SURAJ AND CHAAND TOWERS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is representing the residents of the Suraj and Chaand Towers, which are two blocks of primarily residential apartments, housing over 130 families located at No.128, Kalki Krishnamurthy Salai (L.B.Road), Chennai-41.

(2.) FROM the materials placed on record it is seen that the entire area wherein the present residential complex has been raised and the adjoining land, wherein a theatre, by name Jayanthi Theatre, is lying, belong to one D.Ramanujam. He divided the lands into two plots and utilised the front plot for the construction of the theatre and sold the rear plot to the developers of the apartment complex. For the purpose of obtaining planning permission for construction of multi storey residential building at Door No.128, L.B.Road, the said D.Ramanujam/owner of the property gifted 809 sq.mt. land to the Corporation of Chennai for public purpose, under a gift deed dated 14.5.1993. But, according to the respondents, though the gift deed was executed by the original owner, the land was not handed over to the Corporation, but a compound wall was constructed by the petitioner Association at a length of 80.05 meters and height of 2 meters, by encroaching upon the gifted land. Hence, a notice under Section 222 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, dated 18.4.2002, was issued to the Secretary of the petitioner Association by the Corporation of Chennai, requiring them to remove the encroachment and vacate from the encroached Corporation land. This notice was challenged by the petitioner Association in W.P.No.15474 of 2002 and a learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 7.12.2010, observing that no details such as survey number and other identifying features of the land, alleged to have been encroached and ordered to be removed, are furnished in the impugned notice, has allowed the writ petition with a liberty to the respondents 2 and 3 to issue fresh notice, giving details of the land, allegedly encroached by the encroacher, afford opportunity to him and then pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law.

(3.) THE fact that the original owner had executed the gift deed in favour of the Corporation, on 14.5.1993, while obtaining planning permission to construct the flats, has not been denied on the part of the petitioner. THEir contention is that the compound wall is in existence for more than 50 years and the area within the compound wall viz. the passage is an access to their flats and the passage ends with their flats. It is also their further contention that the 33 feet public road on the Northern side of their flats is also a blind end, and, therefore, removing the compound wall will pave way for unauthorised occupation and encroachments. It has also been their case that the compound wall has been put up only with an intention to safeguard the property and prevent encroachment.