CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Monday questioned TN government whether the possession of the land leased to Madras Race Club was taken as per the law and whether documents were available to show handing of the land to the horticulture department.
Justice RMT Teekaa Raman raised the queries when the case relating to the termination of the lease agreement entered into with the MRC and the resumption of the land measuring up to 160 acres came up for hearing. “Have you re-entered the land as per the law (revenue standing order),” he asked.
The judge also questioned whether any document is available for evidencing the handing over of the land to the horticulture department by the tahsildar concerned.
Senior counsel P Wilson, representing the revenue department, answered in the affirmative saying a G.O. was issued on September 6 for terminating the lease agreement and for resumption of the land, while the tahsildar had carried out the proceedings for handing the land to the horticulture department. The government took possession of the land on September 9. Later, the land was handed over to the horticulture department by the tahsildar concerned, he said.
Senior counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for the revenue department, submitted that as per the revised lease agreement, the government is empowered to “terminate the agreement” and is “entitled to re-enter” the land.
Referring to the contention of senior counsel AL Somayaji, representing MRC, that the government is bound to go by the statement of the advocate general (AG) before a division bench that separate proceedings would be held for terminating the lease agreement and taking possession of the land, Dave said Raman is a respected counsel “but everyone is bound to commit mistakes” and noted only the “document speaks”.
Dave said the pre-Independence era agreement for leasing out the “prime land” which is the “green lung” of the city for a throwaway rental of about Rs 600 per year cannot be allowed to be done in a “democracy”.
The senior counsel said there is no urgency in hearing the plaint of the MRC and so issuance of notice under section 80 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the club cannot be dispensed with.
However, Somayaji, told the court the club was still in possession of the premises and about 1,000 workers are attending to its work including maintenance of horses. He said the government’s contention that MRC was “dispossessed of the land” was based on a “wrong presumption”.
The court adjourned the hearing for Tuesday.