THE M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD.versusN. ISMAIL & ORS.

                         [2014] 3 S.C.R. 64


A            THE M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD.
                                   V.
                          N. ISMAIL & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 2572-2573 of 2014)

                        FEBRUARY 21, 2014
B
            [A.K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
                   IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

        GOVERNMENT GRANT:
c
          Grant of land with conditions - Resumption of land when
    it ceased to be used for the purpose for which it was granted
    - Land required for Metro Rail Project - Steps taken by State
    Government to resume the land - Held: State Government as
    the owner of the land and having regard to the right retained
0
    by it while making the grant in the years 1898 and 1899 and
    in the larger public interest of setting up of the Chennai Metro
    Rail Project the lands were required by it, the same cannot
    be questioned by the original grantee or by the lessees whose
E   holding was subordinate in character to the original grantee -
    Since based on valid orders of High Court and AG & OT the
    first respondent developed its Hotel business in the lands in
    question, while resuming the lands, State Government along
    with Chennai Metro is bound to compensate the first
    respondent for the buildings which were erected in the said
F   land based on the valuation to be made by the appropriate
    authorities - First respondent directed to surrender possession
    of the land.

         The Government of Tamil Nadu, by GO Ms. No.168
G   dated 21.05.2012 retrieved the land and the property in
    TS No.4312 from Choultry through the Administrator
    General and Official Trustee ("the AG & OT) of Tamil Nadu,
    for the purpose of the "Chennai Metro Rail Project", a
    joint venture of the Central Government and the
H                                 64
   M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. !SMAIL &           65
                     ORS.
    Government of Tamil Nadu. The land in TS No. 43/2 along A
    with other land in TS No.41 had been granted by G.O. Ms.
    Nos. 763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898 and 17 .01.1899,
    respectively to build a Choultry with conditions, inter alia,
    that the Choultry should be available for the free use of
    railway travelers, and "that the land shall be liable to B
    resumption, without compensation, if it ceases to be
    employed for the purpose for which it is granted or is
    used for any other purposes, without the permission of
.. the Government". Subsequently, all the properties held
    by the Choultry were vested with the AG & OT of Tamil c
    Nadu, and the latter leased out the lands in T.S. No.41 and
    T.S. No.43/2 to various tenants including the first
    respondent, who constructed a Hotel thereon in the year
  . 1987. Subsequently, rights on an adjacent piece of land
    which had been granted on lease for a period of 30 years 0
    to another lessee were also stated to have been
    transferred by the said lessee to the first respondent, who
    claimed to have put up two pucca structures and running
    two Star Hotels thereon. Pursuant to the issuance of the
    GO Ms. No.168 dated 21.05.2012, the Tehsildar issued a E
    notice to AG & OT on 21.06.2012 for resumption of the
    land and handover vacant possession. Writ petitions
    were filed befo·re the High Court challenging the said GO
    dated 21.06.2012. The single Judge of the High Court
    allowed the writ petitions and set aside the GO. However,
    the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals F
    of the appellant except those relating to properties in
    possession of the first respondent, which the Division
    Bench held stood on a different footing inasmuch as TS
    No. 43/2 was not part of the project land and that the first
    respondent had been granted a lease by the AG & OT till G
    the year 2027, and, therefore, the impugned GO in that
    respect could not be sustained.
       Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                               H

