CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu government on Thursday informed the Madras High Court that a compromise with the Madras Race Club is being worked out on the contentious issue of termination of the lease agreement and the subsequent resumption of the land.
Following the submissions made by Additional Advocate General (AAG) J Ravindran, representing the Chennai district collector, the division bench of Justices SS Sundar and K Rajasekar adjourned the hearing of the case by three weeks.
“A compromise is being worked out. We don’t want to precipitate the matter further,” the AAG told the court and sought for adjournment by four weeks.
However, senior advocate AL Somayaji, appearing for MRC, pressed for adjournment by two weeks.
The contempt of court application was filed by MRC seeking to punish Tamil Nadu Revenue Secretary P Amudha and Chennai district collector Rashmi Siddharth Zagade “for wilful and deliberate disobedience of order dated September 9, 2024.”
It had mainly raised the issue of taking possession of the land, measuring about 160 acres, without following due procedure as contemplated in the law, and acting contrary to the undertaking given by the Advocate General (AG) before the division bench on September 9 that notice would be served for termination of the lease agreement and for taking over the land as per the law, and the GO issued on September 6 was not meant for resumption of the land.
But the Revenue Secretary had submitted before a single judge, during the hearing of an application to dispense with pre-suit notice under section 80 of CPC, the undertaking was a wrong statement. He pressed for an interim order in the matter.
The bench, while taking up a lunch motion on the contempt moved by MRC on Wednesday, had pointed out the mandatory observance of the due procedure in the termination of the lease and the resumption of land. It had also commented that the state was challenging the propriety of the court in recording the AG’s statement.
On Thursday also, the division bench commented that the action for taking back the land on public interest “cannot be at the cost of the reputation of the AG and the court.”
Senior counsel P Wilson, representing the Revenue Secretary, had submitted that the state’s action was taken for “a public interest cause.”
