AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to promote the objects of the Society, (8) and to undertake all other things not repugnant to the objects and rules. 2. The said Society consists of resident, non-resident, life members, honorary and extraordinary members and the subscribing members shall consist of four classes, namely 'life', 'A', 'B' and 'C' and according to the Respondent/Society, as on date, they are having 1500 members, including life members. The Governor of Tamil Nadu is the patron of the Society and the Management of the Society is vested in a Committee consisting of 20 members, Chairman, Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer and Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, one of the Respondents herein is the Honorary Secretary of the Society. 3. It is seen from the materials placed on record that the Government, in 1836, purchased lands in Mylapore village, Triplicane-Mylapore Taluk, Madras District, measuring an extent of C.6-18-1673 sq.ft. in O.S. No. 3410 (now part of R.S. No. 13) and an extent of C.4-22-226 sq.ft. in O.S. Nos. 3406 (part), 3407, 3408, 3409 and 3413 (now part of R.S. No. 13 and R.S. No. 64), Mylapore village, Madras District was acquired by the Government ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndum of Association, the Rules and Bye-laws made from time to time. (4) The Government reserve themselves the right to resume at any time the said lands in the event of infringement of or failure to observe any of the conditions of the grant or if the lands are required for any public purposes. The decision of the Government on the question of infringement or failure to observe any of the conditions of the grant or the requirement for any public purpose shall be final and binding on the Society. In regard to action against the infringement of conditions of agreement, the procedure laid down in the Board's Standing Order 24 will be followed, and a decision will be taken after obtaining the explanation of the Society for any lapse/violation of condition. The Society may however lease out the produce of the trees or plants standing thereon and put up hoardings without approval or sanction of the Government. (5) The Government hereby ratify the action of the society in granting the lease of the lands and buildings more particularly and fully described in Schedule II for running a Drive-in-Restaurant in favor of Messrs. Woodlands Hotel: (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ety to state as to why the Government should not resume the lands for public purposes. The said notice was challenged by the Society as well as by its Honorary Secretary Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, by filing two separate writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 10167 and 10168 of 1989 before this Court, on the ground that the impugned action was initiated by the Government as a result of political vendetta, since he is closely associated with AIADMK General Secretary and also a former Minister of the AIADMK Government. A learned single Judge of this Court, considering the fact that it is only a notice to which the Petitioner could very well submit his reply, has dismissed both the writ petitions, by the order dated 1.8.1989. The learned single Judge has observed as follows: ...The first Respondent has asked the Petitioner to submit a reply. As such, it is not proper for me to enter into the merits of the case at this stage. It is open to the Petitioner to file his reply to the impugned notice and await final orders and I am sure that the first Respondent will give an opportunity such as personal hearing to the Petitioner, if the Petitioner so desires, before considering the objections of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... strong instructions to its subordinates. Regarding the other aspects of the letter, we will deal with the same while discussing the case. 9. Thereupon, on 5.8.1989 itself, the Government has passed G.O. Ms. No. 1259, Revenue (LI) Department, dated 5.8.1989, ordering resumption of the lands for the above said public purposes together with the trees, plants and superstructures, if any, found on the lands. This order is challenged by the Society as well as by its Honorary Secretary Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, by filing two separate writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 11058 and 11059 of 1989. Thereupon, on 2.8.1989, the District Registrar/Registration of Societies, Central Madras, had issued a show-cause notice in his proceedings No. 12604/Ma.P/88, dated 2.8.1989 under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975), regarding nine charges mentioned therein. Challenging the said show-cause notice, W.P. No. 11178 of 1989 was filed by the Society. 10. In all these writ petitions, the main thrust of the writ Petitioners, who are the Respondents herein, is that the Honorary Secretary of the Society Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, is a family friend of AIADMK Genera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vendetta. In support of his arguments that if the acts of the Government are as a result of malafide and as a result of political vendetta, the same are liable to be set aside, the learned senior counsel has cited the following judgments, including the ones already cited before the learned single Judge: 1. Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 35, 2. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 872, 3. The Collector (Distt. Magistrate), Allahabad and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal AIR 1985 SC 1622, 4. State of Assam and Ors. v. Banshidhar Shewbhagaan & Company AIR 1981 SC 1957, 5. The State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 319, 6. Ram Manohar Lohia v. The State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1966 SC 740, 7. S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 and 8. The State of Punjab v. Ramji Lal and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 1228. 13. The learned senior counsel would also argue that there is no material on record to show that there is a proposal for setting up a sport complex or horticultural centre and thus there is no legal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice of land to be required for a public purpose, unless some mala fide is shown and proved and that judicial review is not against the decision but against the decision-making process. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General would rely on the following judgments: 1. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. AIR 1974 SC 555, 2. State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 471, 3. Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 877, 4. Srinivasa Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Madam Gurumurthy Sastry and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 675 : 1995 1 L.W. 267, 5. Inder Parshad v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 239, 6. Misbah Alam Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 528, 7. W.B. Housing Board and Ors. v. Brijendra Prasad Gupta and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 207, 8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237, 9. State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 330, 10. Union of India and Ors. v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadigara and Ors. : (2002) 10 SCC 226, 11. Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0, the Government has reserved the right to resume at any time the lands in the event of infringement of or failure to observe any of the conditions of the grant or if the lands are required for any public purposes and that the decision of the Government on the question of infringement or failure to observe any of the conditions of the grant or the requirement for any public purpose shall be final and binding on the Society. Thus, there cannot be any dispute or quarrel with regard to the power or authority of the Government in issuing the impugned proceedings for resumption of the lands, being the owner of the lands. 