   '
    66      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A      HELD: 1.1 The reasoning of the Division Bench of
  the High Court that the underground Metro Station has
  been planned in a stretch of land on a site where certain
  other lands were available and, therefore, there was no
  necessity for taking over the lands in possession of the
B first respondent is patently a conclusion which was
  contrary to the records placed before the Division Bench
  and the same cannot be sustained. The conclusion of the
  Division Bench that the land in question namely, the one
  situated in TS No.43/2 was not part of the project of the
c Chennai Metro was a wrong assimilation of facts. The
  conclusion of the Division Bench having been reached
  without properly examining the relevant documents
  relating to the Chennai Metro Project, namely, the plans,
  the project schedule and the other averments placed
  before the Division Bench, the impugned order of the
0
  Division Bench cannot be sustained. [para 18] [78-G-H;
  79-A·B, H; 80-A]
       1.2 Indisputably the lands in Survey No.43/2 belong
  to the State. At the time when the lands were granted and
E assigned by GO Ms. Nos.763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898
  and 17.01.1899 respectively, conditions were imposed to
  the effect that the lands would revert back to the
  Government when it ceased to be used for the purpose
  for which it was granted and that should the property at
F any time resumed by Government, the compensation
  payable should in no case exceed the cost or the then
  present value whichever shall be less of any building
  erected or other works executed in the land. [para 20] [81-
  E-G]
G      1.3 In so far as the first respondent was concerned,
  his lease came into existence initially on 22.12.1972, and
  by Order dated 10.12.2004 in Application No.915 of 2003,
  the lease in favour of the first respondent was extended
  for a further period of 25 years by enhancing the rent. The
H said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench in
   M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. !SMAIL &          67
                     ORS.
 the Order dated 20.08.2009 in O.S.A. No.298 of 2004. In the   A
 circumstances, it cannot be held that the said
 possession with the first respondent was unlawful.
 However, on that basis when it comes to the question of
 resumption of the land by the State Government when
 the Government through the AG & OT thought it fit to          B
 resume the lands which was in accordance with the
 terms contained in the Original Grant, namely, GOS
 No.763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898 and 17.01.1899,
 resp·ectively there would be no scope for the first
 respondent to contend that the appellants are not entitled    c
 for the resumption of the lands situated in Survey No.43/
 2. [para 21] [82-C-F]
       1.4 This Court, therefore, holds that the State
  Government as the owner of the land and having regard
  to the right retained by it while making the grant in the    D
  years 1898 and 1899 and in the larger public interest of
. setting up of the Chennai Metro Project the lands were
  required by it, the same cannot be questioned by the
  original grantee or by the lessees whose holding was
  subordinate in character to the original grantee.            E
  Therefore, there is no justification in the Division Bench
  in having interfered with the impugned GO Ms. No.168
  dated 21.05.2012 and the consequential orders of the
  Tehsildar dated 21.06.2012 and that of the AG & OT dated
  25.06.2012 directing the first respondent to handover        F
  possession of the lands. [para 22] [82-G-H; 83-A]
      1.5 Having regard to the condition contained in the
 initial GO Ms. Nos.763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898 and
 17.01.1899 since based on valid orders of the High Court
 and the AG & OT the first respondent developed its Hotel      G
 business in the lands in question, while resuming the
 lands, the State Government along with the Chennai
 Metro is bound to compensate the first respondent for the
 buildings which were erected in the said land in Survey
 No.43/2 based on the valuation to be made by the              H.
    68       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2014] 3 S.C.R.


A appropriate authorities. The appellants are directed to
  value the buildings belonging to the first respondent
  standing in TS No.43/2 and determine the compensation
  and pay the same to the first respondent. The first
  respondent is directed to surrender possession of the
B lands in TS No.43/2 in an extent of 5644 sq. ft. through
  the AG &    ·or
                within four weeks from the date of receipt
  of copy of this judgment. [para 23-25] [83-B-G]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2572-2573 of 2014.
c
        From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2013 of the
    High Court of Madras in WA Nos. 89 and 90 of 2013.
                                 WITH
D Civil Appeal Nos. 2575-2578 of 2014.

         L. Nageswara Rao, ASG, R. Thiagarajan, Gopal
  Subramanium, Pinaki Mishra, Subramonium Prasad, AAG, V.
  Ramajagadeesan, Govind Manoharan, Shruti Iyer, Senthil
  Jagadeesan, B. Balaji, Rakesh Sharma, Selvin, K. Enatoli
E Serna, Amit Kumar Singh, R. Rakesh Sharma, Selvin Raja,
  Sunil Fernandes, Raghav Chadha, Astha Sharma, Sri Ram J.
  Thalapathy, V. Adhimoolam, Shilpi Vinod, N. Shoba for the
  appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
       FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. I.A.
  Nos.1-2 & I.A. Nos.1-4, applications for impleadment, filed in
  Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.26020-26021 of 2013 and
  Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.26199-26202 of 2013, are
G allowed. Registry to carry out necessary amendment.
         2. Leave granted.
       3. These appeals have been filed by the State of Tamil
  Nadu represented by the Managing Director of Chennai Metro
H Rail Ltd. and the Principal Secretary to Government Revenue
   M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTo. v. N. ISMAIL &                 69
  ORS. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA. J:]

  LD-1 (1) Department. The issue concerned in these appeals           A
  relates to an extent of 5 Grounds and 275 sq.ft. of land in T.S.
  No.43/2 in Chennai District, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk, Block No.7
  of Vepery Village. The abovesaid land along with another land
  in an extent of one Cawni 10 Grounds and 1871 sq.ft. in T.S.
  No.41 of the same Vepery Village, Fort Tondiarpet Taluk,            B
  Chennai District was granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu
  to one Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar to build a Choultry for the use
  of persons who come by rail from different parts of the
  presidency and who have no homes or friends in Madras. The
  Government while assigning the above lands to Sir                   c
  Ramaswamy Mudaliar imposed certain conditions to the effect
  that the Choultry should be available for the free use of railway
  travelers, that the buildings constructed should be approved by
  the Government and more importantly, "that the land shall be
· liable to resumption, without compensation, if it ceases to be      D
  employed for the purpose for which it is granted or is used for
  any other purposes, without the permission of the Governmenf'.

