P.D.DINAKARAN,J. - (1.) THE Corporation of Chennai (for brevity, "the Corporation") has filed these appeals against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.3.2005 made in W.P.No.6683 to 6701, 6748, 8157 to 8160 of 2004 filed by the respective 1st respondents in these appeals (for brevity, "the contesting respondents").
(2.) IN the writ petitions, the Corporation was the sole respondent. At the time of admission of these appeals, the First Bench of this Court, by order dated 9.3.2007, suo motu, impleaded the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Chennai as the party respondent in these appeals. 3.1. The contesting respondents are occupants of the tenements at Nariangadu, Egmore, Chennai. Out of 66 tenements available at Naraingadu, Egmore, Chennai, 17 tenements are occupied by Corporation employees, 2 tenements are occupied by Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees, 43 tenements are occupied Fire Service Employees and 4 tenements are occupied by private individuals. In that, we are concerned only with 24 tenements occupied by the contesting respondents. 3.2. The common case of the contesting respondents is that even though the Government by G.O.Ms.No.730, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 14.4.1976 imposed a ban on the disposal of immovable properties owned by the Government or the Government property including land vested in the Municipal Councils, by G.O.Ms.No.907, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.10.1990 they relaxed and lifted the ban imposed by G.O.Ms.No.730, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 14.4.1976 and permitted the Corporation to sell 1014 tenements to the occupants of the same. 3.3. Citing G.O.Ms.No.907, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.10.1990 as a precedent, the contesting respondents herein made representations to the Government to extend the benefits conferred thereunder, viz., to sell the tenements to them. The Government, after considering the request made by the contesting respondents, by G.O.Ms.No.151, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.7.1995 took a policy decision to relax the ban imposed vide G.O.Ms.No.730, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 14.4.1976 and permitted the Corporation to sell all the 66 tenements at Nariangadu, Egmore, Madras to the respective occupants, viz., the contesting respondents. 3.4. Even though the Special Officer by resolution No.2453 of 1996, dated 5.10.1996 permitted the occupants to pay the land and superstructure cost together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as per G.O.Ms.No.2160, Rural Development and Land Administration Department, dated 21.10.1976 and the rate of Rs.3000/ - per ground up to the extent of 750 sq.ft. and Rs.6000/ - per ground for the extent exceeding 750 sq.ft. to 1014 persons in various locations - occupants of the tenements/and balance 30 tenements in Cemetery Road/and also other tenements in various places in the city, the fact remains that despite issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.151, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.7.1995 and the above -said resolution of the Special Officer dated 5.10.1996, the Corporation had not initiated any proceedings to sell the impugned tenements to the contesting respondents. 3.5. While things stood thus, the Government by letter (Ref) No.183, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Departments, dated 21.7.1997 clarified that the request of the occupants of the tenements, who are put in possession on rental basis in their capacity as employees in service of various Corporations as well as Municipalities, to purchase the respective tenements allotted to them cannot be considered as the Corporation as well as the Municipalities are unable to allot tenements to the other employees and directed the local bodies to strictly comply with the said direction, while making it clear that any request by the occupants of tenements for purchase of the same cannot be placed before the Council for passing a resolution and forwarded to the Government. 3.6. Even after the Government took a policy decision vide letter (Ref) No.183, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Departments, dated 21.7.1997 not to sell the tenements allotted to the employees as tenants on rental basis, the contesting respondents have approached this Court in the year 2004 seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the Corporation to comply with the direction of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.151, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.7.1995 and Resolution No.2453 of 1996 of the Special Officer dated 5.10.1996 and to forthwith register the tenements occupied by them at Nariangadu, Varadarajapuram Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 in their favour, without even impleading the Government as a party respondent. 3.7.1. The case of the contesting respondents was purely based on G.O.Ms.No.907, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.10.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.151, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.7.1995. According to the contesting respondents, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.151, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.7.1995 they have a legal right to purchase the respective tenements and the Corporation has a duty to register the sale deed in their favour. 3.7.2. It was also contended by the contesting respondents that failure to comply with G.O.Ms.No.151, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.7.1995 by the Corporation is arbitrary, more so, when similarly placed persons were allotted 1014 tenements pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.907, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.10.1990. 3.8. The Corporation in their counter affidavit contested that the impugned land belongs to the Government and they have no authority to sell the same, more particularly in view of the policy decision taken by the Government vide letter (Ref) No.183, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Departments, dated 21.7.1997 the request of the occupants of the tenements to purchase the tenements cannot be considered, as the Corporation as well as the Municipalities are local bodies bound by the direction of the Government. According to the Corporation, they have not committed any violation to G.O.Ms.No.907, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.10.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.151, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.7.1995, as the Government themselves have taken a policy decision vide letter (Ref) No.183, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Departments, dated 21.7.1997 not to sell the tenements and therefore, the contesting respondents have no legal right to purchase the tenements nor the Corporation has got any legal duty to sell the tenements to the contesting respondents and as such the Corporation had not acted arbitrarily as complained by the contesting respondents. 3.9. After hearing the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 26.3.2005 made in W.P.No.6683 to 6701, 6748, 8157 to 8160 of 2004, finding that nearly 1014 tenements were allotted by the Corporation subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.907, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 11.10.1990, refused to accept the objection of the learned counsel for the Corporation for not selling the impugned 66 tenements to the contesting respondents and held the same would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India and came to the conclusion that the contesting respondents are entitled to purchase the tenements upon the Corporation working out the terms and conditions within six months from the date of the said order. 3.10. Hence, these appeals.
(3.) Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional Advocate General for the Corporation, Mr.K.Ilango, Special Government Pleader for the second respondent/Government and Mr.K.Sridhar for the contesting respondents.;