Madras Race Club case | Tamil Nadu govt. and its Revenue Secretary have contradicted each other on backing A-G’s statements, says Madras High Court

Madras High Court addresses contradictions between Tamil Nadu government and Revenue Secretary regarding land possession.

The Madras High Court on Thursday recorded that the Tamil Nadu government and its Revenue Secretary P. Amudha had contradicted each other on the issue of taking possession of the government lands leased out to Madras Race Club (MRC) at Guindy in Chennai.

Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, in more than one place, recorded in his order that the stand taken by the State government and the Revenue Secretary, with respect to backing a submission made by Advocate General (A-G) P.S. Raman, “were contradictory with each other.”

He observed that though a statement was made before him that the “State” stands by the statements made by the A-G before a Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and K. Rajasekar in a connected case on September 9, the Revenue Secretary had “disowned” the statements made by the A-G .

Justice Raman allowed an application filed by MRC to dispense with the requirement of issuing a two-month long pre-suit notice before filing a civil suit against pre-mature termination of a 99-year-long lease agreement executed in its favour in 1946 with respect to 160.86 acres.

He agreed with senior counsel A.L. Somayaji that there was an urgency for the club to file the suit immediately without waiting for two months and hence it must be exempted from the mandatory requirement prescribed under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The judge pointed out that senior counsel Dushyant Dave and P. Wilson, representing the Revenue Secretary, had argued that there was no urgency at all since the Chennai Collector had already taken possession of the leased lands from MRC at 8 am on September 9.

The two senior counsel had also claimed that a statement made to the contrary by the A-G before a Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and K. Rajasekar on September 9 was not a correct statement. Mr. Dave had claimed that the A-G’s statement was “a mistake of fact.”