      4. The said lands were granted and assigned in favour of
 Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar by GO Ms. Nos.763 and 253 dated
 09.12.1898 and 17.01.1899 respectively whereas the                   E
 conditions were incorporated in the following words "(1) that the
 land shall revert to Government when it ceases to be used for
 the purpose for which it is granted and (2) that should the
 property be at any time resumed by Government, the
 compensation payable, therefore, shall in no case exceed the         F
 cost or the then present value whichever shall be less of any
 building erected or other works executed on the land".

      5. Subsequently, under a Scheme Decree framed by the
  High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.S. No.90 of 1963 all        G
  the above mentioned properties held by Sir Ramaswami
  Mudaliar's Choultry were vested with the Administrator General
  and Official Trustee (hereinafter referred to as "the AG & OT)
  of Tamil Nadu on 18.08.1970. From then onwards the
· management of the Trust and the properties attached with it         H
    70        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 3 S.C.R


A were under the control of the AG & OT. As per the Scheme
  Decree, the AG & OT of Tamil Nadu leased out the lands in
  T.S. No.41 and T.S. No.43/2 to various tenants and was
  collecting the rent. As far as T.S. No.43/2 comprised in an extent
  of 5644 sq.ft. was concerned, the same was leased out to the
B first respondent herein under the lease deed dated 22.12.1972.
  According to the AG & OT, the First Respondent is in arrears
  and as on 31.12.2012, the arrears payable by the First
  Respondent works out to a sum of Rs.94,84,630/- which has
  been computed and determined by the High Court of Madras.
c It ts also stated that the First Respondent has preferred Special
  Leave Petition(C) No.11-12 of 2010 against the said
  determination and claim which is pending in this Hon'ble Court.

         6. According to the First Respondent, pursuant to the lease
    granted in his favour, which was registered as document 105
D   of 1974 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, West Madras, he
    constructed a Hotel and started the business in the year 1987.
    According to him, subsequently, an adjacent piece of land
    measuring 4141 sq. ft was granted on lease for a period of 30
    years to one Smt. Vatsala again based on the Order of the
E   High Court of Madras, which was also supported by a
    registered Lease Deed dated 29.04.1982 bearing Document
    No.1492/1984 registered in the office of the Registrar, Madras
    (North). The said Smt. Vatsala also stated to have transferred
    her lease hold right in respect of the said extent to the First
F   Respondent which was also stated to have been approved by
    the Official Trustee in the proceeding dated 05.04.1989 in
    R.O.C. No.2390of1989/0T. The First Respondent claimed to
    have put up two pucca structures and running two Star Hotels
    known as 'Hotel Central Tower' and 'Hotel Howrah'. The First
G   Respondent also claimed to have got the approval of the
    Municipality, State Government and other authorities and that
    the buildings were duly assessed for property tax and other
    statutory dues. By Order dated 10 12.2004 in Application
    No.915/2003, the lease in favour of the First Respondent was
H   stated to have been extended for a further period of 25 years
   M.D .. CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. !SMAIL &                71
  ORS. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

 by enhancing the rent payable by him. The First Respondent           A
 also relied upon an Order of the Division Bench of the High
 Court dated 20.08.2009 in support of the extension of the lease
 passed in O.S.A. No.298 of 2004 and connected batch cases.
 According to the First Respondent because of his old age and
 other physical ailments he entered into a partnership                B
 arrangement with the applicant in I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 in
 Special Leave Petition (C) No.26020-21 of 2013 under the
 partnership deed dated 28.03.2013.

        7. Be that as it may, having regard to the unprecedented
   growth of population in general, as well as with particular        C
.. reference to the Metropolitan City of Chennai, there was an
   imminent need for providing better transport facilities for the
   commuters and office goers, as well as business people, which
   persuaded the State to expand the rail transport facility in the
   City of Chennai. With that avowed object, the appellant in         D
   Special Leave Petition (C) No.26020-21 of 2013 came into
   being and the said Chennai Metro Rail Limited planned a
   project called 'Chennai Metro Rail Project' which envisaged
   construction of two corridors under Phase-1. Corridor 1 starts
   from Washermenpet and ends at Airport for a length of 23.1         E
   kms. and Corridor 2 starts from Chennai Central and ends at
   St. Thomas Mount Station for a length of 22 kms. As per the
   project, the portions of Corridor 1 with a length of 14.3 kms.
   between Washermenpet to Saidapet and in Corridor - 2 with
   a length of 9. 7 kms. from Chennai Central to Anna Nagar would     F
   be underground corridors and the remaining in an elevated
   position.

