Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
S. Lakshmi and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 31636 of 2017 and W.M.P. No. 34755 of 2017
Decided On : 27-04-2019
For the Appellant :Dakshayani Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Akhil Akbar Ali, Government Advocate, Karthik Raja, P. Sivaram and L.P. Shanmugasundaram, Advocates.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act, 2005 –Petitioners before me are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively and are members in a Cooperative society, the Chennai Metropolitan Cooperative Housing Ltd. arrayed as 3rd Respondent – They were allotted a site in a development called Millennium Town of an extent of 6,600 sq.ft. and have remitted the entire Sale consideration of Rs. 10,80,000 in that regard – Sale Deed has been executed – Thereafter, the Petitioners wished to effect construction upon the property and applied for Patta before the 4th Respondent, Tahsildar at Madurvayal, Tahsildar submitted a report relating to the sub-division of the property in question and issuance of Patta. No action was taken by him thereafter constraining the Petitioners to approach this Court –Held, Upon a perusal of the Reports as above, one thing appears clear – 3rd Respondent appears to have sold away a portion of land comprised in Survey No. 78 of which it is not the legitimate Owner – Almost the entire extent of land purchased by the Petitioners falls within Survey – Learned Counsel for R3 would seek to explain it away by stating that the fault lies in the defective G-line drawn/noted by the Government. According to him, the defective G-line has truncated the land leading to the reduction in the area of the property – Court unable to accept this argument. The 3rd Respondent is expected to transact solely in regard to the property owned by it even assuming a flaw in marking of the G-li – Records of R3 filed before the Court reveal that the sum total of the lands purchased by it and held in its possession was only 5.95 acres, whereas, the sum total land sold by it (including provision for roads) is 6.15 acres – Clearly thus, it has transferred more land that than it owns and cannot seek to shift the blame upon the Government or a faulty G-line – Writ Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Anita Sumanth, J.
1. The two Petitioners before me are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively and are members in a Cooperative society, the Chennai Metropolitan Cooperative Housing Ltd. arrayed as 3rd Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'R3'). They were allotted a site in a development called 'Millennium Town' of an extent of 6,600 sq.ft. (in short 'property in question') and have remitted the entire Sale consideration of Rs. 10,80,000 in that regard. The Sale Deed has been executed on 27.4.2006.
2. Thereafter, the Petitioners wished to effect construction upon the property and applied for Patta before the 4th Respondent, Tahsildar at Madurvayal, on 6.2.2015. The Tahsildar submitted a report relating to the sub-division of the property in question and issuance of Patta. No action was taken by him thereafter constraining the Petitioners to approach this Court in W.P. No. 22023 of 2016.
3. Vide Order, dated 27.6.2016, the Tahsildar was directed to consider and pass orders on the Representation of the Petitioner for issuance of Patta within a period of eight (8) weeks. Since there was still silence on the part of the Tahsildar, information was sought under Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Petitioner came to know that there was no land available as per the schedule to the Sale Deed. Only 22 sq.ft. of land was available instead of 6,600 sq.ft. as per the Deed for which they had paid valuable consideration.
4. The Petitioner states that at the time of purchase they were shown/indicated the extent of land that they had been sold and were thus, under the bona fide impression that the sale was a valid sale. Even as per the approved plan of the CMDA for the Development of the Millennium Town, the vacant land site purchased by the Petitioners was shown to be admeasuring 6,600 sq.ft. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Petitioners are before this Court seeking a Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to physically demarcate 6,600 sq.ft. land sold under Sale Deed dated 27.4.2006 to the Petitioners or in the alternative direct the Petitioners to allot an alternate Plot of commensurate measurement or value for the consideration received under Sale Deed, dated 27.4.2006.
5. A counter has been filed by the CMDA, arrayed as R2. R2 states that planning permission was sought for the proposed Layout of House sites at Villivakkam Panchayat Union and Thiruverkadu Municipal in 2001. The Layout of land allotted covered an extent of 30.19 acres at Adayalampattu Village and 4.94 acres in Ayanambakkam Village. 374 plots were proposed out of which six were Shops sites, five (5) convenience Shop sites, 37 public purpose Plots, road area admeasured 40,227 sq.m. and park area admeasured 10,280 sq.m. The role of the CMDA came to a close thereafter and it has nothing further to do with the transaction in question. The CMDA specifically denies that the approved Layout contained any detail or demarcation regarding any Plots or Shop sites, including the Petitioners'. The CMDA has this to state in Counter, in regard to the dimensions of the Layout approved by it for the purposes of the project:
"4. M/s. Chennai Metropolitan Cooperative Housing Society Limited earlier applied for Planning Permission for the proposed Layout of house sites in S. Nos. 43/1 Part, 44/1 & 2 Part, 45, 46, 47, 48/1, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58/1 & 2, 74/1, 75/2, 76 & 105/2 Part & 8 Part of Adayalampattu Village, Villivakkam Panchayat Union limit and in Survey Nos. 87/3-A & 3-B & 88/1 & 2 of Ayanambakkam Village, Thiruverkadu Municipal limit in the year 2001, which was forwarded by the Commissioner, Villivakkam Panchayat Union in Letter R.C. No. 1143/2001/A3, dated 4.4.2001
5. The Layout proposal was examined in detail and the Applicant was advised to remit the requisite charges as demanded vide Receipt No. 1985 dated 19.10.2001. Skeleton Plan was sent to concerned Local bodies for handling over of roads and parks vide this office Letter No. L1/16576/2001, dated 17.1
