HC rejects plea by Agri Horticultural Society against review of patta granted for property worth ₹5,000 crore in Chennai

The issue relates to 115 grounds of land next to Semmozhi Poonga on Cathedral Road; a judge directed the Agri Horticultural Society to submit its reply to a show-cause notice within three weeks

The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by the Agri Horticultural Society in 2011, challenging the suo motu review proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Land Administration against an order passed by the Collector (in-charge) on September 23, 2011 granting ‘patta’ for 4 cawnies (each cawny measuring 1.322 acres approximately), 18 grounds and 1,683 square feet in the heart of Chennai city.

Justice N. Sathish Kumar rejected the case filed by the society, represented by its secretary V. Krishnamurthy, after Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran and Senior Counsel P. Wilson told the court that the sprawling property situated next to the Semmozhi Poonga on Cathedral Road was worth about ₹5,000 crore and the society was trying to squat over it forever without establishing its title.

The judge pointed out that apart from the property that was in question in the present writ petition, the society was also in possession of 316 grounds which were leased out to it by the government in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In 1989, the government re-took those lands. However, the society challenged the action by approaching the courts and instituting multiple litigations before various fora. Finally, the Supreme Court confirmed the resumption of the lands by the government in 2019.

In the meantime, proceedings were also initiated with respect to the other lands in possession of the society and also the over alleged mismanagement by the secretary of the society. However, the society managed to obtain a patta for the valuable land from an in-charge Collector and hence the Commissioner of Land Administration had initiated a suo motu review.

The society’s secretary Mr. Krishnamurthy, alleged a malafide intention behind the action taken against him. However, the judge refused to accept his contention and granted three weeks’ time to the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration after initiating the suo motu review proceedings. Thereafter, the Commissioner could proceed in accordance with law, the judge added.