      8. The Chennai Metro Rail Limited is stated to be a
 Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) formed for the purpose of              G
 Implementing the 'Chennai Metro Rail Project'. The Project is
 stated to be funded by the Government of India and the State
 Government by way of equal equity contribution in subordinate
 debt. (Government of India 20%, Government of Tamil Nadu
 20.78% and the balance 59.22% being met from the loan                H
    72       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A assistance from Japan International Co-operation agency). The
  Government of India is stated to have accorded sanction for
  the project as well as for its participation.

          9. The lands concerned in these appeals are covered by
    the project, namely, .Corridor 1, i.e. from Washermenpet to
8
    Chennai Airport. According to the appellant, in Special Leave
    Petition (C) No.26020-21 of 2013, the project is a time bound
    project with an objective to ease out phenomenal growth of
    traffic congestion in the City of Chennai and any delay in
C   carrying out the project would affect the plans announced by the
    Government of India, as well as, the State Government, the
    convenience of the public of Chennai and further will lead to
    contractual implications such as extension of time and
    escalation of project costs, which in turn would cost the public
    exchequer several hundred crores of rupees. According to ,the
D   Chennai Metro, any further delay on any account, apart from
    causing high amount of cost escalation, would also deprive the
    citizens of Chennai a safe and quick means of public transport.
    It is stated that the Chennai Metro in its project report has
    described in detail the various length of the projects and in the
E   said statement, designed constructions of underground stations
    at Washermenpet, Mannadi, High Court, Chennai Central and
    Egmore and associated tunnels, the details of the location, the
    description, the access date from commencement of the works
    with particular reference to the number of days and the vacate
F   date from commencement of the work with particular reference
    of number of days is specified after making meticulous
    calculations.

      1O. Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned Additional Solicitor
G General appearing for the appellants brought to our notice the
  work which was to be carried out in the land concerned in this
  appeal which has been noted in the column under locations/
  drawing reference bearing No.SCC-14 and the description has
  been shown as entrance area. As far as access date is
  concerned, it is noted as 365 days from commencement of the
H
  M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. I.SMAIL &               73
 ORS. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
works and the date to be vacated after completion of the work       A
from the date of commencement is noted as 1520 days.
According to learned Additional Solicitor General, for the
purpose of starting the work in the land in question, as per the
schedule, the Chennai Metro should have access to the land
within 365 days of the commencement of the project and              B
complete the work in that land within 1520 days from the date
of such access. It was pointed out that such details have been
specified in the contract agreement and that to ensure that the
works are carried out without any deviation and within the time
schedule, the required plans were also prepared in so far as it     c
related to SCC-14 and was submitted with the details of lands
falling under Survey No.43/2. The learned Additional Solicitor
General also submitted that the said land were earmarked for
erecting a mechanical plant room, electrical plant room, building
services, drop-off and pick-up facilities and Airport check-in      D
facilities. The plan which were enclosed along with the Special
Leave Petition paper book between pages 164 to 167 disclose
the area falling under Survey No.43/2, the various facilities to
be set up in that land along with the other facilities to be
provided in the lands adjacent to the said Survey No.43/2.
                                                                    E
      11. It was also the case of the Chennai Metro that since
the lands in Survey No.43/2 belong to the State Government
and was imminently required for the Chennai Metro Project
which was out and out in public interest, the State Government
came forward to allot the said lands after retrieving it from Sir   F
Ramaswamy Mudaliar Choultry through the AG & OT and by
GO Ms. No.168 dated 21.05.2012 passed orders to that effect.
Before issuing the said GO, the procedure to be followed for
transfer of the said lands in favour of the Chennai Metro Pvt.
Limited were also carried out. As the lands belong to the State     G
Government there was no necessity for any acquisition being
involved or any payment of compensation to be made in favour
of anyone except for the Buildings standing thereon. Since the
State Government's participation is equal in proportion along
with the Government of India and inasmuch as the development        H
    74       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014] 3 S.C R.


A of the project was in the interest of the public at large the GO
  dated 21.05.2012 came to be issued.

