V. Swaminathan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.04.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.6082 of 1998V.Swaminathan... Petitionervs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu,rep. by the Secretary, Public Works Department,Fort. St. George, Chennai 600 009.2.The Chief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.3.The Executive Engineer, South Presidency Division, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.4.Mr. Raviraj Assistant Engineer, PWD, Chennai-15.5.Mr. Mani @ K.Subramani, Supervisor, PWD, Chennai-15.6.Mr. Ibanayagam (died), Assistant Commissioner of police, Chennai-32.7.Mr.Ramachandran, Inspector of Police, Chennai-32.8.Mr.M. Radhakrishnan, Additional City Government Pleader,Chennai-104.Respondents 4 to 8 are impleaded as per Order dated 15/03/1999WMP 10584 of 1998... RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing therespondents to restore possession of the premises No.11, Taluk OfficeRoad, Saidapet Court Campus, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015, to thepetitioner.For Petitioner:Mr.S.Suresh Kumar For Respondents:Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, Government AdvocateO R D E RThe writ petitioner was running a hotel under the name and styleof "Taluk Office Canteen" at No.11, Taluk Office Road, Saidapet Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Campus, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015 and even before him, his fatherMr.P.K.Venkatadhri Aiyer has originally commenced business in thesaid place in or about 1960. The place is situated within the campusof Saidapet Court, where the Saidapet Taluk Office is also situated.According to the petitioner, he has been paying rent for the land atthe rate of Rs.3/- to the Public Works Department (in short'P.W.D.'). He has also obtained necessary licence from the variousauthorities including the police for the purpose of running thecanteen and the said canteen has catered to the needs of Advocates inthe campus, Magistrates, Judicial Officers including large number oflitigants apart from the general public and no objections were raisedby the P.W.D. for the construction made by the father of thepetitioner. 2.On 29.03.1998, the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. along with someother officials and police have broke down the locks of the saidcanteen and have taken away all the belongings, demolished the superstructure in spite of objection by the Advocate on behalf of thepetitioner. When a police complaint was given to the Inspector ofPolice, J-3, Guindy Police Station, an enquiry was made by the policestating that the demolition was at the instance of the P.W.D. Whenasked for any written order for the purpose of demolition there wasno such order shown and it was done by the high-handed act of thepolice. The value of the items removed from the place is worth morethan Rs.25,000/- apart from the demolition of the super structure putup by the petitioner. He has also filed a suit in O.S.No.4391 of1997 for declaration that he is the lawful tenant of the Public WorksDepartment and also for an injunction. In the said suit, the standtaken by the Public Works Department was that the property belongs tothem and the Department has never authorised the petitioner and therewas no agreement between the petitioner and their Department. It wasalso stated that the building has to be demolished in order to put upthe construction for 32 Judicial Officers Quarters as perG.O.Ms.No.726, Home Department, dated 13.05.1996.3.In the said suit, it appears that an Advocate Commissionerwas appointed and he has filed a Report and according to thepetitioner, the Advocate Commissioner found that the petitioner wasin possession. Even though the interim application was dismissed andan appeal was filed, ultimately the suit was decreed in favour of thepetitioner on 14.10.2005 issuing declaration in favour of thepetitioner. The appeal filed by the Public Works Department has beendismissed. In the meantime, since the respondents have alreadydemolished the entire structure put up by the petitioner, in whichthe petitioner and his father has been carrying on business earlierfor the benefit of the court, the present writ petition is filed fora direction against the respondents to restore the possession of thepremises at No.11, Taluk Office Road, Saidapet Court Campus,Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The respondents have filed counter affidavit. In thecounter affidavit, it is the specific stand of the respondents thatthe entire place was required for the purpose of constructingquarters for 32 Judicial Officers and while it is the case of thepetitioner that he had been carrying on business only with thepermission of the Public Works Department, according to therespondents the same is unauthorised.5.The filing of the suit, the decree of the Civil Court andthe dismissal of the appeal is not denied by the respondents in thecounter affidavit. It is as per G.O.Ms.No.748, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, dated 27.08.1993, the Government had instructed theTamil Nadu Housing Board to construct Quarters for Judicial Officersand in such circumstances, it is not possible to permit thepetitioner to have the restoration of possession of the property. Itis also not in dispute that factually after the writ petition wasfiled, wherein there was an order of status quo, the said portion inoccupation of the petitioner is kept vacant even though the entiresuper structure is demolished. It is also stated that theconstruction of the Judicial Officers' Quarters has been completedand in spite of the completion, the place wherein the petitioner'scanteen was demolished remains vacant.6.Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that one other occupant on the eastern portion of the Courtcampus was running a hotel under the name and style of "HotelPurushothaman" and the portion in his occupation was also demolishedfor the purpose of constructing Judicial Officers Quarters and afterconstruction of the same, he has been given alternate accommodationin the same campus on certain conditions on his filing W.P.No.13789of 1995, by order dated 04.04.1996.7.When this matter was taken up for final disposal, it wassubmitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch asthe Judicial Officers' Quarters have already been constructed andother persons have been restored possession on certain conditions,the claim of the petitioner may also be directed to be considered bythe respondents. It was under those circumstances, this Court hasdirected the Chief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department toinspect the Judicial Officers Quarters and file a Report to find outas to whether there is any possibility of granting a portion to thepetitioner for the purpose of running the canteen, since running ofthe canteen is for the benefit of the Advocates, Judicial Officersand also for the large number of litigants who visit the courteveryday.8.Pursuant to the said direction, the Chief Engineer(Buildings) has filed a detailed Report. At the end of the Report,he has very clearly stated as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2008 of theHon'ble Court in W.P.No.6082/98, the Site in question wasinspected on 28.03.2008 by me, the Chief Engineer(Buildings), PWD., Chennai. It is seen that the sitewherein the petitioner had already put up the bunk couldbe given to the petitioner after construction of acompound wall separating the Saidapet Court Complex andthe Judicial Officers Quarters. The parking of vehiclesnear the site should also be regulated and earmarked inorder to prevent any misunderstanding among the advocatesand the litigant public."9.The petitioner has been in possession of 1200 sq. ft. of thevacant land wherein he was running a canteen, which is reflected inthe decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.Nos.4675 and 4391 of1997. Even though in the decree obtained by the petitioner, theextent of land is stated as 1200 sq. ft., the Report of the ChiefEngineer (Buildings) does not disclose any extent of the land keptvacant but, it is clearly stated that the place where the petitionerhas already put up bunk could be given to him. 10.The specific Report by the Chief Engineer (Buildings) thatthe site wherein the petitioner has already put up the bunk could begiven to him after construction of a compound wall separating theSaidapet Court Complex and the Judicial Officers' Quarters isrecorded with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to act as per theReport of the Chief Engineer (Buildings) and give possession of theportion to the petitioner as stated in the Report after putting up ofthe compound wall as per the terms and conditions available with thePublic Works Department, expeditiously within a period of six monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.abeTo :1.The Secretary,Public Works Department,Fort. St. George, Chennai 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Chief Engineer (Buildings),Public Works Department,Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.3.The Executive Engineer,South Presidency Division,Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.+ 1 CC to Mr.S.Sureshkumar Advocate SR NO.18940W.P.No.6082 of 1998MS(CO)JJM(16/04/08)