queries raised to the lawyer..

Hello Friends,

I along with few friends in Dubai and other parts of UAE raised the following questions to Parthe Bhaskar's lawyer on 7th Nov 2010. Apart from the emails we also received a hard copy of the legal notice on 8th Nov 2010.

I am posting these questions and their answers as we had a detailed discussion on 9th Nov 2010, late evening. Most of us here are unable to attend the customer meeting to be held. Some of you might have similar queries, please check with ozone management on the same. Staying away from home leaves us a little worried on this situation.

R Venkatesan
Mobile:+971559396919
An overall view on the issue in the form of Questionnaire

Q: Who is this Parthi Baskar @ Balakrishnan?

A: Parthi Baskar is the elder son of Late R.D.Baskar, who was a leading producer of many Tamil Films including the films starred by Rajnikanth and Kamal Haasan and the elder brother of Popular Music Director Ilayaraja and Director Gangai Amaran. Parthi bhaskar’s father produced 17 movies so far.


Q: How Parthi Baskar is related to this issue?

A: The owners of the disputed land approached Parthi’s Father viz. R.D.Baskar, being one of the known personality of their community to protect their property and all of them gave a power of attorney to do all things and handed over the original title deeds to him. After his demise, the said owners continue to have the same trust on his son viz. Parthi Baskar and transferred the said power by executing a set of power of attorney, duly registered in the respective registration office in 1996. Accordingly, he continues to hold the same till now.

Q: Whether Parthi Baskar holds the power of attorney for all, even now?

A: Of course, some principals have cancelled it. But, the thing is even a single land owner can claim his share over the property. Parthi Baskar is having power of attorney for majority of the owners. No one, including Ozone states that he is not at all having the power of attorney.

Q: Which is the disputed property?

A : vacant land to an extent of 3 Acres in Survey No. 230/7A ,and 1.76 Acres of vacant land in Survey No. 229/1A, situated in No.79, Thirumangalam village near Koyambedu - Annanagar.

Q: How these lands relate to Ozone Projects (Metrozone)? Where they are situated?
A: M/s. Ozone Projects claims to have purchased the said lands including adjacent lands from one M/s. Krishna Tiles (in short form KT) and Potteries Ltd. in 2006 and now includes the same in Metrozone Project.

3 Acres of land in Survey No. 230/7A is situated at the front side in Metrozone Project (near the dome) and the same is major portion of common entrance of the project.

1.76 Acres of land in Survey No. 229/1A is situated at the rear portion in the project site.

Q: What right Krishna Tiles was holding?
A: KrishnaTiles was claiming that they have got a patta proceeding in their favour, passed by Settlement Officer, Chittoor.
Q: Is a patta proceeding itself is enough to claim title?

A: No. A person who claims title must have original title deeds.

Q: Ok. Whether Krishna Titles was having title deeds in respect of disputed property?

A: No.

Q: If so, who is having the original Title deeds for those lands?
A: The title deeds are with Parthi Baskar only, till now.

Q: Then, how Krishna Tiles sold out the disputed property to Ozone Projects? Moreover, how Ozone developers purchased such disputed property without title deeds?

A: When KT does not have the title / deeds, it can not sell the property to any one. Similarly, the purchase of the same by Ozone is also not proper.

Q: Ok. What steps were taken by Parthi Baskar to protect his principals’ right over the property?

A: Parthi bhaskar has challenged the registration the above sale in favor of Ozone projects by Krishna Tiles to declare the same as illegal one and a case filed in the City Civil Court, Chennai is still pending.
Q: Then, how Ozone group has got Planning Permission (in short “PP”) from CMDA (chennai metropolitan development authority)?

A: Ozone claims that they are the absolute owners for the properties, by showing the sale deeds executed by Krishna Tiles in their favour. But the same is challenged before the court of law.

Q: Whether Parthi Baskar objected to grant of PP?

A: yes. He also sent repeated objections to CMDA. He mainly contended that a case in W.P.No. 12613/2001 as to the right over subject properties is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

Q: What is W.P.No. 12613/2001?

A: Parthi Baskar has got an order in favour of his principals from the Director of survey and settlement (DoSS), Chennai, who has, by an order dt. 05.07.1999, ordered to grant patta to Parthi Baskar in respect of above said lands. Against which, KrishnaTiles has filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration (CLA), who by his order DT. 14.05.2001 partly reversed the order of DoSS, against which W.P.No. 12613/2001 was filed by Parthi Baskar and the same is still pending in High Court.

Q: Whether Parthi has got any interim order in his favour in the above writ petition?

A: A two judges’ Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Madras High Court, observed that in the event of success in W.P.No. 12613/2001, Parthi Baskar’s Principals would be put back in possession of the subject lands.

Q: Whether the subject lands are included in Metrozone?

A: yes. A perusal of the schedule given in Agreement for Sale executed by Ozone Projects in favour of all purchasers reveals that S.No. 230/7A and 229/1 are included.

Q: Once a building is constructed on the subject lands. Then how the order of “put back in possession” would be implemented?

