S.V.N.Natarajan v. The Commissioner

O R D E R S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. Writ Petition has been instituted challenging the proceedings dated

07.02.2020 issued by the 27.12.2017 issued by the The Zonal Deputy Commissioner (South), Corporation of Chennai, Chennai.

¶2Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the plot measuring an extent of 2880 sq.ft. purchased by means of sale deed dated 07.07.2000 registered in the Sub-Registrar office, Velachery. Learned counsel would further state that layout was developed in the year 1973 and from among the area earmarked for community hall, the plots were sold to various persons and the petitioner purchased the plot in the year 2000 by means of sale deed vide Doc.No.3863/2000. He would further state that the land which were meant for roads and parks etc., could not be sold but the land reserved for community hall, shops, school etc., are saleable by the owners of the land and the respondent corporation has no right or title over the said land.

¶3Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/ Chennai Corporation would submit that as per the approved lay out, the subject land earmarked as OSR, are reserved for community hall. Therefore, said property cannot be utilised for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was earmarked in an approved lay out. The Apex Court in the case of Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners vs. V.Gopinath and others (2023 SCC Online SC 137), held that the OSR land reserved are to be utilised only for the purpose for which it is reserved and conversion is impermissible. The Corporation has initiated action to construct community hall for public purpose .

¶4In respect of the approved lay out, the authorities competent have to scrutinise the documents and initiate all appropriate action to protect the OSR lands. Regarding the claim of the petitioner that he is the owner of the entire extent of land, he has to approach the civil Court of law for establishing his title/ ownership. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.24486 of 2008 and the said writ petition came to dismissed on

22.12.2017 holding that the said plot vested with respondent Corporation of Chennai and the said plot could not be sold leaving it open to the petitioner to claim damages from the person from whom the plot was purchased. In view of the said facts, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Moreover, the revenue authorities are not empowered to decide title/ownership. In view of the disputed fact exists between the parties in the present case, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum seeking remedy.

¶5For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.)

18.12.2025 vsi

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To

¶1The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

¶2The Zonal Deputy Commissioner (South), Corporation of Chennai, Chennai. S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J. Vsi

18.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.12.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and W.M.P.No.6899 of 2021 S.V.N.Natarajan ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ribbon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Zonal Deputy Commissioner (South), Corporation of Chennai, Chennai. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 07.02.2020 in t/m/(bj)/e/f/vz;/v9-4631- 2018 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Sureshkumar, Addl.Advocate General, assisted by Ms.P.T.Rama Devi, Standing Counsel for GCC for R1 & R2