          12. Aggrieved by the Order of the Government in GO Ms.
    No.168 of 21.05.2012, the First Respondent and various other
B   persons who were in possession of the other adjacent lands,
    which were also covered by the abovesaid GO, approached
    the High Court by filing Writ Petitions. The First Respondent's
    Writ Petitions were Writ Petition Nos.19469/2012 and 19470/
    2012 wherein he sought for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to
    call for the records of the proceedings in GO No.168 of
C   21.05.2012 and the consequential proceedings of the Tehsildar
    dated 21.06.2012 as well as the proceedings of the AG & OT
    dated 25.06.2012 and for quashing the said proceedings. It is
    stated that pursuant to the issuance of the GO Ms. No.168
    dated 21.05.2012, the Tehsildar of Fort Tondiarpet Taluk issued
D   a notice to AG & OT on 21.06.2012 for resumption of the land
    and handover vacant possession. Individual notices were also
    stated to have been issued to all the occupants including the
    First Respondent asking them to vacate the premises and
    remove their belonging and handover vacant possession. In
E   turn, the AG & OT by its notice 25.06.2012 called upon the First
    Respondent and the other tenants to vacate the premises
    immediately to enable the AG & OT to handover possession
    to Chennai Metro.

F      13. By Order dated 26.11.2012, the Writ Petitions filed by
  the First Respondent and other occupants came to be allowed
  by the learned Single Judge and the GO Ms. No.168 dated
  21.05.2012 was set aside. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the
  learned Single Judge the appellants herein preferred Writ
G Appeals 68 to 106 of 2013. The Division Bench after a detailed
  discussion allowed Writ Appeal Nos. 70 to 88 and 91 to 106
  of 2013 holding that the said Chennai Metro Rail Project, a joint
  venture of Central Government was to enhance the public
  transport system in Chennai and being a public project, any
  delay in implementation would oust the public purpose for which
H
 M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. ISMAIL &                    75
ORS. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
the lands were sought to be retrieved. However, Writ Appeal            A
Nos.68, 69, 89 and 90 of 2013 which related to the lands falling
under Survey No.43/2 which are in the possession of the First
Respondent were concerned, according to the Division Bench
the same stood on a different footing. The Division Bench in
its order held as under in paragraph 28:                               B

     "28. The map published by CMRL, showing various
     structures they are going to erect in the area, indicate that
 -   the area earmarked for CMRL project does not include the
     ease area of the writ petitioner in W.P. Nos.19469 and            C
     19470 of 2012 (connected to W.A. Nos. 68, 69, 89 and
     90 of 2013). It is also clear from the map that the entire
     lands required for the CMRL projects like the Underground
     Metro Station etc. are on the Northern side of the
     Poonamalle High Road, where vast extent of other vacant
     lands are available, including the erstwhile Hotel Picnic         D
     area. As already stated supra, pursuant to the lease deed
     entered into by this petitioner with AG & OT, this petitioner
     raised a huge construction with his own funds and doing
     his own business and the said lease has been extended
     upto the year 2027. No default of any sort on his part has        E
     been alleged by any of the parties. When the lands and
     building in possession and occupation of this petitioner are
     outside the purview of the CMRL project, as has been                  /
     discussed supra, ordering handing over of the vacant
     possession of the said lands by this petitioner for the           F
     purpose of CMRL, is nothing but requiring him to demolish
     the building in his possession. At this juncture we feel it
     apt to hold that ordering demolition of buildings, for no legal
     or useful purposes, is nothing but wastage of public
     resources. Given the facts and circumstances of the case          G
     that the lands and building raised by this petitioner are
     outside the purview of the CMRL and not in violation of any
     law, including the building and tenancy laws, we have no
     doubt to hold that the lands and building in possession and
     enjoyment of this petitioner are entitled to be excluded          H
    76       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 3 S.C.R. .


A        from the project area. Thereafter, the order passed by the
         learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 19469 of 2012 and
         19470 of 2012 stands modified and both the above writ
         petitions stand allowed. Consequently, W.A. Nos. 68, 69,
         89 and 90 stand dismissed."
B
         14. A reading of the said paragraph disclose that in its
  opinion the lands required for Central Chennai Metro Rail
  Project for locating its underground Metro Station etc. were all
  noted on the northern side of the arterial road namely
  Poonamallee High Road, that vast extent of other vacant lands
C were available including the erstwhile hotel called 'the Hotel
  Picnic' and that in so far as the first Respondent was
  concerned, he was granted a lease which is to be in operation
  till the year 2027 and on these two grounds the Division Bench
  took the view that the GO Ms.168 dated 21.05.2012 cannot be
D justified and confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge
  in WP 19469 of 2012 and 19470 of 2012 and dismissed the
  Writ Appeal Nos.68, 69, 89 and 90 of 2013.

