DHARMALINGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants have preferred the instant Writ Appeal Nos.327 to 334 of 2010 as against the Common Order dated 04.08.2009 in W.P.Nos.45821 to 45828 of 2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned orders in W.P.Nos.45821 to 45828 of 2006, dated 04.08.2009, in Paragraph 33, has, inter alia, observed that '... But, here, the CMDA is allotting the land in question to these individuals. The purpose of allotting these lands may be laudable i.e. to help the beneficiaries viz., the allottees. The purpose of shifting these merchants from Royapuram area may be in the interest of public also. But, that is not the relevant consideration. In my considered view, the relevant consideration would be whether the allotment of these lands to these Gunny Bag Merchants would serve any public purpose. Admittedly, on such allotment, the lands are going to be exclusively used by the merchants for their business. They are not going to do any public service. The business interest of an individual trader can, at no stretch of imagination, be for the benefit of the public. They are not going to do any charity. They are only going to do a profitable business for their own interest. Thus, the allotment of the land in question to the Gunny Merchants would be only for the benefit of these merchants. Acquisition of land to provide house sites to the poor homeless is a public purpose as it is a constitutional duty of the Government to provide house sites to poor. But, allotting land for construction of individual shops by the beneficiaries to do their business is not out of any such constitutional obligation of the State and so, the said purpose cannot be termed as a public purpose. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that no public purpose as defined in Section

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Appellants urges before this Court that the Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned orders in W.P.Nos.45821 to 45828 of 2006, dated 04.08.2009, has come to the conclusion that the allotment of the subject land to the members of the 4th Respondent Association is not for a public purpose ought not to have remitted the subject matter in issue to the 1st Respondent for fresh consideration.