WP/26397/2024 of V.RAMAKRISHNAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.28844 and 31065 of 2024
W.P.No.28489 of 2024
1. V.Ramakrishnan
S/o.K.Venkitachalam
2. V.Venkatakrishnan
S/o.K.Venkitachalam ... Petitioners
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Revenue Department
Secretary, Chenani.
2. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Rippon Building
Chennai-600 003.
Page Nos.1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
4. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South)
Greater Chennai Corporation Zone XIV
No.115, Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar
Chennai-600 020.
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer (South)
Near T.N.Dr.MGR Medical University
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
6. The Tahsildhar
Sholinganallur
Chennai-600 119.
7. The Chairman
St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union
Chitlapakkam, Chennai.
8. M/s.VGP Investments
Represented by its Partner
Mr.Babudas, VGP House
VGP Pannerdas Salai
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
9. Golden Sea View Residents Welfare Association
Rep. By its Secretary
Mr.Krishna Rajendra
10. The Sub-Registrar
Sub Registrar Office
2/92, SH 49, Kazura Garden
Neelankarai, Chennai-600 041. … Respondents
Writ Petition No.26397 of 2024 filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Man damus, calling for
the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 22.0 8.2024 in R.D.C.
Page Nos.2/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
(S).C.No.A7/002937/2024 passed by the 4 th respondent and quash the
same and consequently, direct the respondents to retore the possession
back to the petitioners within a time period.
For Petitioners : Mr.Srinath Sridevan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Vishnu
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R1, R5, R6 and R10
Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mrs.K.Aswini Devi
Standing Counsel for GCC
for R3 and R4
Mrs.S.P.Arthi, for R9
No appearance – R2, R7 and R8
W.P.No.28489 of 2024
M/s.Madras Carbons Private Limited
Rep. By its Director Mr.Balaji Goverthanan
Having its registered office at
Unit 211, Raheja Towers, No.177
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Greater Chennai Corproation
Rep. By its Commissioner
Ripon Building
Chennai-600 003.
2. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South)
Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone-XIV
Ripon Building
Chennai-600 003. … Respondents
Page Nos.3/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned
order being the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Regional Deputy
Commissioner (South), Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone X IV bearing
No.R.D.C.(S).C.No.A7/002937/2024 dated 22.08.2024 issued b y the 2nd
respondent and quash the same as being illegal, unconstitutiona l, contrary
to the law and violative of principles of natural justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anirudh Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.P.Prithivi Chopda
Standing Counsel for GCC
*****
C O M M O N O R D E R
[Made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]
The present writ petitions have been instituted mainly challe nging
the proceedings of the Regional Deputy Commissioner (South ), Greater
Chennai Corporation, dated 22.08.2024 and seeking to restore the
possession of the land back to the writ petitioners.
2. The facts, in a nutshell, would show that originally, M/s.VGP
Investment had developed the residential layout vide LPDM/DT P No.2/75
Part-I for an extent of 12.66 acres and handed over to the erstwhile
Page Nos.4/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
Palavakkam Panchayat roads of 139430 sq.ft and park of 24 534 sq.ft (10
grounds 0534 sq.ft). Similarly, M/s.VGP Investment further developed the
residential layout vide LPDM/DTP No.31/75 Part-II for an ext ent of 9.34
acres and handed over roads of 77400 sq.ft and a park of 24534 sq.ft (10
grounds 0534 sq.ft). Further, M/s.VGP Investment vide LPDM/DTP
No.131/75 Part-III developed an extent of 9.07 acres a nd handed over
roads of 99820 sq.ft out of 9.07 acres and 1.19 acres (21 grounds and
1525 sq.ft) was earmarked as public purpose land, which is the subject
matter of the present writ petitions.
3. Totally, the layout was developed for an extent of 31.07 acres and
the land to be allocated for OSR as per TNCDBR Rules, that is 10% of the
developed land, works out to 3.10 acres. However, the develo per handed
over only 1.12 acres as OSR land, which is currently a par k under the
control of the Greater Chennai Corporation and the rem aining 1.98 acres
is to be handed over to the Greater Chennai Corporatio n, wherein after
subtracting the available 1.19 acres earmarked as public purp ose land as
per layout, Part-III to be taken over by Greater Chennai Corporation, there
is still a shortfall of 79 cents to be handed over to the Greater Chennai
Corporation by M/s.VGP Investment.
Page Nos.5/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
4. Writ petitioners are the purchasers of the residential plots in the
said approved layout developed in Part-III. These writ petit ioners have
purchased the common purpose land, which was converted into plots by
the developer. The Residents Welfare Association filed a compliant
before the Greater Chennai Corporation seeking resumption of the public
purpose land for development of a park, OSR land etc., Addressing the
complaint given by the Residents Welfare Association, enforcement
actions were initiated. Admittedly, possession of the common public
purpose land has already been taken over by the Greater Chennai
Corporation in the year 2016, except the short fall of 79 cents, which is yet
to be handed over by the developer.
5. Claiming rights over the common public purpose land pur chased
by the writ petitioners, the present writ petitions have been filed before this
Court.
6. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing o n behalf
of the petitioner in W.P.No.26397 of 2024 and Mr.Anirudh Krishnan,
learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.28489 of 2 024, would mainly
Page Nos.6/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
contend that the opportunity as directed by this Court vid e order dated
13.03.2024 in W.P.Nos.361 to 364 and 8125 of 2018, has not been
afforded to the writ petitioners by the Greater Chennai Corporation
authorities. This Court has directed the Corporation aut horities to provide
an opportunity to the writ petitioners, conduct an enquiry and thereafter
initiate action to resume the public purpose land, if any, e armarked in the
approved layout. Though such a direction has been given, sufficient
opportunity has not been granted. Thus, the writ peti tioners are unable to
produce all the documents in their possession before the Corpo ration
authorities to establish their case.
7. Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of Chennai Corporation and Mr.S.P.Ar thi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Welfare Association, would oppo se the
same by stating that, as directed by this Court, sufficient opportunities
were afforded to the purchasers of the land in the commo n purpose area /
writ petitioners and they failed to produce documents to establish their
case. The order impugned itself shows that sufficient opport unities were
granted to the writ petitioners. Thus, the writ petitions are to be rejected.
Page Nos.7/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
8. The rival submissions made by the parties to the lis have been
duly considered by this Court.
9. The legal position regarding maintenance of OSR lands, common
public purpose lands and park areas in an approved layout h as been well
settled in catena of judgments and recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Association of Vasanth Apartments’ Owners Vs.
V.Gopinath and others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 137) . The local
authorities / competent authorities are bound to prote ct the OSR lands,
park areas, as well as common purpose lands and such lands are to be
utilised for the purpose for which they have been earmarked in the
approved layout. Any sale of public purpose land by the de veloper is null
and void. The competent local authority is empowered to r esume the
land. If at all any developer, by misrepresentation or in a fraudulent
manner, alienates the public purpose land to any third p erson, such third
person is entitled to sue the developer both under the civil and criminal
law. However, the common purpose land, including OSR lands a nd parks
are to be protected for the benefits of the residents in that locality.
Page Nos.8/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
10. Due to fast growing of construction activities in urban area s
across the nation, the cities are converted into concrete j ungles. There is
no space even to breath or to protect public health, which is an integral
part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The very purpose and object
of such common purpose lands are to protect the health and livelihood of
the citizens residing in that locality and any violation of the approved
layout or sale of common purpose lands would result in infringement of the
fundamental rights of the citizens to have such facilities in the urban
areas. Therefore, such violations or illegal alienation of the common
purpose land undoubtedly infringe the rights of the citizen s and therefore,
authorities are expected to be sensitive and vigilant in pr otecting parks,
play ground, common purpose lands, OSR lands etc., so as to protect
health and the life of the citizens of our great Nation.
11. In the present case, the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Greater
Chennai Corporation conducted an enquiry on 21.05.2024 a nd
27.05.2024, summoning the writ petitioners and the respond ents. The
developer M/s.VGP Investments, requested more time to produce
reclassification order. Thus, the enquiry was adjourned to 2 5.06.2024 and
Page Nos.9/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
even on that day, no document was produced by the develope r, M/s.VGP
Investment. Under those circumstances, the authority passed an order
stating that the subject land has already been resumed by the Greater
Chennai Corporation and it is under the possession of the Greater
Chennai Corporation. Therefore, it is not a case where the authorities
have violated the rules of natural justice. The opportunit y afforded to the
writ petitioners were not utilised in a right perspective and that being the
factum, they cannot now turn around and complain that no opportunity
was given to them. However, if any new additional documents are
available with the writ petitioners, they are at liberty to su bmit the same to
the Corporation authorities, within a period of two weeks fr om the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, and the authorities ma y, in turn, examine
those documents, if any, and its correctness. If no such docume nts are
filed within the stipulated time, the Corporation authorities shall not receive
or entertain any such application or document from the writ petitioners.
12. In the present case, the layouts are approved and in the
approved layout, OSR lands, common purpose lands, and park a reas are
demarcated and all those lands have been resumed by the Greater
Page Nos.10/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
Chennai Corporation and therefore to be utilised for the purpose for which
they were earmarked in the approved layout. Left out p ortion of the
common purpose land also to be resumed as per the approved layout.
13. In view of the above facts, the Writ Petitions stand d ismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Th ere shall
be no order as to costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
21.04.2026
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
mk
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Revenue Department
Secretary, Chennai.
2. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation
Rippon Building
Chennai-600 003.
Page Nos.11/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
4. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South)
Greater Chennai Corporation Zone XIV
No.115, Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar
Chennai-600 020.
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer (South)
Near T.N.Dr.MGR Medical University
Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
6. The Tahsildhar
Sholinganallur
Chennai-600 119.
7. The Chairman
St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union
Chitlapakkam, Chennai.
8. M/s.VGP Investments
Represented by its Partner
Mr.Babudas, VGP House
VGP Pannerdas Salai
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
9. Golden Sea View Residents
Welfare Association
Rep. By its Secretary
Mr.Krishna Rajendra
10. The Sub-Registrar
Sub Registrar Office
2/92, SH 49, Kazura Garden
Neelankarai, Chennai-600 041.
11. Greater Chennai Corproation
Rep. By its Commissioner
Ripon Building
Chennai-600 003.
12. The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South)
Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone-XIV
Ripon Building
Chennai-600 003.
Page Nos.12/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,
and
K. SURENDER, J.,
mk
W.P.Nos.26397 & 28489 of 2024
21.04.2026
(2/2)
Page Nos.13/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis