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) 3170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
P.Kaliappan – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sulur – Respondent
W.P.Nos.29911 and 29912 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2012
Decided on : 16-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Ayyadurai, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
For the Respondents: Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, Mr.K.Sarveswar for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar & Associates

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 – Section 56 - Sale deeds- Gift deed – Land - Case of petitioners is that they purchased lands by registered sale deeds vide Document - From date of their purchase, they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands - In furtherance to said sale deeds, all revenue records were mutated and patta also issued in their favor - In fact, they also obtained electricity service connections - Petitioners purchased said lands with intention to construct a community hall - Said lands form part of a layout approved by Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, vide his letter - In the said approval, 1.55 acres was earmarked for park, play field and open spaces, 0.54 acres was earmarked for community hall and certain acres was earmarked for shops - Lands which were earmarked for park, play field and open spaces and road areas were handed over to local authority by developer as per the layout condition by execution of gift deed – Held, It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude owner from transferring or selling his interest in it - It may be true as held by High Court that interest which is left in owner is a residuary interest which may be nothing more than a right to hold this land in trust for the specific purpose specified by colonizer in the sanctioned lay-out plan - But the question is, does it entitle Corporation to claim that land so specified should be transferred to authority free of cost - That is not made out from any provision in the Act or on any principle of law - Corporation by virtue of land specified as open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to manage it in interest of society in general - Hence, lands were earmarked for community hall and shops can be saleable on condition that purpose shall not be changed viz., community hall and shops - Amenities which were provided in approved layout shall be gifted in favor of second respondent - Accordingly, gift deed was executed by the original land owner in favor of second respondent - Action of the second respondent is highly condemnable, since they have forcibly evicted petitioners from their lawful possession and enjoyment of their properties - Writ Petitions are allowed.

ORDER :

Both the Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to direct the respondents herein to restore the possession of the Lands in S.F.No.345/1 measuring 27 cents each situated at Irugur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, back to the petitioners forthwith for putting up a Community Hall in the said lands.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the lands comprised in S.F.No.345/1 ad-measuring to an extent of 27 cents each situated at Irugur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District by the registered sale deeds dated 11.09.1985 and 31.05.1993, vide Document Nos.2219/1985 and 2619/1993. From the date of their purchase, they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. In furtherance to the said sale deeds, all the revenue records were mutated and patta also issued in their favour. In fact, they also obtained electricity service connections. The petitioners purchased the said lands with intention to construct a community hall. The said lands form part of a layout approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, vide his letter No.10048/84 Ko.Pe.N1.Ma.5 dated 29.01.1985. In the said approval, 1.55 acres was earmarked for park, play field and open spaces, 0.54 acres was earmarked for community hall and 0.22 acres was earmarked for shops. The lands which were earmarked for park, play field and open spaces and road areas were handed over to the local authority by the developer as per the layout condition by execution of gift deed dated 11.09.1985. As per the approval of layout, there is no prohibition for the sale of the lands meant for community hall and shops by the developer. Therefore, the petitioners approached the second respondent with the application for permission to construct community hall. Before that, the petitioners constructed a small farm house and also obtained electricity service connection. At that juncture, the respondents forcibly dispossessed the petitioners and also demolished their small farm house and destroyed the Coconut trees, which were planted in the subject lands. Hence, both the Writ Petitions.

3. The second respondent filed counter stating that the original owner viz., R.Govindarajulu and six others have formed a layout in Survey Nos.341, 342, 343, 342/2 part, 344/1, 344/2, 345/1 & 351/1 situated at Irugur Town Panchayat ad-measuring to an extent of 20.80 acres. It was approved by the Senior Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore, vide Roc.No.10048/84 (CPN), dated 29.01.1985 and LPR.No.12/85 dated 29.01.1985. The approved layout plan was sanctioned on condition that the land owner shall execute gift deed for play ground, park, community hall, OHT and open area. While that being so, the petitioners knowing fully and wantonly purchased the lands which were reserved for community hall and other purposes with ulterior motive and it is highly illegal and irregular and also violative of layout conditions prescribed by the Senior Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore. Later, the petitioner in W.P.No.29911 of 2012 also sold the sites bearing Nos.118 and 123 in the approved layout plan to the third parties. Therefore, the very purchase is illegal and contrary to the conditions imposed while granting approval. The said land was already gifted by the land owner in favour of the second respondent by the gift deed. The law mandates that the lands reserved for public purpose in a layout plan or in a development plan or master plan approved by the local body cannot be used for any other purpose than the one specified therein by the layout promoter. The lands meant for community hall and other lands allocated for public purpose are well within 10% of the total extent of the land submitted for approval. Therefore, the lands allocated in the approved layout plan should not be altered in any manner and in any form and by any persons

          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