        15. Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned Additional Solicitor
E General in his submission while assailing the Judgment of the
  Division Bench contended that the basis for setting aside the
  impugned GO Ms. No.168 dated 21.05.2012 by the Division
  Bench was that the land in question, namely, the one which fell
  within Survey No.43/2 was not part of the project land and that
F the First Respondent has been granted a lease by the AG &
  OT till the year 2027 and, therefore, the impugned GO cannot
  be sustained. The learned Additional Solicitor General by
  referring to the above paragraph 28 of the Division Bench
  submitted that the Division Bench thoroughly misled itself when
G it stated that the underground Metro Station has been planned
  in the project on the Northern side of the Poonamallee High
  Road where certain other lands are available which can be
  acquired and inasmuch as the First Respondent has got a long
  lease in his favour from the AG & OT, the Chennai Metro as
  well as the State Government was not justified in passing the
H
  M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. ISMAIL &             77
 ORS. [FAK~IR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

impugned GO dated 21.05.2012. In so far as the lands in A
Survey No.43/2, the learned Additional Solicitor General took
us to the plans which were part of the material papers placed
before the High Court which are now annexed and found in
pages 164-167 and submitted that while on the Northern side
of the Poonamallee High Road the underground Metro Station 8
has been planned, the present lands situated in Survey No.43/
2 as well as ,the adjacent lands in Survey No.41 have been
earmarked for various other important developments to be
carried out as part of the project such as the setting up of
mechanical plant rooms, electrical plant rooms, building c
services, drop-off and pick-up facilities and the Airport check-
in facilities in Survey No.43/2 and ventilation shaft, entry/exit,
sub way, feeder bus stand, multi-model facilities, pick-up and
drop-off bay, MTC Bus bay and fireman staircase in Survey
No.41 and that the entire lands in Survey No.41 and 43/2 belong D
to the State Government and, therefore, the Division Bench
unfortunately failed to advert to the above details which were
placed before it which resulted in the passing of the impugned
judgment.

      16. Learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted E
that as against. the Division Bench Judgment relating to the
other Writ Appeals which were allowed in favour of the Chennai .
Metro and State Government, Civil Appeal Nos.6065-6068 of
2013 and connected Special Leave Petitions were filed wherein
this Court taking note of the submission of learned Solicitor F
General that the State of Tamil Nadu would issue notices
inviting all the stake-holders liable to be affected by adverse
orders an opportunity to respond to the reasons which weighed
with the State Government to evict them from the premises in
question permitted the State Government to issue such notices G
and after getting the response from those parties pass
appropriate orders. Learned Additional Solicitor General also
submitted that the said exercise was carri13d out by issuing
notices and after receipt of the response, orders were passed
for taking over of the lands from the concerned occupants and H
    78        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014] 3 S C.R.


A   that fresh proceedings have been initiated by those occupants
    which are stated to be pending consideration before the High
    Court.

          17. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel
    appearing for the First Respondent also confirmed the said
8
    statement of learned Additional Solicitor General. Mr. Gopal
    Subramanium, however, contended that similar orders can be
    passed in these appeals also to enable the First Respondent
    to submit his response and, thereafter, the Appellants can pass
C   appropriate orders. The learned Senior Counsel for the First
    Respondent in his submission contended that in the sketch
    which are enclosed and kept at page 164 to 167 of the Special
    Leave Petition papers adjacent to the Survey No. 43/2, there
    were some other structures belonging to different parties and
    that the Appellants have excluded those lands on the footing
D   that some heritage building was located and, therefore, the First
    Respondent, whose leasehold lands are located closely
    adjacent to those left out built-up area, in the event of an
    opportunity being extended to the First Respondent, he will be
    able to satisfy the authorities to exclude his leasehold lands
E   also from the purview of taking over by the Chennai Metro. Mr.
    Gopal Subramanium also referred to an affidavit on behalf of
    Chennai Metro dated April, 2011 in O.S.A. No.100-101of2011
    to contend that the averments contained therein support the
    stand of the First Respondent to persuade the Chennai Metro
F   to look for some other alternate lands.

