I.MOHAMED SAUD Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by way of public interest litigation has been filed seeking a mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to invoke the Escheat Act to declare the land situate at Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chennai comprised in Survey Nos.68/1, 68/3, 68/4 and 69/1 admeasuring 0.38 acres, 1.49 acres, 0.43 acres and 1.81 acres respectively, altogether 4.04 acres, as Government land.

(2.) THE petitioner is a practising Advocate and is a resident of Vettuvankeni Village. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land, which is situated in the prime location of the city within a distance of 800 metres from Old Mahabalipuram Road abutting two major arterial roads at Thiruvanmiyur, belongs to the Government. He has stated that about 10 months back, while he was returning to home at late evening passing through the Thiruvanmiyur signal, he noticed heavy earthmoving machines and huge lorries working relentlessly to demolish as well as clearing debris from the said land. When he asked the petty street vendors as to whether the Government was carrying out any work or any Government Project was undertaken, he was informed that some private persons with strong political background, money power and muscle power acquired the said land in a suspicious manner and are carrying out the said work. THEreafter, on 16.7.2012, when he went to his office, he found two envelopes addressed to his name at the doorsteps, enclosing two documents, viz., a copy of 'A' Register and a copy of the letter dated 10.10.2012 issued by the sixth respondent. Further, on 20.7.2012, he came to know that a bi-weekly magazine, viz., 'Nakeeran' published an article about the land particularly as to how the ninth respondent encroached upon the said land under the guise of genuine purchaser. Consequent upon the said publication, since he came to know that the ninth respondent fenced the entire land in tin metal sheets with surveillance cameras on all sides of boundary along with armed guards round the clock, he issued notice to the fifth and ninth respondents to hand over the said land to the Government, for utilizing the same for public purpose on the ground that the ninth respondent has grabbed the said Government land by misusing the power of the fifth respondent to create documents to get patta for the land in the name of the ninth respondent. It is alleged that the ninth respondent is said to have prepared a sale deed under the guise of the genuine purchaser and submitted the same for registration before the sixth respondent, who in turn, asked the ninth respondent to produce the supporting documents to prove title of the land from their vendors. Since the same could not be produced by the ninth respondent, the sale deed was not registered and was given pending Registration Number as P.No.448 of 2011. THEreafter, the ninth respondent filed a writ petition being W.P.No.24022 of 2011 seeking a mandamus to register and release the sale deed. Pursuant to the order, dated 30.10.2011 passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the said sale deed was registered as Document No.10756 of 2011, dated 12.12.2011 by the sixth respondent, which remained unchallenged so far.

(3.) IN the case of Balco Employees' Union v. Union of INdia reported in (2002) 2 S.C.C. 333, the Supreme Court, while discussing the scope and object of Public INterest Litigation, observed as follows: