The Madras High Court on Monday came down heavily on the State government officials for attempting to take possession of Madras Race Club (MRC) lands at Guindy in Chennai within two days after issuing a Government Order (G.O.) on September 6 for premature termination of the 99-year-long lease granted to the club in 1946 with respect to 160.80 acres.

Second Division Bench of Justices SS Sundar and K Rajasekar disapproved of how the GO had been worded for terminating the lease as well as taking possession of the property forthwith. The senior judge in the Bench said the act of the officials in descending on MRC premises with a battalion of police personnel on Monday, was “illegal and high-handed.”

Misconstrued Order

The observations were made after senior counsel AL Somayaji, assisted by Vaibhav R Venkatesh, told the court that the officials had misconstrued an interim order passed by the Division Bench on September 4 in a pending writ appeal, related to rental arrears, and gone about sealing the club premises without any consideration even to the horses that had to be fed regularly.

On his part, Advocate General PS Raman conceded that the G.O. had not been worded properly. He brought to the notice of the Division Bench a 1996 Supreme Court verdict in Anamallai Club case wherein it was held that “the government is entitled to resume possession but resumption of possession does not mean unilaterally taking the possession without recourse to law.”

Since the apex court had insisted upon issuing notice and granting reasonable time to the lessee to vacate the property, the A-G submitted that separate proceedings would be issued for terminating the lease granted to MRC and also to take possession of the lands after providing reasonable time to vacate. He urged the Division Bench to record his submissions and the judges did so.

When Somayaji sought liberty to challenge the G.O. as well as the consequential proceedings, the Division Bench made it clear that it would always be open to MRC to challenge them in accordance with the law. The orders were passed after taking up the writ appeal for hearing following an urgent mention made by Venkatesh due to the coercive action of sealing the club premises.

The advocate told the court that the revenue officials had taken undue advantage of the September 4 interim order in which it was clarified that maintenance of the status quo was only with respect to the issue of rental arrears and that the State government could terminate the lease if it was permissible by law. He said the order had been misconstrued to the extent of taking possession without notice.

On September 4, the Bench said, “This clarification need not be taken as a direction, since this court only clarifies the scope of the interim order. This order is without prejudice to the contentions or legal issues that may be raised by the appellant (MRC), in case the lease is terminated. It is also made clear that this court has neither heard the parties nor has expressed its opinion on the right of the respondents to terminate the lease as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed.”

Though the court order was very clear that even if the officials were particular about terminating the lease, it could be done only by following the due process of law, they had gone about issuing the G.O. on September 6 terminating the lease and instructing the Chennai Collector to take possession of the lands forthwith, the counsel complained.

Related Topics