       18. While considering the submissions of learned
  Additional Solicitor General and Mr. ·Gopal Subramanium,
  learned Senior Counsel for the First Respondent, inasmuch as
G we find that the reasoning of the Division Bench in having stated
  that the underground Metro Station has been planned in a
  stretch of Land on the Northern side of the Arterial Road,
  namely, Poonamallee High Road and that certain other lands
  were available in that side and, therefore, there was no
  necessity for taking over the lands in the possession of the First
H
   M.D:, CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. !SMAIL &                   79
  ORS. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

  Respondent is patently a conclusion which was contrary to the          A
  records placed before the Division Bench and the same cannot
  be sustained. In other words, as rightly pointed out by learned
  Additional Solicitor General, the conclusion of the Division
  Bench that the lands concerned in these Appeals, namely, the
  one situated in Survey No.43/2 were not part of the project of         B
  the Chennai Metro was a wrong assimilation of facts. When it
  has been demonstrated before us based on the project details
· and the plan annexed with it, which disclose that the lands
  situated in Survey No.43/2 as well as Survey No.41 were all
  part o,f the projects for putting up various other ancillary units     c.
  such as mechanical plant rooms, electrical plant rooms, building
  services, drop-off and pick-up facilities, airport check-in
  facilities, ventilation shafts, subway, feeder bus stand, multi-
  modal facilities, pick-up and drop-off bay, MTC Bus bay,
  fire01an staircase, entry and exit points, if the taking over of the   D
  lands by the Chennai Metro is not allowed, the same would
  seriously prejudice and cause unnecessary hurdles in
  proceeding with the project. In our considered view, the failure
  of the Division Bench in noting the details displayed in the plan
  and the project which were placed before it has resulted in the
  passing of the impugned Order. The Division Bench failed to            E
  note that the project details pertaining to the proposed
  underground Metro Station and the other supporting provisions
  to be made such as mechanical plant rooms, electrical plant
  rooms, bus bay and other developments to be carried out
  spread over a vast extent of land both on the Northern si~e of         F
  the Poonamallee High Road as well as the lands situated on
  the Southern side of the said Road with which we are now
  concerned. Therefore, in the light of the above details placed
   before the Court which according to learned Additional Solicitor
   General was made available before the Division Bench also,            G
  we have no reason to reject the said submission in order to
   sustain the conclusion of the Division Bench. In other words,
   the conclusion of the Division Bench having been reached
   without properly examining the relevant documents relating to
   the Chennai Metro Project, namely, the plans, the project             H
    80        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A   schedule and the other averments placed before the Division
    Bench, the impugned order of the Division Bench cannot be
    sustained.