19. As has already been pointed out supra, the entire averments and the arguments advanced on the part of the Respondents/Society revolves around the point that the impugned actions have been initiated by the Government, since the Respondent Mr. V. Krishnamurthy is the family friend of Ms. Jayalalithaa and that he is also related to one of the former Ministers of the AIADMK Government. On a perusal of the entire materials placed on record, relied on by either side, we are able to see that the AIADMK Government, with which, it is said by the Respondent that he is clo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etary of the Society and to the learned Counsel appearing for them, has fixed the oral hearing on 5.8.1989. On that day, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Society has given the letter dated 5.8.1989, seeking permission to peruse the following Government records: 1. The Master Plan of Madras City 2. The files (of) the Government in connection with taking decision to resume lands for certain public purpose. 3. Schemes if any drafted by the Government for developing sport activities. 4. The details of Budget allocation for the promotion of sports. 22. The contention of the Respondents is that neither any order has been passed on such a representation of the Respondents nor they were permitted to peruse the said documents. Coming to the point of relevance of these documents, it is to be pointed out that it is only a point of resumption of the land by the owner i.e. the Government, and not an acquisition of the lands belonging to the Respondents, so as to say that the purpose of the acquisition must be made known to the owner of the land. It is to be pointed out that it is not for the Respondents/Society to decide whether the public....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/Society by his letter dated 2.8.1989 has sought for personal hearing in the matter, by giving three days advance notice. Accordingly, by the communication dated 3.8.1989, the Government has fixed the date of personal hearing as 5.8.1989, which was also found fault with by the Respondents, as if no sufficient time was given to them, which we are not able to appreciate. RSO 24 lays down that the Government lands, placed at the disposal of a person, an Institution or a Local Body can be resumed, if in the opinion of the Government, the land is required for a public purpose and and it does not envisage issue of any notice to the grantee to show-cause against such resumption of land already granted and under possession of the grantee for public purpose. In spite of such being the position, in due compliance of the principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice was issued by the Government, which cannot be permitted to be commented upon, other way round, by the Respondents. 24. The Chief Secretary of the State has filed an affidavit, dated 31.3.2008 before us. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder: 5. When the origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld rely on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. 2008 (2) Supr 548, wherein it has been held as follows: ...It is very well settled, public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the decision making authority. Public orders made by authorities are meant to have public effect and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. 26. There is no quarrel with regard to the proposition laid down by the Honourable Apex Court and transparency is required in all the public actions of the Government. In the case on hand, in the impugned notices itself, the Government has mentioned the purposes for which the land is required and therefore, it cannot be said that the Government has not applied its mind, as has been wrongly argued on the part of the Respondents/Society. When the Government, in the capacity of the owner of the lands, required the lands for the stated public purpose and had also found misuse of the lease by the allottee, we cannot find fault with the actions of the Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re are materials on record to show that they are using only that part of the land for Horticultural activities and the land leased out by the Government is being used for the personal business of the Honorary Secretary of the Respondent Society viz. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy for running his rent-a-car business and an advertisement agency under the name and style of Meena Advertisers, we cannot find fault with the proceedings initiated by the Government to resume the land. Even in the affidavit, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy has stated that he is owning the car business and advertisement business. Considering the fact that the land was already taken possession by the Government, we hope that the Government will respect the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary in using the land for public purpose. Though the sublettee Woodlands Drive-in Restaurant is not a party to these proceedings, but he is also bound by this judgment, since the Respondent/Society, who has sublet the property to the said Restaurant, himself has no power to sublet the property, without the permission of the Government and no such permission was granted by the Government and therefore when once we hold that the resumption is va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt/Society, without answering the queries pointed out by the Authority and without exhausting the remedies available to them under law, has approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition No. 11178 of 1989 and unfortunately, the same was also allowed by the learned single Judge, on the ground of unfounded allegation of political vendetta, thus nipping the enquiry at the budding stage itself. In view of the above factual matrix of the case, the judgments cited on the part of the learned Counsel for the Respondents cannot augment their case and thus are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 31. The Government has power to resume the land and the allegations of political vendetta are invented for the purpose of the case, and in the absence of any substantive proof or material on record to prove the same, the learned single Judge should not have gone into that aspect and given much weightage to it. But, unfortunately, the learned single Judge has fell into the ferry of the Society and instead of rejecting the said allegations of political vendetta, has entertained the same and given undue advantage to the same. 32. For all these reasons, we find force in the contention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without permission from the Government to the Woodlands Drive-in Restaurant, etc. (3) As has already been observed supra, the Honorary Secretary of the Respondent Society viz. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy has proudly stated in his affidavit that he is running a car rental company and also an advertising agency and also made unfounded allegations against the Government that even though the Aviation Authorities have granted him the permission to run the vehicles, the Government did not permit him to do so. Thus, it is clear that he is making use of the Government lands for his personal use and enjoying the vast extent of the land situated in the heart of the city, for his personal gains, without paying any single pie to the Government. Therefore, the Government is also entitled to recover the amounts derived by the said Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Honorary Secretary, by illegally making use of the Government lands for his personal gains that too for his commercial purposes, by way of rent etc. (4) It is also brought to our notice that after passing the impugned order, the possession of the suit schedule land was taken by the Government in 1989 itself, from that the lands were in....