E. JEEVANANDAM versus N. KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. on 23 January 2023

1. The petitioner was the Chairperson of the erstwhileMaduravoyal Town Panchayat. On 28 November 2001, during his tenureEas Chairperson, a resolution was passed by the local body to providesewerage facilities to the area enclosing alistof streets in which wardNo 147 of Rukmani Nagar Road, Chennai was included. A scheme wasprepared in terms of the request made by the local body.

F2. On 3 June 2009, the Government accorded administrativesanction for spending an amount of Rs 57.45 crores. The schemecommenced on 18 August 2009. Sewerage facilities were laid sincethere was no objection except for an area covering 110 meters at RukmaniNagar Road. The sewerage main was laid down both upstream andGdownstream of Rukmani Nagar except to the extent of the 110 meters.The petitioner purchased the property in 2011, inclusive of the road overwhich the proposed sewerage line was sought to be laid.

3. Certain civil disputes are pending before the civil court as regardsthe claim of the petitioner in regard to the ownership of the land. NoticeH

E. JEEVANANDAM v. N. KOTESWARA RAO & ORS.[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

was issued to the petitioner under Section 67(3) of the ChennaiMetropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1978[1]. The petitionersuggested that an alternative route should be taken for laying thesewerage line. On 19 June 2015, an order was passed invoking theprovisions of Section 67(3) of the 1978 Act. This gave rise to a writpetition at the behest of the petitioner.

4. During the course of the hearing of the writ petition, the SingleJudge was informed that almost the entire work was completed saveand except to the extent of 110 meters along the Rukmani Nagar Road.The Single Judge held that the residents of three streets would be deprivedof sewerage facilities if a realignment as sought by the petitioner wereto be granted. The Single Judge observed as follows:

“Residents of the three streets would be deprived of the facility ifthe realignment as sought for by the petitioner is undertaken. Theroad has been shown as a public road as stated in the counteraffidavit filed, through various documents. In fact it has been shownas such. Even during the tenure of the chairmanship of the petitioner,the scheme was contemplated and proposed by the local body.The road has also been relaid by the local body on two occasions.It is only a link road between Ganga Nagar and Rukmani Nagar.”

5. After noting that the petitioner was himself a party to theresolution in 2001 in- spite of which he had purchased the property in2011, the Single Judge dismissed the petition. The Single Judge observedthat prima facie it appeared that there was a public road which wasbeing used for the last few decades and the petitioner who had dealtwith the issue in a different capacity in 2001 could not be stated to beunaware of the laying of the sewer line, having purchased the propertysubsequently in 2011.

6. The petitioner instituted an appeal against the order of the SingleJudge. On 27 April 2017, a Division Bench of the High Court disposedof the appeal by directing the State government to choose a better optionso as to minimize the damage that could be caused to the petitioner by 1 “1978 Act”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Alaying the sewer main and sewer pumping station in the land of thepetitioner.

7. In the meantime, a Pubic Interest Litigation[2]was institutedbefore the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The petitioner wasimpleaded as sixth respondent to the writ petition. The PIL was institutedBon behalf of the residents of Ward No. 147 who sought a direction forthe completion of the underground drainage work so as to enable themto have the benefit of a sewerage facility. The residents submitted that15,000 families were affected because of the failure to lay pipelinesalong the stretch of the 110 meters connecting the underground drainageCto the pumping station.

8. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 3 October 2017,adverted to the writ petition instituted by the petitioner which was dismissedby the Single Judge of 4 April 2017. The Division Bench also noted thatDthere was an appellate order of 27 April 2017. After having noticed theprovisions of the statute, the Division Bench disposed of the writ petitionby directing the Board to lay the pipelines and complete the undergrounddrainage within three months. The last paragraph of the order indicatesthat the petitioner was directed to be impleaded as the sixth respondent,Etogether with the final order disposing of the petition.

9. The challenge in the first Special Leave Petition is to the orderof the Division Bench dated 3 October 2017 by which the authoritieshave been directed to complete the laying of the drainage line. Thecompanion Special Leave Petition has been instituted by the ChennaiFMetropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board for challenging the orderdated 27 April 2017 of the Division Bench.

10. As regards the first of the two Special Leave Petitions underArticle 136 of the Constitution, the petitioner does have a legitimategrievance that an order was passed in the PIL directly affecting theGrights of the petitioner without furnishing an adequate opportunity ofbeing heard. As noted earlier, the order for the impleadment of thepetitioner was passed when the PIL was disposed of finally on 3 October2017.

H2 “PIL”

E. JEEVANANDAM v. N. KOTESWARA RAO & ORS.[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

11. Ordinarily, we would have been inclined to set aside theimpugned order of the High Court and to remit the proceedings back forfresh consideration. That however would not resolve the substance ofthe controversy. When the Special Leave Petition arising from the orderof the Division Bench dated 3 October 2017 was entertained by thisCourt on 27 October 2017, while issuing notice, the Court observed thatif the petitioner succeeds, he shall be entitled to compensation inaccordance with law. In the absence of an order of stay, the work oflaying the sewerage line has been completed. The developmental workwhich has been carried out by the Board is in the form of a public amenityto the residents of the area. The title of the petitioner is by no meansfree from doubt since it is the subject matter of a civil dispute.

12. In this backdrop, setting aside the impugned order of theDivision Bench would give rise to further complications since at thisstage it would be difficult to restore the status quo ante by directing theremoval of the sewerage line. Ultimately, the claim of the petitioner atthe highest would be for the payment of damages and for compensationfor the laying of the sewerage line subject to the rights of the petitionerto the property being established in accordance with law.

13. For the above reasons, having heard Ms Kiran Suri, seniorcounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr Jaideep Gupta,senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, we are of the consideredview that the relief which should be granted to the petitioner would be toallow him the liberty to pursue his rights and remedies in accordancewith law for establishing a case of compensation and for the award ofdamages subject to his rights to the land being established in a competentcourt.

14. The challenge by the Board to the order of the Division Benchdated 27 April 2017 does not require to be enquired into at this stage inview of the subsequent developments; the work of laying the sewer linehaving been duly completed.

15. Both the Special Leave Petitions shall accordingly standdisposed of subject to the above observations by which the Court has A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1104SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Agranted liberty to the petitioner in the first Special Leave Petition topursue his claim for compensation in accordance with law and forestablishing his title to the land on which the sewerage line has been laid.

B

16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

SLPs disposed of.

C

D

E

F

G

H