VINAYAK CHEMICALS Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to assign/sell the lands situate in Survey Nos. 130/4 and 130/5 to an extent of 1.14 Hectares in Vaikkadu Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.2,76,176/- and to cancel any allotment/lease of the said lands in favour of the 6th respondent.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the Patta lands in Vaikkadu village, in Trivellore District measuring 1.31 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 131/6, 131/7, 131/9 and 131/10 that on the Western side abutting "Poramboke land" to the extent of 0.56 acres is located and still further on the West and on the rear of the Poramboke lands are the lands belonging to the petitioner as well as the partners of the petitioner that on the Southern side of the above said land is the compound wall of the Madras Fertilisers Limited and on the Northern side are the lands belonging to the third parties that access to the petitioner and the petitioners' partners' land from the Ponneri-Ennore Road would be only through the proamboke land and there is no other access to any public road for the said lands that the petitioners and the partners had acquired this land several years earlier and were having access to their land only through the aforesaid Poramboke land.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent would submit that after due publication in the respective village, the poromboke lands comprised in S.No.135/5 belonging to the Government have been leased out to the 6th respondent for an yearly rent of Rs.9,36,992/- and he is now running a factory in the said lands by putting up fence on all sides that though the market value of the said land is Rs.66,92,800/-, the petitioner offers to purchase the said lands only for a sum of Rs.2,76,176/- which is very meagre even comparing with the yearly rent payable by the 6th respondent viz. Rs.9,36,882/- that since there is no assignment in favour of the petitioner respect of the said lands, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the lease in favour of the 6th respondent that the writ above petitions do not merit acceptance and hence he would pray for dismissal of both the above writ petitions.