Nation Current Affairs 22 Sep 2019 Chennai: Rs 10,000 i ...

Chennai: Rs 10,000 imposed on litigant who attempted to mislead court

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Sep 22, 2019, 3:21 am IST
Updated Sep 22, 2019, 3:21 am IST
As per Rule 6 (5) of Development Regulations of second master plan, the site may be considered for construction of Kalyanamandapam.
Madras high court
 Madras high court

Chennai: Condemning the attempt of a litigant to suppress the fact and misleading the court by filing false affidavit, the Madras high court has dismissed his petition, which sought to cancel the patta granted to the owner of the lands, measuring 7.2 grounds in Adambakkam, in which the owner started constructing a Kalyanamandapam, and imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on the litigant to be payable to the owner of the land.

Dismissing the petition filed by C.Moorthy, President, Kesari Nagar Welfare Association, which sought to cancel the patta, which stands in the name of R.Jayachandran, Justice G.Jayachandran said the petitioner association attempts to achieve this through writ petition by suppression of fact and suggestion of falsehood is deplorable.

 

The said attempt cannot be given a seal of approval. Knowing well that the land is site for Kalyanamandapam, the petitioner in the affidavit has sworn that the land is OSR and has made false accusation against G.Jayachandran that he clandestinely converted OSR land into personal patta land. Hence, while dismissing the petition as devoid of merit, this court impose costs of Rs 10,000 to C.Moorthy, who has sworn the false affidavit on behalf of the petitioner association as the President of Kesari Nagar Welfare Association, the judge added.

The judge said the petitioner has not produced any piece of record to indicate the subject land was earmarked as OSR at the time of granting planning permission in the year 1973. Contrarily, Jayachandran has produced the approved planning permission which indicates that the subject area in the planning permission was earmarked as “Kalyanamandapam”. The G.O dated December 19, 2016 issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development department also clearly show that the subject land was earmarked as Kalyanamandapam site in the Director of Town and Country Planning approved layout. This G.O came to be passed in the appeal preferred by Jayachandran seeking permission for conversion of the said land into residential plots. While declining the request the G.O says that, except the Kalyanamandapam site, under reference, no other site has been earmarked for public purpose.

As per Rule 6 (5) of Development Regulations of second master plan, the site may be considered for construction of Kalyanamandapam, the judge added.

The judge said the affidavit of the petitioner bristles with suggestion of falsehood and suppression of truth. In the representation as well as in the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the subject land was earmarked as OSR in the approved planning permission, but Jayachandran has clandestinely converted it into his patta land. This statement of the petitioner was contrary to the records made deliberately and knowingly by the petitioner to mislead the court. The authorities have more than once had informed the petitioner that the said land was not OSR land and it was a Kalyanamandapam site and the ownership was with Jayachandran.

“Just because some land earmarked for some other public purpose is vacant, for quite some time, the public or the residence cannot compel the owner of the land to give it for establishing park, since the said owner incidentally happen to be the legal heir of the layout promoter”, the judge added.

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT