N. ISMAIL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of certain areas of land either as a Lessee or continuing in possession after the period of lease was over doing their business in the subject property, which was granted by the Government to Raja Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry through two Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 534 Revenue Department, dated 6.8.1888 and G.O.Ms. No. 812 Revenue Department dated 22.11.1988, by the impugned order issued in G.O.Ms. No. 168 Revenue Department, dated 21.5.2012 and the consequential proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai-3, dated 20.6.2012. The said subject lands were ordered to be resumed and the person in possession are ordered to be vacated as the said lands are required for the use of Chennai Metro Rail Project. In W.P. No. 19619 of 2012, the Co-Trustee of Raja Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry Trust, challenged the said Government order dated 21.5.2012. W.P. No. 20801 of 2012 is filed by the person claiming himself as Co-Trustee.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:

(3.) W.P. No. 19619 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner claiming to be the Co-Trustee of Raja Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry challenging the said Government Order contending that the Government having allowed to put up commercial buildings pursuant to orders of this Court buildings were let out to about 29 persons and the same having been ratified by the Government through subsequent Government Orders and the Trust is fully complying with the direction issued by this Court by order dated 8.4.1983 viz., conducting feedings to deserving destitute homes, orphanages and schools and in Application No. 4351 of 1987 this Court permitted the Trust to grant lease of a building to State owned Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation. The Government has not considered the said aspects while passing the impugned order and a building constructed in the subject property had already been identified and categorised as heritage building by the Committee consisting of Honourable Justice E. Padmanaban in Sl. No. 156 and without verifying the said facts the impugned order is passed on the ground of alleged violation of the conditions contained in the assignment. It is also stated in the affidavit that in a Public Interest Litigation viz., W.P. No. 27093 of 2011 order dated 24.11.2011, the Division Bench of this Court has passed an order that authorities shall not demolish, destruct, damage or alter the heritage buildings, dooms, structures, pillars of RSRM heritage building and buildings appurtenant thereto. It is further contended that even assuming that any condition originally imposed was not complied with, similar charitable activities are being carried on as on today and therefore the "Doctrine of Cypres" will apply. The scheme decree framed in C.S. No. 90 of 1963 was modified in O.S.A. No. 55 of 1970 by inserting a provision for inclusion of a family member of the founder as Co-Trustee to see that the avowed object of the charitable trust, the wishes of the founder as per his last will dated 28.1.1908 and the scheme is carried on in letter and spirit under the direct supervision of the AG & amp; OT. It is also averred in the affidavit that CMRL took a different stand earlier than the one now taken not to disturb the petitioners' charitable trust property and the Government order issued is a colourable exercise of power.