           19. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel
B    appearing for the First Respondent in support of his submission
     that the lands situated in Survey No.43/2 were not required at
     all for the purpose of carrying out the Metro Project and referred
     to an affidavit filed before the Division Bench by the Managing
     Director of Chennai Metro Rail Limited. The learned Senior
     Counsel submitted that in the said affidavit the reference to the
C    Metro Rail Station planned along the Poonamallee High Road
     has been stated and while referring to the same, a specific
     reference was made to the private buildings located opposite
    to Picnic Hotel and that acquisition of those private lands would
     cost dearly to the State Exchequer apart from evacuation of the
D   tenants/owners would consume considerable length of time
    which would in turn cause delay in the construction of the
     underground Station. When we perused the said affidavit which
     has been extracted· in the reply affidavit filed by the Managing
    Director of Chennai Metro in W.P. No.19469 of 2012, we find
E   that statement came to be made when a litigation was launched
    at the instance of Hotel Picnic and while meeting the stand of
    Hotel Picnic, it was stated that the above statement came to
    be made. We do not find any scope to reject the stand of the
    Appellant with reference to the lands situated in Survey No.43/
F   2 which had nothing to do with the construction of the
    underground Metro Station. Though, the various other units to
    be set up in the lands in Survey No.43/2 were also part of the
    Metro Project as has been demonstrated before us based on
    relevant documents, the reference to the Heritage Buildings and
G   other private buildings situated opposite to Hotel Picnic was
    referred to by Chennai Metro while pointing out its inability to
    plan the setting up of underground Metro Station in any other
    land except the lands where Hotel Picnic was situated.
    Therefore, the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel
H   for the First Respondent does not in any way support the stand
   M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. ISMAIL &                 81
  ORS. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
of the First Respondent. As far as the contention of Mr. Gopal        A
Subramanium that like in the case of other occupants wherein
a direction was issued by this Court to give a show cause
notice and decide the matter, the said contention cannot be
countenanced in this case inasmuch as before the Division
Bench of the High Court as well as before us the issue was            B
argued on merits. In fact, the Division Bench after hearing the
Appellants and the First Respondent allowed both his Writ
Petitions by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge
and thereby held that there was no necessity for a remand.
Therefore, since we have also decided the whole controversy           c
on merits there is no need for a remand.
    4
       20. Therefore, once we are convinced that the entitlement
  of the Appellant to hold the lands belonging to the State falling
  under Survey Nos.43/2 as well as 41 which the Appellant is able     D
  to take possession of from the State Government without
  payment of any compensation, the only other question to be
. examined is as to whether the lease granted in favour of the
  First Respondent by the AG & OT based on the directions of
  the High Court can have any implication in preventing the
  Appellant from taking over the lands. As noted earlier,             E
  indisputably the lands in Survey No.43/2 belong to the State.
  At the time when the lands were granted and assigned in favour
  of Sir Ramaswamy Mudaliar Trust vide GO Ms. Nos.763 and
  253 dated 09.12.1898 and 17.01.1899 respectively, conditions
  were imposed to the effect that the lands would revert bac;:k to    F
  the Government when it ceases to be used for the purpose for
  which it was granted and that should the property at any time
  resumed by Government, the compensation payable should in
  no case exceed the cost or the then present value whichever
  shall be less of any building erected or other works executed       G
  in the land. Though, learned Additional Solicitor General sought
  to contend as was also contended before the High Court that
  by leasing out the lands to different parties the condition No.1
  was violated, namely, that the land was put to different use than
  for what it was granted, we do not find any good grounds to         H
    82       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A accept the same. On the other hand, we find that the Trust itself
  was vested with the AG & OT on 18.08.1970 pursuant to a
  Scheme Decree framed by the High Court in C.S. No.90 of
  1963. From then onwards, the AG & OT was administering the
  Trust and Was apparently fulfilling the purpose for which the Trust
B came to be created, though, by leasing out the lands to different
  individuals for the purpose of generating income from the lands.
  The AG & OT by approaching the High Court, as and when
  required, seem to have granted the lease of the lands to
  different parties based on the orders passed by the High Court.
c       21. In so far as the First Respondent was concerned, his
  lease came into existence initially on 22.12.1972, and by Order
  dated 10.12.2004 in Application No.915 of 2003, the lease in
  favour of the First Respondent was extended for a further period
  of 25 years by enhancing the rent. The said order was also
D confirmed by the Division Bench in the Order dated 20.08.2009
  in O.S.A. No.298 of 2004. In the said circumstances, it cannot
  be held that the said possession with the First Respondent
  was unlawful. However, on that basis when it comes to the
  question of resumption of the land by the State Government
E when the Government through the AG & OT thought it fit to
  resume the lands which was in accordance with the terms
  contained in the Original Grant, namely, GOS No.763 and 253
  dated 09.12.1898 and 17.01.1899, there would be no scope
  for the First Respondent to contend that the Appellants are not
F entitled for the resumption of the lands situated in Survey No.43/
  2.
       22. We, therefore, hold that the State Government as the
  owner of the land and having rega(d to the right retained by it
G while making the grant in the years 1898 and 1899 and in the
  larger public interest of setting up of the Chennai Metro Project
  the lands were required by it, the same cannot be questioned
  by the Original Grantee or by the lessees whose holding was
  subordinate in character to the Original Grantee. Therefore, we
H do not find any justification in the Division Bench in having
   M.D., CHENNAI METRO RAIL LTD. v. N. ISMAIL &                  83
  ORS. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

 interfered with the impugned GO Ms. No.168 dated 21.05.2012           A
 and the consequential orders of the Tehsildar dated 21.06.2012
 and that of the AG & OT dated 25.06.2012 directing the First
 Respondent to handover possession of the lands.

       23. Therefore, while the impugned GO and the
                                                                       8
. consequential orders of the Tehsildar and AG & OT can be
· sustained, having regard to the condition contained in the initial
  GO Ms. Nos.763 and 253 dated 09.12.1898 and 17.01.1899
  since based on valid orders of the High Court and the AG &
  OT the First Respondent developed its Hotel business in the          C
  lands in question, while resuming the lands, the State
  Government along with the Chennai Metro is bound to
  compensate the First Respondent for the buildings which were
  erected in the said land in Survey No.43/2 based on the
  valuation to be made by the appropriate Authorities.
                                                                       D
      24. Therefore, while allowing the Appeals of the State
 Government as well as the Chennai Metro and while setting
 aside the Judgment of the Division Bench, Writ Appeal Nos.68, ·
 69, 89 and 90 of 2013 are allowed. VVe, however, direct the
 Appellants to value the buildings belonging to the First E
 Respondent standing in Survey No.43/2 and determine the
 compensation and pay the same to the First Respondent. The
 said exercise of valuation and payment of compensation shall
 be effected within three months from this date.

      25. In the light of our above orders, the First Respondent       F
 is directed to surrender possession of the lands in Survey
 No.43/2 in an extent of 5644 sq. ft. through the AG & OT within
 four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
 With the above directions, these appeals are allowed.
                                                                       G
 R.P.                                           Appeals allowed.