LexTHE M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. versus N. ISMAIL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 64
THE M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD.
V.
N. ISMAIL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2572-2573 of 2014)
FEBRUARY 21, 2014
[A.K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]
GOVERNMENT GRANT:
Grant of land with conditions - Resumption of land when
it ceased to be used for the purpose for which it was granted
- Land required for Metro Rail Project - Steps taken by State
Government to resume the land - Held: State Government as
0
the owner of the land and having regard to the right retained
by it while making the grant in the years 1898 and 1899 and
in the larger public interest of setting up of the Chennai Metro
Rail Project the lands were required by it, the same cannot
be questioned by the original grantee or by the lessees whose
E holding was subordinate in character to the original grantee -
Since based on valid orders of High Court and AG & OT the
first respondent developed its Hotel business in the lands in
question, while resuming the lands, State Government along
with Chennai Metro is bound to compensate the first
respondent for the buildings which were erected in the said
F land based on the valuation to be made by the appropriate
authorities - First respondent directed to surrender possession
of the land.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, by GO Ms. No.168
G dated 21.05.2012 retrieved the land and the property in
TS No.4312 from Choultry through the Administrator
General and Official Trustee ("the AG & OT) of Tamil Nadu,
for the purpose of the "Chennai Metro Rail Project", a
joint venture of the Central Government and the
H
64
M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. !SMAIL &
65
ORS.
Government of Tamil Nadu. The land in TS No. 43/2 along
A
with other land in TS No.41 had been granted by G.O. Ms.
Nos. 763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898 and 17 .01.1899,
respectively to build a Choultry with conditions, inter alia,
that the Choultry should be available for the free use of
railway travelers, and "that the land shall be liable to
B
resumption, without compensation, if it ceases to be
employed for the purpose for which it is granted or is
used for any other purposes, without the permission of
.. the Government". Subsequently, all the properties held
by the Choultry were vested with the AG & OT of Tamil c
Nadu, and the latter leased out the lands in T.S. No.41 and
T.S. No.43/2 to various tenants including the first
respondent, who constructed a Hotel thereon in the year
. 1987. Subsequently, rights on an adjacent piece of land
which had been granted on lease for a period of 30 years 0
to another lessee were also stated to have been
transferred by the said lessee to the first respondent, who
claimed to have put up two pucca structures and running
two Star Hotels thereon. Pursuant to the issuance of the
GO Ms. No.168 dated 21.05.2012, the Tehsildar issued a
E
notice to AG & OT on 21.06.2012 for resumption of the
land and handover vacant possession. Writ petitions
were filed befo·re the High Court challenging the said GO
dated 21.06.2012. The single Judge of the High Court
allowed the writ petitions and set aside the GO. However,
F
the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals
of the appellant except those relating to properties in
possession of the first respondent, which the Division
Bench held stood on a different footing inasmuch as TS
No. 43/2 was not part of the project land and that the first
respondent had been granted a lease by the AG & OT till
G
the year 2027, and, therefore, the impugned GO in that
respect could not be sustained.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
H
'
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1.1 The reasoning of the Division Bench of
the High Court that the underground Metro Station has
been planned in a stretch of land on a site where certain
other lands were available and, therefore, there was no
necessity for taking over the lands in possession of the
B first respondent is patently a conclusion which was
contrary to the records placed before the Division Bench
and the same cannot be sustained. The conclusion of the
Division Bench that the land in question namely, the one
situated in TS No.43/2 was not part of the project of the
c Chennai Metro was a wrong assimilation of facts. The
conclusion of the Division Bench having been reached
without properly examining the relevant documents
relating to the Chennai Metro Project, namely, the plans,
the project schedule and the Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.