SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 217

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.P. SHAH & THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Lakshmi
Versus
Senneerkuppam Panchayat, rep. by its President, 2/104, Avadi Road, Senneerkuppam, Ponamallee Union & Taluk, Thiruvallur District and others
W.A. No.2187 of 2005
Decided on: 01-02-2006

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. V. Ayyadurai, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. K. Chandru, Senior Counsel for Mr. S.N. Ravichandran, Advocagte for Respondent No.1; Mr. S. Srinivasan, Government Advocate for Respondent No.2; Mr. V. Perumal, Advocate for Respondent No.3; Mr. V. Subbarayan, Government Advocate for Respondent No.4.

The Town and Country Planning Act prevails over the Panchayats Act and the Buildings Rules in granting planning permission for development.

Headnote:

Planning Permission - Jurisdictional Conflict - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, Sections 2(13), 2(23), 9-C(2), 9-C(3), 49, 120, Development Control Rules - The court held that the C.M.D.A. has the power to grant planning permission to form a layout in Senneerkuppam Village despite the provisions of the Panchayats Act and the Buildings Rules. The planning permission granted by the C.M.D.A. was not stayed.

Fact of the Case:

The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority granted permission to the appellant for forming a layout and developing the property in Senneerkuppam Village, Poonamallee Panchayat Union. The President of the Senneerkuppam Panchayat challenged the planning permission, alleging usurpation of powers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the C.M.D.A. has the power to grant planning permission in Senneerkuppam Village despite the Panchayats Act and the Buildings Rules. The planning permission granted by the C.M.D.A. was not stayed.

Issues: Jurisdictional conflict between the C.M.D.A. and the Panchayat regarding the grant of planning permission for forming a layout in Senneerkuppam Village.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Town and Country Planning Act prevails over the Panchayats Act and the Buildings Rules in granting planning permission for the development of the property.

Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, and the larger constitutional issues raised by the writ petitioner were left open to be decided in the main writ petition.

Judgment :-

Prabha Sridevan, J.

1. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (C.M.D.A. in short) granted permission to the appellant for forming a layout and developing the property in Senneerkuppam Village, Poonamallee Panchayat Union. The writ petitioner, namely the President of the Senneerkuppam Panchayat challenged the planning permission on the ground that as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1997, it is only the President of the Panchayat, as the “Executive Authority”, to whom the application for forming a layout and plot should be made and that no application had been made to the writ petitioner by the fourth respondent (appellant herein). According to the writ petitioner, the land is an agricultural land and cannot be plotted for residential purposes. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged usurpation of the powers of the Panchayat by the second respondent (C.M.D.A.) by granting the planning permission. Pending the writ petition, stay was sought for and was granted. As against that, this writ appeal has been filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in whose favour the planning permission has been granted, would submit that in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Development Control Rules, it is only the C.M.D.A. which is empowered to grant planning permission and not the President of the Panchayat, and that the C.M.D.A. may either delegate its powers to the Panchayat or withdraw such delegated powers. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there was no justification for the grant of stay.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the C.M.D.A. drew our attention to the various provisions to show that only the C.M.D.A. had the power to permit any formation of layout in Senneerkuppam Village.

4. The learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, who is the writ petitioner, would submit that this is a clear case of usurpation of power. The powers of the Panchayat is traceable to Article 243-G of the Constitution of India and the C.M.D.A. cannot transgress its limits, thereby rendering the President of the Panchayat as a mere figurehead. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the writ petition gives rise to larger constitutional issues and therefore, the stay granted should not be vacated.

5. The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1997 define “Executive Authority” as the President of the Village Panchayat, Rule 3 provides that no owner or other persons shall layout a street, lane, etc., until a layout plan has been approved by the executive authority who shall get prior concurrence of the Director of Town and Country Planning or his authorised Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning for such approval. Section 2(13) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 defines “Development” and it includes master plan and detailed development plan. Section 2(23) defines “Local Authority” and it includes the Panchayat constituted under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Section 23(a) defines “Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area” as the City of Chennai and such contiguous area of such city as the Government may, from time to time, specify by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 9-C of the Act deals with the functions and powers of the Metropolitan Development Authority and Sections 9-C(2) and (3) read as follows :

“ 9-C(2) The Metropolitan Development Authority may, by order, entrust to any local authority or other authority as may be specified in such order, the work of execution of any development plan prepared by it.

(3) The Metropolitan Development Authority may, by order, authorise any local authority or other authority as may be specified in such order, to exercise any of the powers vested in it by or under the Act and may, in like manner, withdraw such authority; and the exercise of any power delegated in this behalf shall be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in s











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top