1. Land reserved for public purpose in a layout plan — subsequent sale by private owners — suit for permanent injunction against construction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1332
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Pradhan Babu And Others
A1: PRADHAN BABU
A2: SURENDIRABABU
A3: SUBRAMANIAN
A4: PAZHANIVEL
A5: RENGANAYAKI
A6: CHANDIRA
A7: SELVAGANAPATHY
A8: SAVITHRI
A9: HEMAMALINI
A10: MUTHUKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam And Others
R1: NACHIMUTHU NAGAR KUDIYIRUPPOR NALA SANGAM REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
R2: NACHIMUTHU NAGAR KUDIYIRUPPOR NALA SANGAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
R3: THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MAYILADHUTHURAI MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 2023
Decided on : 28-08-2024
Important Points
The court ruled that property reserved for public purpose is deemed released from such reservation if not acquired within three years, allowing the original owner to transfer ownership.
Subject
Property Law - Land Use and Zoning
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 - Section 38 - Appeal against High Court's order restoring Trial Court's injunction - Suit property reserved for public purpose but not acquired by Government - Appellants argued that property deemed released from reservation after three years of non-utilization - High Court's reversal of First Appellate Court's decision found erroneous. (Paras 9-24)
(B) Permanent injunction - Suit filed by Society against appellants for encroachment - Court held that no legal encumbrance existed on the suit land, allowing appellants' appeal. (Paras 24-26)
Facts of the case:
The appellants purchased the suit property, originally reserved for public purpose, but claimed it was released from such reservation due to non-acquisition by the Government. The Society sought an injunction against construction on the property.
Findings of Court:
The suit was dismissed as the appellants had the right to transfer the property, and the Society had no cause of action.
Issues: Whether the suit property was legally encumbered and if the appellants had the right to construct on it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the property was not acquired for public purpose, and the appellants retained ownership rights, thus the Society's suit was without merit.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Permanent injunction - Suit filed by Society against appellants for encroachment - Court held that no legal encumbrance existed on the suit land, allowing appellants' appeal. (Paras 24-26)
Facts of the case:
The appellants purchased the suit property, originally reserved for public purpose, but claimed it was released from such reservation due to non-acquisition by the Government. The Society sought an injunction against construction on the property.
Findings of Court:
The suit was dismissed as the appellants had the right to transfer the property, and the Society had no cause of action.
Issues: Whether the suit property was legally encumbered and if the appellants had the right to construct on it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the property was not acquired for public purpose, and the appellants retained ownership rights, thus the Society's suit was without merit.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R Nedumaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Beno Bencigar, Adv. Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv. Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv. Mr. Bharathi Subramaniayan, Adv. Mr. V Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. M/S. Ksn & Co., AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R Nedumaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Beno Bencigar, Adv. Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv. Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv. Mr. Bharathi Subramaniayan, Adv. Mr. V Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. M/S. Ksn & Co., AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants: Reservation lapsed under Section 38(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972. Respondents: Earmarked land cannot be converted to private property. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 )
3. The planning authority failed to acquire the land via agreement or declaration under Section 37, meaning the land never lost its private character. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Land reserved for public purpose is deemed released from reservation under Section 38(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972, if not acquired within three years. (Para 22 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court and Trial Court orders set aside — First Appellate Court's judgment restored. (Para 24 , 25 )
6. What happens to land reserved for public purpose in a development plan if the government fails to acquire it?
Under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972, if no declaration is published or the land is not acquired by agreement within three years from the notice publication, the land is deemed released from such reservation. (Para 21 , 22 )
7. Does earmarking land for public purpose in a layout plan automatically transfer ownership to the state or public?
No. Earmarking indicates an intention for public use, but ownership remains with the private owner until the state follows the acquisition procedure under Section 37 of the Act. (Para 20 , 22 )
8. Can a private owner sell land that was previously reserved for public purpose if the reservation has lapsed?
Yes. Once the deeming provision under Section 38(b) operates to release the land from reservation, the original owner retains the right, title, and interest to transfer the property. (Para 22 )
ORDER :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal arises from the Final Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in S.A. No.794 of 2019, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed setting aside Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2019 passed in A.S. No.71 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai (hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate Court”) and confirming Judgment and Decree, dated 13.09.2017, passed in O.S. No.265 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit”) on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”).
A FACTUAL APPRECIATION:
3. For the creation of Nachimuthu Nagar, plots were formed in T.S. No.1000/1, & 2, 1002, 1003/1 & 2, 1004 of Thirumanjanaveethi, Koorainadu, Mayiladuthurai Town by one Nachimuthu Mudaliar. This was approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Town Planning, Thanjai, Trichy and the Municipal Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai. The layout was approved in 1978 and later revised in 1981. In the Layout, a portion was earmarked for public purpose for the welfare of the residents of Nachimuthu Nagar. That earmarked site is the suit land/property admeasuring 11200 square feet.
4. It is the case of the appellants that Nachimuthu Mudaliar died on 29.04.2004 and the suit property was sold by his legal heirs through a Sale Deed on 20.04.2009 to the Appellants No.6-10. Thereafter, vide an Exchange Deed dated 27.03.2013, Appellants no.4 & 5 (parents of Appellant no.1) were put in possession of a total area of 6145 square feet of the suit property. On the same day, through a Sale Deed, the Appellants no.2 & 3 (brother and father-in-law of the Appellant no.1, respectively) purchased the remaining 5055 square feet in the suit property. The cause of action is said to have arisen in October 2013, when Appellant no.1 made clear his intention of constructing a building on the suit property.
5. Respondents no.1 and 2 are the office-bearers of Nachimuthu Nagar Resident Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”), which is registered with the District Registrar, Mayiladuthurai. They are the original plaintiffs in the suit, which was originally filed against Appellant No.1 (later on, Appellants no.2-10 were impleaded[1 [Appellant nos.2-5 were impleaded vide Order of the Trial Court dated 21.02.2014. Appellant nos.6-10 were impleaded vide Order of the Trial Court dated 17.12.2014.]] in the suit). The suit sought the grant of “relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, from in any manner, encroaching upon the suit property and put up any construction or disturbing in any manner.” (sic).
6. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, noted that permission should have been obtained from the Joint Director for changing the public purpose site and to sell the same, in the manner in which approval was obtained for Nachimuthu Nagar layout. In the absence of such permission, the legal heirs of Nachimuthu Mudaliar did not have a right to change the character of the suit property. Further, it was noted that the Family Partition Deed dated 31.07.1980, on the basis of which Sale Deed dated 20.04.2009 was created, was not produced before the court. The Trial Court opined, hence, that the Sale Deed 20.04.2009 was not legally proved. Consequently, the subsequent Sale Deed and Exchange Deed (mentioned supra) made in favour of the appellants was also held not to have been proved. On this basis, the Trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction against the appellants, as was sought.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal viz. A.S. No.71 of 2017 before the First Appellate Court. On consideration of the iss
