R KRISHNA Vs. CORPORATION OF CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No.760 of 2007 has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation, seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to maintain the land measuring an extent of 10 grounds and 74 sq. ft. comprised in Block No.72, T.S.No.376, situate in XII Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai as Children's Play-space as earmarked in the Ashok Nagar layout plan and consequently forbear the respondents 4 to 11 from claiming any right in the above land. WRIT Petition No.9089 of 2005 has been filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.No.760 of 2007 seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus to forbear the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai, the first respondent in W.P.No.760 of 2007 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property at New No.122 Door No.57, XII Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83, in Corporation Division Old No.114, measuring an extent of 10 grounds possessed by the petitioner and also for further direction to the first respondent to immediately remove the notice board placed thereon. The respondents 4 to 11 filed a suit in O.S.No.1621 of 1992 on the file of the 14th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for a declaration that the above referred land does not vest with the Corporation of Chennai and also sought for a permanent injunction as against the Corporation of Chennai. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 9.11.1993. The ex parte decree was set aside once by this Court in its order dated 7.6.2002 passed in C.R.P.No.904 of 1998. It was a conditional order directing the Corporation of Chennai to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of costs to the Advocates' Welfare Association Fund. Even thereafter subsequently also the Corporation of Chennai was set ex parte on 18.2.2003 and once again an ex parte decree came to be passed in favour of the Respondents 4 to 11 in W.P.No.760 of 2007. As against the decree dated 18.2.2003, passed in O.S.No.1621 of 1992, the Corporation of Chennai has come forward with the above said appeal in A.S.No.207 of 2008.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 11 reported no instructions. However, for the very same parties Mr. S.M. Loganathan, is the counsel on record in A.S.No.207 of 2008, where they have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 9. Some of the respondents is stated to be no more and applications in M.P.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2008 have been filed in A.S.No.207 of 2008 to bring the respective L.Rs. on record.

(3.) MR. S.M. Loganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 9 in A.S.No.207 of 2008 contended that as regards the ownership of the land in question the same can be validly determined only in the suit. The learned counsel therefore, contended that since the suit has already been decreed in favour of the said respondents, it will have to be presumed that they are in possession and such possession ought not to be allowed to be disturbed by the Corporation of Chennai.