A view of the Agri-Horticultural Society on Cathedral Road in Chennai | Photo Credit: File
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by the Agri Horticultural Society in 2011 challenging your motto revisional proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Lands against the order passed by the Collector (in charge) dated 23rd September, 2011 granting ‘patta’ for 4 cawnys (each cawny measuring approximately 1322 acres), 18 lands and 1683 sq. feet into the heart of Chennai.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar dismissed the case filed by the society, represented by its secretary V. Krishnamurthy, after Additional Solicitor General J. Ravindran and Senior Counsel P. Wilson told the court that the sprawling estate next to Semmozhi Poong on Cathedral Road, it was worth about 5,000 crowns, and the company tried to take possession of it in perpetuity without fixing its title.
The judge pointed out that in addition to the property that is the subject of this petition, the company also owns 316 plots of land that were leased to it by the government in the late 19th and early 19th centuries. In 1989, the government took over these lands again. However, the association contested the suit by approaching the courts and initiated several litigations before various forums. Finally, in 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the reacquisition of land by the government.
In the meantime, procedures were also initiated regarding other lands owned by the association and also due to alleged inadequate management by the secretary of the association. However, the society managed to get a patta for the valuable land from the collector in charge, so the Commissioner of Land Administration initiated your motto review.
Society secretary Mr. Krishnamurthy is alleged to have a bad faith motive for the action brought against him. However, the judge refused to accept his contention and gave the petitioner three weeks to respond to the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration after the proceedings were commenced. your motto audit procedures. The commissioner can then proceed in accordance with the law, the judge added.