Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
N. Raman, Rep. by his Power Agent T.R. Sahadevan & Another – Petitioners
Versus
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 11119 of 2016 & 24486 of 2008 & M.P.No. 1 of 2008 in W.P. No. 24486 of 2008
Decided On : 22-12-2017
Writ Petition - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 7, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26 - The judgment discusses the refusal of planning permission for sub-division of residential plots due to the property being earmarked for Community Hall purpose. The court found that the properties in question were meant for Community Hall as per the approved layout and upheld the refusal of planning permission. The judgment also highlighted the illegal actions of the officials and the issuance of patta against instructions, leading to the dismissal of the Tahsildar and maintenance of the properties as parks by the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought planning permission for sub-division of residential plots, which was refused due to the property being earmarked for Community Hall purpose. The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of the property and filed a writ petition to challenge the refusal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties in question were meant for Community Hall as per the approved layout and upheld the refusal of planning permission. The court also ordered the dismissal of the Tahsildar and maintenance of the properties as parks by the respondents.
Issues: 1. Refusal of planning permission for sub-division of residential plots. 2. Ownership and possession of the property. 3. Issuance of patta against instructions.
Ratio Decidendi: The properties in question were meant for Community Hall as per the approved layout, and the refusal of planning permission was upheld. The illegal actions of the officials led to the dismissal of the Tahsildar, and the properties were ordered to be maintained as parks by the respondents.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the properties in question were ordered to be maintained as parks by the respondents. The court also highlighted the illegal actions of the officials and the issuance of patta against instructions.
Writ Petition No.24486 of 2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property at Plot No.79-A in the approved lay out N.L.B.D.M.D.D.A.B.No.152/1973, comprised in Vinayagar Nagar, Survey No.317/1A2A 1, Velacherry Village.)
Writ Petition No.11119 of 2016 is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the concerned records relating to the order No.W.D.C.No.T.P.SD/WDCN13/00056/2016, dated 06.04.2016 passed by the second respondent and quash the same. (Prayer amended as per Order dated 07.06.2016 in W.M.P.No.16669 of 2016 in W.P.No.11119 of 2016).
2. Writ Petition No.24486 of 2008 is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property at Plot No.79-A in the approved lay out N.L.B.D.M.D.D.A.B.No.152/1973, comprised in Vinayagar Nagar, Survey No.317/1A2A 1, Velacherry Village.
3. Originally, the petitioner in W.P.No.11119 of 2016 has filed the Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant building planning permission as requested by the petitioner in his building plan Application No.SD/WDCN13/00056/2016, dated 05.02.2016. Subsequently, the prayer in W.P.No.11119 of 2016 is amended as stated supra, vide order dated 07.06.2016 in W.M.P.No.16669 of 2016 in W.P.No.11119 of 2016.
4. The affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.11119 of 2016 is sworn to by the Power of Attorney Agent of the petitioner-N.Raman and the principal (writ petitioner) has executed the Deed of Power of Attorney in favour of the Agent on 30.12.2014, which was registered as Document No.242/2015, before the Sub-Registrar, Velacherry. According to the petitioner in W.P.No.11119 of 2016, he has produced necessary documents asked for by the authorities for considering his application for sub-division approval in respect of the property in Door No.T.S.No.1/128, Block No.189, Plot No.NIL, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Velacherry, Chennai-600 042. The following are the documents sought for by the second respondent in respect of the above said application for sub-division approval of the said property:
Sl. No.
Description
Remarks
1
To furnish the following document duly Notarised
2. Suit pending in Court regarding the proposed land with Chennai Corporation to be clarified.
3. Proposed site sub-divided before 31.12.1989 evidence to be furnished.
1. The following documents to be furnished:
(a) GPA Document 472/2011
(b) GPA cancel document 8405/2014
2
It is requested to clarify the following
(c) settlement documents 4719/2012 and 4849/2012
(d) Settlement cancel deed 4848/2012
(e) sale agreement deed 2706/2015
(f) sale deed 7045/2015
According to the petitioner in W.P.No.11119 of 2016, he has given reply to the above said documents sought for by the second respondent. He has purchased the property in Lay Out No.152/1973 and that the approval application of the petitioner was returned unapproved. According to him, pursuant to the earlier order dated 07.03.2012 in W.P.No.5456 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for measuring the property in question, the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.12.2011 was considered by the Tahsildar, Guindy-Mambalam Taluk, who issued a letter dated 02.05.2012 mentioning that the petitioner's principal is entitled for patta in his name for area of 525.24 Sq.Meters (5654 Sq.Ft) as against the total area of Acre 1.08 cents. According to the petitioner in W.P.No.11119 of 2016, pursuant to the above said communication, dated 02.05.2012 of the said Tahsildhar, he made an application dated 06.06.2012 to the said Tahsildhar, in which the pe
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
