1. Allotment of land earmarked for public convenience under a sanctioned town planning scheme — cancellation of allotment — unauthorized construction — challenge to cancellation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1189
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Mrs. Ramani - Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Slum-Clearance Board & Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9120-9121 of 2015
Decided on : 24-11-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
A person who has put up construction despite restrain order, cannot claim any equity.
A person who has put up construction despite restrain order, cannot claim any equity.
Subject
Land Use and Zoning - Public Use
Headnote
Town Planning – Demolition of Unauthorised Construction – Cancellation of allotment of plot – Plot in question was reserved/earmarked for public convenience for residents of locality/colony which could not have been allotted in favour of individual and construction put up by petitioner was absolutely illegal and unauthorised – When land earmarked for public convenience was taken away and was allotted in favour of private individual, residents and locals were deprived of right to use plot for public convenience and writ appellant can be said to be an aggrieved person with order passed by Single Judge – Petitioner cannot claim any equity – Petitioner put up construction despite restrain order – View taken by High Court upheld. (Paras 5 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2006 in Writ Appeal (WA) No. 1785/1999 and subsequent order dated 22.12.2014 in Review Petition No. 145/2006 in WA No. 1785/1999 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras, original allottee of the land in question has preferred present Special Leave Petitions.
Findings of Court:
No error has been committed by Division Bench of the High Court quashing and setting aside judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the cancellation of allotment.
Result : Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.S. Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Arumugam, Adv. Ms. A. Priadharshini, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. R. Jawahar Lal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bawa, Adv. Mr. Anuj Grge, Adv. Mr. Mohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR. Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Adv. Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. G.S. Mani, Adv. Mr. R. Arumugam, Adv. Ms. A. Priadharshini, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. R. Jawahar Lal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bawa, Adv. Mr. Anuj Grge, Adv. Mr. Mohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR. Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Adv. Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Land reserved for public utility cannot be allotted to individuals — unauthorized construction despite pending litigation and lack of approval precludes claims of equity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Residents of a locality are aggrieved persons entitled to challenge the allotment of land reserved for public convenience to a private individual. (Para 6 )
4. Special Leave Petitions dismissed. (Para 8 )
5. Do residents of a locality have the locus standi to challenge the allotment of land reserved for public utility to a private individual?
Yes. Residents are considered aggrieved persons as they are intimately and adversely affected when development authorities deprive them of facilities reserved for public enjoyment and health under a sanctioned scheme. (Para 6 )
6. Can land earmarked for public convenience in a sanctioned town planning scheme be allotted to a private individual?
No. Land reserved for public utility or convenience under a sanctioned layout scheme must be used for that purpose and cannot be legally allotted to a private individual. (Para 5 , 7 )
7. Can a party claim equity for construction carried out without sanctioned plans and in violation of a cancellation order?
No. A party cannot claim equity when construction is unauthorized, performed without sanctioned building plans, and carried out despite knowledge of litigation and cancellation of allotment. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2006 in Writ Appeal (WA) No. 1785/1999 and subsequent order dated 22.12.2014 in Review Petition No. 145/2006 in WA No. 1785/1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, the original allottee of the land in question has preferred the present Special Leave Petitions.
2. As the petitioner herein was allotted a plot bearing No. 25 in Thirumoolar Colony Scheme area by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The petitioner paid all the amounts payable in pursuance of the said allotment. She was also issued with a No Objection Certificate for obtaining water connection and drainage connection. However, before putting up any construction, she was required to obtain the permission from Chennai Municipal Corporation to put up construction. The petitioner applied for approval of the building plan on 15.03.1996. But without waiting for the approval to be granted to the building plan, she proceeded with the construction. It appears that the plot in question was earmarked as “public convenience.” A civil suit bearing OS No. 326/1996 was filed against the Board so as to restrain the Board in making allotment to the individual. Hence, the plot allotted to the petitioner was required for the “public purpose.” At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) originally granted approval to the layout in the scheme “town planning scheme” which showed the land in question to be earmarked for “public convenience.” However, since the plot allotted to the petitioner was required for the public purpose, the CMDA did not approve the proposal for making the allotment. That thereafter, the Slum Clearance Board cancelled the allotment of the plot in question by proceedings dated 03.06.1996. It appears that despite the order of cancellation vide proceedings dated 03.06.1996, the petitioner continued with the unauthorized construction and even without the building plan getting sanctioned/approved. According to writ appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court, the petitioner along with 50 persons stormed into the colony and began demolishing the public lavatory. Therefore, writ petition came to be filed before the High Court being Writ Petition No. 11868/1996 and W.M.P. No. 16016/1996, directing the Slum Clearance Board to remove illegal construction by submitting that there are above 400 families residing in the said colony therefore, the Slum Clearance Board has constructed public toilets, bathrooms, etc., in plot No. 25 to cater the needs of the residents of the locality.
2.1 The petitioner herein filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge being Writ Petition No. 10441/1996 challenging order 03.06.1996 cancelling the allotment, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition setting aside the cancellation of the allotment by observing that there was no jurisdiction with the Slum Clearance Board to cancel the allotment.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, respondent No. 2 herein – Thirumoolar Colony has preferred the present writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by a detailed judgment and order has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that as the plot was intended for a public purpose under the layout for the scheme approved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the same was intended for a public purpose, the same could not have been allotted in favour of an individual and also by observing that construction put up by the petitioner herein was absolutely illegal and un-authorized construction even without getting the building plan sanctioned by the Chennai Municipal Corporation.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court the origin
