JUDGMENT: In all these second appeals Villupuram Municipality is the appellant who filed different suits against the respondents in each of the appeals herein. The relief sought for by the Municipality in the suits is for the declaration that the suit property is to be kept for the commons use of the residents of the locality, for the purpose of construction of school and playground and also for consequential injunction restraining the respondents herein from putting up any construction. The first respondent is the erstwhile owner of the property who applied for the sanction of the lay out. The Deputy Director of Town Planning accorded sanction in his proceedings Ex.A.1 dated 16.5.1984 in Roc.No.1976 of 1984. As per the said lay out sanction, the property under dispute should be kept for the construction of the school and play ground. Since the first respondent, contrary to the sanctioned lay out, had further divided the disputed property in to plots and sold the same to the second respondents in these second appeals and the attempt on the part of the purchasers to built up construction in the disputed property, the appellant filed the suits.

2. The defence of the first respondent is that as per the sanctioned lay out there is no dispute that the suit property is earmarked for the construction of the school and play ground. But within the stipulated time as the local body did not take possession of the disputed property and utilised the same for the purpose for which the same was earmarked, the disputed property vests with the first respondent and as such the first respondent is entitled to use the land as he likes. When that be so, the alienation made by him is quite legal and the purchasers are entitled to use the land as they like. The said written statement was adopted by the purchasers who are the other respondents in the respective appeals.

3. The trial Court agreed with the plea raised by the respondents and dismissed the suits, finding that the authorities have to take possession of the land which is earmarked for the common use within the stipulated time and further they ought to have paid the compensation also to the land owner. On the failure to do so by the statutory authorities, the property earmarked for the common purpose in the sanctioned lay out would vests with the land owner and the land owner in entitled to use the same as he likes.

4. As against the same, the appellant herein filed appeals before the Sub Court, Villupuram. The learned Subordinate Judge also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeals.

5. At the time of admission of the second appeals the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:

1. Is not the respondent-1 estopped in law from selling the ‘C’ Schedule property which forms part of the ‘B’ schedule property in terms of Ex.A1, A8 and agreement Ex.A3 wherein the Ist respondent agreed to reserve the ‘B’ Schedule property for school building and children playground and shops?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the suit itself is barred by limitation merely on the basis of the date mentioned in Ex.A1?3. Whether the reasoning of the lower appellate Court with regard to the applicability of Sections 36,37 and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act is correct when the said provisions does not apply at all to the facts and circumstances of the case?

4. Whether the denial of declaratory relief to the appellant is sustainable in the teeth of Ex.A1 to A8?

5. When Sec.38 of the Town and Country Planning Act itself does not apply to the facts of the case whether the lower appellate Court’s finding that in view of the statutory release of land under Sec.38 Ex.A1 and A3 becomes invalid is correct in law?

6. Whether the trial Court is right in applying the provisions of Madras Town Planning Act, 1920 for deciding the 4th issue when the Act itself has been repealed by 1971 Act?

7. Whether Trial Court is right in holding t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document