Legislation Against Land Grabbing Need Of The Hour, Appoint High Level Committee To Uncover Illegalities In Govt Property Dealings: Madras HC

Justice SM Subramaniam observed that lands under Government custody had to be used for public welfare but some land grabbers were using the lands for commercial exploitation and personal gains using backhand techniques. This, according to the court is nothing short of “thieving” and such land grabbers should not be permitted to go scot-free.

“Land grabbing prohibition legislation is the need of the hour. More so, it is essential to ensure criminal prosecution is initiated against land grabbers…Land grabbing is equivalent to theft of another's property. But more serious is grabbing of Government owned land. This is unquestionably an offence against the State…Criminal prosecution ought to be pressed into service in such land grabbing cases and the wrong doer ought to be punished under such legislations. An offence against the State is an offence against the people of the State,” the court observed.

The court also directed the State Government to appoint a High-Level Committee to identify grabbing of government lands, illegalities and irregularities in dealing with the Government property, recovery of arrears of lease rent, unlawful occupation of Government properties etc., and initiate all appropriate actions including Criminal prosecutions, to protect the financial interest of the State and to safeguard the poor and voiceless people of the State.

The court was hearing a plea moved by Hotel Saravana Bhavan seeking directions to the State to grant them patta for 3.75 acres of government natham puramboke land situated in Koyambed in Chennai. The petitioners had argued that the land was a Grama Natham land and did not vest with the Government. They also argued that though initially the Government issued an order for alienating the property, this GO was cancelled through another GO.

Calling it a classic case of lang grabbing by highly influential persons, the court noted that the Government Order assigning the land in favour of the petitioners was passed just before the announcement of Assembly Elections by the AIADMK government. Subsequently, with the DMK coming to power in 2021, this order was cancelled.

The court noted that these systematic violations were done jointly by the bureaucrats and politicians. The court added that though different parties came to power in different political landscapes, the tactics adopted were the same and pervasive.

“The method adopted in bringing about this systemic violations is done hand in hand by the bureaucracy and the politico. The convergence happens at this singular point. Inspite of different parties being in power across different political landscapes, the convergence and tactics adopted in such systemic violations are all in a similar fashion and is all pervasive across different layers of governance,” the court added.

Construction Of Commercial Mall Does Not Involve Larger Public Interest

The court noted that the initial government order assigning land to the petitioners was made on the information provided by them that they would develop a world class mall and hyper market and provide employment to 7500 people by investing Rs.1575 crores for developing the Government land.

Though it was claimed that the order was made considering the larger public interest, the court opined that construction of a commercial mall or a hyper market was not an activity in larger public interest but only a commercial venture by a private company.

“In the context of the impugned order, this Court is of an opinion that it does not sound well as construction of a commercial mall or hyper market cannot be construed as a larger public interest and it is a commercial venture by a private construction company,” the court said.

The court also observed that while assigning Government lands, the Government could not act in a manner benefitting private parties and such action would be unreasonable and contrary to the public interest.

Act of Government Must Be Reasonable

The court also added that the Government could not exercise its powers in an arbitrary and capricious way and must exercise it for the public good. The court also noted that when an assignment of Government land is made, its validity must be tested based on reasonableness and public interest and if it failed to satisfy any of the two, it would be declared unconstitutional and invalid.

“The state cannot act as it pleases in the matter of giving largess. The Government is still the Government and is, subject to restraints inherent in its position in a democratic society. The Constitutional powers conferred on the Government cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner. It has to be exercised for the public good. If the Government grants assignment in respect of the Government lands, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid,” the court observed.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.AR.Karthik Lakshmanan

Counsel for Respondent: R.Ramanlaal, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 282

Case Title: M/s. Hotel Saravana Bhavan v. The Additional Chief Secretary

Case No: W.P.No.15957 of 2021

Click here to read/download the judgment