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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 2097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Pallavi (a) Pallavi M. Majithia - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore and Ors. - Respondents
WP Nos. 10725 of 2020, WMP Nos. 12895 of 2020
Decided On : 09-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :R.N. Amarnath, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Sivakumar, Standing Counsel and A. Arul Doss, Government Advocate.

Headnote:

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act - Sections 19 and 2(2) - Owner of the property to convert area designated as community hall in layout approval to be converted into housing plots - Interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment - Petitioners is that originally there was a large extent of land measuringhectares and this property was sought to be converted as a layout by one Mr. Ramasamy Gounder application was made by the said Ramasamy Gounder along with some adjacent land owners and the formation of layout was approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore, in his proceedings - It is seen from layout approval that the total extent of the land hectares and approval was given for putting up 108 plots. It is also seen from the approval was earmarked for a park and an extent was earmarked for community hall and the total reservation towards earmarking the common area is to an extent – Held, respondent Corporation is assuming that the original planning approval granted by concerned authority has reserved 4526 m2 towards OSR. However, the town panchayat passes an order relying upon clarification issued by Director of town and country planning and permits owner of the property to convert the area designated as community hall as housing plots - Order has been acted upon and the area has been converted into housing plots and 3rd party rights have now come into play and therefore, there is a vested right on all those persons - Court has to now strike a balance between the rights of the owners of the plots on the one hand and responsibility of 1st respondent corporation to maintain lands designated for public purpose - Original owner or legal heirs fail to execute the gift deed in favour of corporation, in spite of receiving the notice, proceedings shall be initiated against them in accordance with law - Writ petitions are disposed of

ORDER :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. The petitioners have sought for issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property belonging to the petitioners and further directing the respondents to remove the wall surrounding the property of the petitioners.

3. The case of the petitioners is that originally there was a large extent of land measuring 4.492 hectares and this property was sought to be converted as a layout by one Mr. Ramasamy Gounder and this was called as "Maharani Avenue IV". An application was made by the said Ramasamy Gounder along with some of the adjacent land owners and the formation of layout was approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore, in his proceedings dated 20.01.1987. It is seen from the layout approval that the total extent of the land is 4.492 hectares and the approval was given for putting up 108 plots. It is also seen from the approval that an extent of 2301 m2 was earmarked for a park and an extent of 2225 m2 was earmarked for community hall and the total reservation towards earmarking the common area is to an extent of 4526 m2.

4. Subsequent to the approval granted by the Town and Country Planning Authority, the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, by letter dated 17.08.1987 issued a general clarification to the effect that the common area that is gifted to the local authorities will include park, children playing space and playing space and the other areas designated as common areas in the planning approval, can be sold as plots.

5. This property originally fell within the jurisdiction of Veerakeralam town panchayat. The Executive officer of the town panchayat by relying upon the above clarification dated 17.08.1987, permitted the owner of the property to convert the area designated as community hall in the layout approval to be converted into housing plots. Consequently, an extent of 2225 m2 which fell under the head community hall, was plotted out and 12 plots were formed and it was sold to various parties. It must be mentioned here that this town panchayat got merged with the Coimbatore Corporation on 07.07.2011 and the subject property now falls within the Jurisdiction of Coimbatore Corporation.

6. The petitioners who have filed these writ petitions have purchased plot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 11. The further case of the petitioners is that owners of plot Nos. 4 and 12 have already put up construction and they are residing in the property for the past several years.

7. During the year 2017, the Coimbatore Corporation started the process of putting up a wire mesh surrounding the property, which was earmarked as community hall in the approved plan. This was objected by the petitioners and there was no development thereafter. Once again, the 1st respondent Corporation started constructing a wall during the month of July 2020 and the petitioners again made an objection. The petitioners apprehended that the 1st respondent corporation will put up the wall surrounding the entire property and thereby, prevent access to the property belonging to the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed seeking for appropriate directions.

8. The 1st respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit in each writ petition. For the purpose of convenience, it will be enough if this Court takes into consideration the counter affidavit filed in WP No. 10607 of 2020, since common grounds has been taken in all the counter affidavits. For proper appreciation, the relevant portions are extracted hereunder :

    3. Regarding the averments in Para 3, it is submitted the extent of land which was approved by the 2nd respondent, as a layout by his proceedings in LP/R (CPN) No. 1/87, was 11.10 acres. As per the guidelines, the Promoter ought to have rese

      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