WA/893/2026 of M. Jayaraman Vs The Commissioner

W.A.No.893 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.04.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.A.No.893 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.9490 of 2026 M.Jayaraman S/o.R.Muthukrishnan No.966, T.V.S.Colony Anna Nagar West Extension Chennai-600 101 Appellant Vs 1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai-600 003 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer Corporation of Chennai Chennai-600 003 Respondents PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20422 of 2015, dated 21.10.2024. ______________ Page 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.Anban Bharathy S.A. For Respondents: Mr.P.Prithvi Chopda Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the L etters Patent challenges the order dated 21.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.20422 of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner had filed the writ petition praying for the following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court be plea sed to issue a Writ, Direction or Order, in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents their officers, employees, subordinates, agents or any other person claiming or acting under them from in any manner seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the pr operty situated at R.S.No.440/1-A, 441/1C and 441/16 situated at ______________ Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 No.17/8, Velachery Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai and refrain from seeking to take over land without followin g the due process of law and pass such further or other orde rs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 4. The case of the appellant is that he had purchased Plo t No.16C in Jaganathapuram Layout, situated at No.137, V elachery Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai, admeasuring 16½ c ents comprised in R.S.Nos.440/1A, 441/1C and 441/6 from P.T.Ramakrishnan, P.T.Vasantha, P.T.Srinivasa, Hemal atha, P.T.Radha, P.T.Rajalakshmi and P.T.Mythili, through a registered sale deed dated 13.7.2007. The appellant was also issued wi th patta bearing Patta No.1248/09-00. While that being so, the respondents attempted to demolish the appellant’s property by trespassing. Therefore, the appellant verified the records with his vendor s, who produced the judgment and decree dated 9.1.1995 passed in O.S.No.5820 of 1994 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, which declared the appellant’s vendors as rightful owners of the subject-property. That apart, the judgment became final and no appeal was filed by the respondents. The power of attorney h older ______________ Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 of the appellant’s vendors had also filed a writ petiti on before this Court seeking building planning permission for the subject -land in W.P.No.4505 of 2005. This Court, vide order dated 16.2.2005 , directed the respondents to consider the representation subm itted by the vendors. Thereafter, the appellant’s vendors’ power a gent had also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.455 of 20 07 seeking direction to the respondents to grant building planning permi ssion. By an order dated 4.1.2007, this Court directed the responde nts to process the application and decide it on merits and in acc ordance with law. However, neither the appellant’s vendors nor the appellant’s vendors’ power agent have been granted building planning permission. 5. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Sin gle Judge has dismissed the writ petition without even consider ing the fact that for a land to be earmarked as Open Space Reserva tion area for public purposes, it ought to have been carried out t hrough a gift deed. In the case on hand, there is no such gift deed pertaining to the property in question and, therefore, the l earned Single Judge, based on presumption, has dismissed the writ ______________ Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 petition. 6. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that as per the revised layout plan, Plot Nos.16A and 16B were appro ved. After laying out these two additional house sites, namely Plot Nos.16A and 16B, the remaining land, admeasuring 16½ ce nts was earmarked for public purposes. However, there is no reco rd to show that the appellant’s vendors executed any gift deed i n favour of Velachery Panchayat. Subsequently, the said Panch ayat merged with the Corporation of Chennai in the year 1978 and thereafter the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The learned Single Judge has held that the appel lant’s vendors filed a suit for declaration mentioning only the survey numbers and without mentioning the plot number as 16C and obtained ex parte decree. They have also applied for building planning permission for the very same land. However, no building planning permission was granted for the subject-land. I n fact, the power of attorney of the vendors has once again approached thi s Court and even then no building planning permission was granted to the subject-land. Thereafter, the appellant’s vendors so ld the land ______________ Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 to the appellant under registered sale deed dated 13.7.2007 and on the strength of the aforesaid sale deed, the appellant w as granted patta. 7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Plot No.16C was not the subject-matter o f the suit and was not at all available as per the revised layout approval and, therefore, the judgment passed in O.S.No.5820 of 1994 is not binding. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, inter alia , submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consi der that the respondents are trying to illegally trespass on the land without any legally binding order or notice and without any due applicat ion of mind, which amounts to abuse of process of law. He would s ubmit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that patta and all the revenue records stand in the name of the appe llant and there are no revenue records to show that the property has b een gifted to the respondents. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the land was reserved for open space reservation is ______________ Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 without merits and there is no material to show that an y process known to law was even followed to obtain the land for public purposes. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, without prejudice to the above submission, even if the subject- land was reserved for public purpose, no steps were taken either b y the planning authority or the State Government to acquire the land for a long period of time. This factum was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, as such, the order of the learned Single Judge is perverse. 10. Learned Senior Counsel urged that the respondent Corporation, after a lapse of more than 40 years, have abrupt ly barged into the subject-premises that has been under th e continuous possession of the appellant and that the learned Single Judge erred in countenancing the respondents’ case that the appellant’s property is classified as open space reservation area land. Thus, he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. ______________ Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committe d any error in dismissing the writ petition, inasmuch as neither the appellant nor the appellant’s vendors have any right to sel l Plot No.16C, which was earmarked for public purpose. Such plot itse lf was not available. Secondly, learned counsel for the respo ndents contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, in view of the fact that an order of temporary injunction cannot be gra nted by exercising writ jurisdiction. He would submit that there i s no order passed to take over possession from the appellant. 12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 13. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, in the r evised layout approval, there was no Plot No.16C. The vendors of the appellant executed the sale deed in favour of the appell ant by mentioning the subject-property as Plot No.16C. The appellant, ______________ Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 being a purchaser, should have been more vigilant while purchasing the property. Without even verifying the layout, the appel lant had purchased the plot. As the subject-property was originally earmarked for public purposes, it cannot be used for any other purposes. Finding that the appellant’s vendors had no owners hip right over the subject-property, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find no perversity and/ or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shal l be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 20.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr ______________ Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 To: 1.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai-600 003 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer Corporation of Chennai Chennai-600 003 ______________ Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.893 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. bbr W.A.No.893 of 2026 20.04.2026 ______________ Page 11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis