Back
2002 Supreme(Mad) 770
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
Besant Nagar Residents Forum - Appellant
Versus
The Member Secretary & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.1712 of 1996 and W.M.P. No. 2632 of 1996
Decided On : 16 August 2002
The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of reclassification of land use under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and the authority's power to effect variation to land use in accordance with the Act and relevant rules.
Headnote:
Illegal Reclassification - Land Use - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act No.35 of 1972) - Sections 32, 33, Rule 13(a)(i), 13(b)(i) - The court discussed the reclassification of land from Primary Residential Use Zone to Institutional Use Zone, the authority's power to effect variation to land use under the Act, and the guidelines for such variation. The court highlighted the validity of the authority's action under the mentioned sections and rules, and emphasized the steps taken for water supply and traffic management in the area.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to declare the reclassification of the zone in Besant Nagar as illegal, citing violation of statutory guidelines and inconvenience to residents. The respondents defended the reclassification, stating that it was done in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and subsequent approvals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reclassification was valid and in compliance with the Act and relevant rules. It noted that the authority had the power to effect variation to land use and had adequately considered objections and examined the matter before making the decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the reclassification of the zone from Primary Residential Use Zone to Institutional Use Zone was justified and in accordance with the statutory guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority's action was valid under the relevant sections and rules of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and that the objections raised by the petitioners had been adequately examined before the decision was made.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Besant Nagar Residents Forum through its Secretary has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of Declaration declaring the impugned Resolution No.137/95 dated 13.9.1995 of the Member Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority reclassifying the zone in site S.No.46 Part, 47 Part and 49 Part, Urur Village as illegal, excess of jurisdiction against the statutory guidelines of reclassification, and causing inconvenience to the free and peaceful living of the residents of the Besant Nagar area.
2. The case of the petitioner forum is briefly stated here under.
The petitioner forum is a registered body of the residents of Besant Nagar, registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner’s main grievance is that Besant Nagar, being a "Primary Residential Zone", the decision of the 1st respondent to reclassify the zone into "Institutional Zone" and thereby permitting huge Central Government office complex to be built in S. No.46 (Part), 47 and 49 of Urur Village is in gross violation of the statutory guidelines required under the relevant Act. The decision of the first respondent caused grave concern to the residents regarding threat to their peaceful life in all respects for which the original classification of their zone was made. They took appropriate legal measures to the original resolution which has been since confirmed and ratified the impugned resolution in W.P. No.5678 of 1988 and followed by W.A. No.396 of 1989. The petitioners were successful before this Court in their challenge against the respondent's resolution of reclassification. The first respondent took a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court in December, 1991 which was finally disposed of on 25.10.1995. The 1st respondent in abuse of process of Court, taking advantage of the pendency of the matter in the Apex Court, permitted the 2nd respondent to complete the construction even before deciding the dispute and conducted a farce enquiry into the petitioners' claim against reclassification and passed a non-speaking impugned resolution. The enquiry into their objection was not conducted in the manner as required by the Apex Court. The initial decision on reclassification was made when there was no guidelines at all available. Further, the 'Institutional zone' does not permit a Central Government office activity. Besides that the assurance regarding water facility was made in respect of the two water schemes (Veeranam, and Krishna), the feasibility of which being as infinite as the possibility of happening of so many immortal things, hence the writ petition.
3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made in the petition. It is stated that the 1st respondent carried out necessary surveys and studies and prepared the master plan which includes Development Control Rules and the same was approved by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2395, Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 4.12.1976, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act No.35 of 1972) (in short "the Act") Power to vary an approved master plan by the Government has subsequently been delegated to the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.419 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 1.6.1984. This enables the Member Secretary, the 1st respondent to vary the land use in individual cases relating to certain survey numbers/plots. After placing the request before the 1st respondent authority, individuals used to obtain its approval.
4. While so, the Central Public Works Department, the 2nd respondent applied to the 1st respondent for varying the lands in Survey Nos. 46 Part 47 and 49, Urur Village, Besant Nagar from residential use to institutional use for putting up its general pool office accommodation for Central Government. The variation proposal of the CPW Department was notified in the news papers calling for objections/suggestions if any from the public over the propos
