CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition that claimed ownership and sought handover of a prime piece of land in the heart of the city at Nandanam on which a hostel and residential school run by the Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare department has been functioning since 1951.
Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the petition which was filed by S Rajalakshmi of T Nagar in Chennai. She stated that the land measuring 6 grounds and 2,232 sq ft was originally owned by her grandfather Y Venkanna Chowdry and she inherited it from her father Sambhu Prasad Rao but she could not take possession even after a court decree. In the meantime, the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department had constructed the school and hostel on the land.
Additional Advocate General P Kumaresan submitted that the survey number 3884/4 was manipulated by the petitioner to show that the land in the survey number belongs to her by hiding the actual survey number of 3884/1.
The petitioner had stated her representation to the department seeking to return the land was rejected on May 30, 2019. Challenging this, she filed the writ petition.
The AAG noted that an Adi Dravidar hostel was running from 1951 and GTR school from 1980 on the subject land. He informed the court that her representation was rejected only after conducting a detailed inquiry.
The judge, in the recent order, noted that the land was given to the department as donation by the petitioner’s grandfather, proved from revenue records produced by the AAG.
He pointed out that a suit filed by the petitioner’s father Rao seeking the department to pay rent for the hostel was dismissed in 2002 by the Small Causes Court, Chennai. Further, Rao had already sold four grounds and 1,324 sq ft in R S No 3884/4 to a person and a sale deed was registered in 1966.
“The petitioner did not produce any original documents during inquiry conducted by the respondents. Therefore, the order passed by the Director of Tribal Welfare is clear that the subject land comprised in R S No 3884/4 does not belong to the petitioner,” the judge said in the order.