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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Kirubakaran, P.Velmurugan, JJ.
T.G.Naveen, S/o.T.G.Gopinathan and ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors. – Respondents
W.A.Nos.340 & 360 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.3358, 3359 & 3532 of 2019 W.A.No.340 of 2019
Decided On : 30-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior counsel, for Mr.Arunachalam.M
For the Respondent: Mr.S.K.Rameshuwar, Standing counsel, Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Government Pleader, Asst. by Mr.R.Udhayakumar, Additional Government Pleader Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior counsel for Mr.Iaemdar Ameenur Rahman

Headnote:

Land - Purchased plots - Real Estate is meant for land grabbers, land mafias and Goondas in collusion with politicians and police force violators - These people join together and grab properties of Government as well as private parties and even if layouts are made, lands meant for road and public places are also being grabbed or encroached upon and made as a private land by developers, violating rights of persons who have purchased plots in layouts - These kinds of illegal acts are being done on for long and general public are victims - Respective shares of three sons has developed property by way of an unapproved layout - Appellants purchased 80 cents of land comprised in S.No.230 for providing 20 feet road and another piece of land measuring about 12 cents comprised from one for providing 20 feet road - Making use of those lands 20 feet wide road was provided to property purchased from viz., S.No. feet road was formed to provide access to property purchased from comprised in S.No - After showing said property as road, property belonging have been divided into plots and sold to various third parties - Though it was developed as a gated community, no approval has been obtained - Whether it is approved or unapproved land, which has been shown as a road, should be used as a common road or public road and no one has got any right over property – Held, said land owner filed a Writ Petition seeking compensation and Court granted compensation, as petitioner's private property has been taken over for laying road - However, in instant case, road which is sought to be used by private respondent is not a private property but it is one which is shown as road in layout to have access to the plots - Whenever a sale is made, purchasers not only purchases plots but also right to use piece of land shown as road and sale consideration of plot would also involve component of right to use road portion - Land portion shown in private layout developed by appellants is meant for all persons who purchase plots in the layout - Hence, it has to be dedicated only for purpose of road and it should have been handed over by appellants to local body - There is a failure on part of appellants to hand over the road portion to local body and he cannot take advantage of his failure to make erroneous claim - Writ Appeals are dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.

The Real Estate is meant for land grabbers, land mafias and Goondas in collusion with politicians and police force violators. These people join together and grab the properties of the Government as well as private parties and even if layouts are made, the lands meant for road and public places are also being grabbed or encroached upon and made as a private land by the developers, violating the rights of the persons who have purchased the plots in the layouts. These kinds of illegal acts are being done on for long and the general public are the victims.

2. This is one such case wherein the land which was meant to be used as roads has been subdivided and registered in the name of developer's family members as a private property.

3. Whether the developer has got any such power or authority to convert the piece of land which has been shown as road to be made as a private land is the issue in this case?

4. The appeals have been filed against the orders of dismissal of the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants. The Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants to remove the electricity cable laid in S.No.287/1A1 and to quash the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, cancelling the sub-division of road and cancellation of patta for the sub-divided portion of the road.

5. One Mr.Bir Shahbuddin was the owner of the property measuring about 17.5 acres comprised in S.No.287, Injambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. Having acquired the same by virtue of sale deed dated 05.02.1980, she settled the same in favour of her five sons equally 3.50 acres each in the following manner :

Name

Survey No.

Date

Settlement Doc. No.

Extent

Mr.Amanuddin

287/1A1

05.07.1985

828/91

3.50 Acres

Mr.Syed Salauddin

287/1A2

16.07.1985

830/91

3.50 Acres

Mr.Shahbuddin

287/1A3

23.07.1985

829/91

3.50 Acres

Mr.Zakkauddin

287/1A4

23.07.1985

831/91

3.50 Acres

Mr.Ziauddin

287/1A5

23.07.1985

832/91

3.50 Acres

6. Mr.Amanuddin gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 11.07.2003 and 30.09.2003 to an extent of 2 acres & 1.45 acres comprised in S.No.287/1A1 respectively. Mr.Zakkauddin gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 03.07.2003 and 21.10.2003 to an extent of 2 acres and 1.45 acres comprised in S.No.287/1A4 respectively. Mr.Shahbuddin sold the 3.50 acres comprised in 287/1A3 to Mrs.Geetha and Mr.Balakrishnan, who in turn gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 17.05.2004 to an extent of 1 acre and to an extent of 2.45 acres.

7. Having got power to sell the properties, i.e, the respective shares of three sons of Mrs.Salimunnissa, Ms.P.G.Sobha has developed the property by way of an unapproved layout. The appellants purchased 80 cents of land comprised in S.No.230 for providing 20 feet road and another piece of land measuring about 12 cents comprised in S.No.230/3 on 04.05.2014 from one Mr.M.C.John for providing 20 feet road. Making use of those lands 20 feet wide road was provided to the property purchased from Mr.Amanuddin viz., S.No.287/1A1 and 33 feet road was formed to provide access to the property purchased from Mr.Shahbuddin comprised in S.No.287/1A3. After showing the said property as road, the property belonging to Mr.Amanuddin, Mr.Shahbuddin and Mr.Zakkauddin have been divided into plots and sold to various third parties. Though it was developed as a gated community, no approval has been obtained. Many third parties have purchased plots in the unapproved layout. The compound wall was constructed abutting the portions of Mr.Shahbuddin on the western side as well as eastern side.

8. Thereafter, the Power of Attorney holder Ms.P.G.Sobha divided the road which has been comprised

              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