a period of two years on the yearly rent of Rs.24,000/- for the first year and Rs.26,000/- for second year and the Petitioners agreed to vacate and hand over possession at the end of that lease period. However, the Petitioners did not surrender possession to the Fourth Respondent when the lease period came to an end on 31.07.2007 and also did not request for any extension of lease. The Fourth Respondent by notice dated 25.03.2009 called upon the Petitioners to vacate the premises pursuant to the Resolution dated 16.07.2008 passed in the Panchayat for resuming the property for their own use for setting up of a Radio Park as before. The Petitioners then filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No. 50 of 2009 in the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai, in which it was held by judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009 that the Petitioners can be evicted only by due process of law. Thereafter, the Fourth Respondent issued legal notice dated 04.12.2009 terminating the tenancy, but the Petitioners did not hand over possession of the property and sent a reply dated 08.02.2010 refusing to hand over possession of the property. In such circumstances, the Fourth Respondent instituted the suit in O.S. No. 146 of 2010 in the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai, for eviction of the Petitioners and recovery of arrears of lease rent with interest and damages for use and occupation, which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 22.12.2014 granting that relief, and confirmed in appeal by judgment and decree dated 22.08.2019 in A.S. No. 9 of 2015 passed by the Sub Court, Pattukkottai. This Court by judgment and decree dated 26.11.2019 in S.A. (MD) No. 559 of 2019 refused to entertain the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioners. Considering the request made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the academic year would end in March 2020, time was granted till the second week of March 2020 for the Petitioner to vacate and handover possession to the Fourth Respondent.

(3.) At the outset, it requires to be examined as to whether the recommendations made by the officials in the administrative hierarchy, viz., by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukkottai in Na.Ka. 2439/2008/Aa3/ dated 23.2009, the District Collector, Thanjavur in Letter Na.Ka. 14111/2008/Aa2 dated 08.01.2010 and the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration in letter No. B2/1155/2010 dated 05.05.2010, would create any enforceable right in favour of the Petitioner. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sethi Auto Service Station -vs- Delhi Development Authority [(2009) 1 SCC 189], where it has been observed as follows:-