A: That is not the headache of the promoter, who conceals the said order and they will go away after selling to everyone. It is for the purchaser to face such situation.

Q: In that case, are the purchasers not entitled to know the stage of the legal proceedings?

A: Certainly. That’s the reason why, steps are being taken to include the purchasers also into the pending litigation, so that they would be aware of the proceedings and moreover they can protect their right also, as they are investing their hard-earned money for their dream house.

Q: How CMDA has granted PP, when litigations are pending in courts?

A: An earlier occasion, when KT tried to get planning permission for the same site, their application was not entertained by CMDA ,they returned the application for want of final orders of the court in W.P.No. 12613/2001. But, now Ozone managed to get PP for the reasons best known to them. It is also very important thing that CMDA and other government officials are not at all the authority to decide the ownership on the land. The competent court only has such power to decide the ownership, title and right of possession

Q: How CMDA has taken two different view on the same request for PP in respect same site, when W.P.No. 12613/2001 is pending?

A: That is the million-dollar question before everyone now.

CMDA has not informed the Government about the pendency of W.P.No. 12613/2001, while recommending for planning permission and concealed many of the material facts.

That’s the reason why, the Hon’ble High Court very recently by an order dt. 31.08.2010 in Crl.O.P.No.10255 / 2010 directed the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department, Chennai to investigate the issue and register the case, after the preliminary enquiry.
Q: Whether any challenge is made against grant of PP?

A: yes. Parthi has filed two writ petitions in the high court challenging the decision of CMDA in granting PP to Ozone and both are pending in High Court.

Q: What are the cases pending on this issue?

A: W.P No 12613 of 2001 – pending in the High court of Chennai
W. P No 20093 of 2009 – pending in the High court of Chennai
W. P No 24613 of 2008- Pending in the High court of Chennai
O.S no 4215 of 2008 – pending XI Asst.City Civil court of Chennai
C.S No 496 of 2010 – pending at the High court of Chennai
W. P No 24522 of 2001 – pending at the High court of Chennai
7.W. P No 17579 of 2008 – pending at the High court of Chennai


Q: ok, what will be the fate of the above cases? When all the cases will be over?

A: Both parties are at liberty to approach appellate court till Supreme Court and the period for disposal is uncertain.

Q: Pending litigation, if any apartment is purchased, what will happen?

A: Then it would not only be the purchase of house but also the case.

Q: How can one prevent another to purchase a property, relating which no encumbrance is reflected in Encumbrance Certificate? That too when the purchasers are satisfied with the regular check-up before entering into an agreement for sale and convinced with the undertaking given by the seller.

A: you are right. No one can compel another either to purchase or not to purchase a property. But when one’s right is affected by a purchase made by another, the aggrieved party can prevent such acts. All the more, everybody would be cautious before going for purchase of property, that too nowadays every purchaser must be very careful.

There is no practice or procedure to reflect the litigations of a particular property in the Encumbrance Certificates of the concerned property. Hence, the present litigations are not reflected in EC.

Ozone did not give any undertaking with regard to S.No. 230/7A and 229/1A and it gave an undertaking regarding S.No. 230/2 only (extent of 1.77 Acres), which belongs to Arulmigu Thirumangaleeswarar Temple, regarding which an order of status quo is granted in S.L.P. (CC) No. 14469 / 2008 and the same is in force. Ozone also puts up a board on the disputed site and fenced the same only.


Q: Is it right to say that the project is in 42 Acres, as published by Ozone?

A: Absolutely wrong. When ozone itself puts a board on the disputed land of 1.77 Acres and cases are pending relating to 4.76 Acres., the mentioning of 42 Acrs is totally wrong.

Q: Who has to disclose all the litigation details, when the purchasers are innocent?

A: In all fairness, the seller/promoter has to do it. But, think yourself, whether such thing has happened. In the absence of such thing, the party, whose right is affected, would have no other way except to inform everyone.

Q: Is the subject land having any past history, other than the above cases?

A: Yes. There were number of litigations pending among the family members of M/s. Krishna Tiles Ltd. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme court directed to register a case in matter of an earlier sale agreement entered into by them with one Mr.Vishvanathan and based on which, a charge sheet has been laid by the crime branch police,CHENNAI team 3. pls go online and you’ll find the order copy…CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1869 OF 2008 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO.1707 OF 2006 ..
M.Vishwanathan vs M/S S.K. Tiles & potteries p.ltd & ors
Judjement given by JUDGE ARIJIT PASAYAT,J

Q: Ok. Once PP is granted by CMDA, why do the purchasers worry?

A: CMDA is not the final authority to decide the issue. It may grant planning permission subject to judicial review, but can not decide the title or right of the parties. It is the court to decide the questions in the pending litigations.

Q: When the purchasers entered into an agreement, then the seller/promoter will not save us?

A: It is all the belief of every purchaser. But, no one can represent others before the court of law in the absence of any power of attorney. Thus, such assurance would not be a practical one.

Q: Then, what is the remedy now for a purchaser of an apartment in Metrozone?

A: It is your money. You have to decide. All the best. Your money is valuable for you. Our right is more valuable for us