IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, N. MALA, JJ.
Mothees Baba @ Mothilal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development UD4(1) Department, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 22618 of 2022
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Regularisation - Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Lay-out Rules 2017 - Rule 5(1) - The court discussed Rule 3, Rule 4, and Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, and the Government Orders dated 25.01.2021, and their interpretations. The court highlighted the conflict between Rule 3 and Rule 5(1) and the extensions given for regularization of plots and layouts. The court condemned the practice of frequent extensions and emphasized the necessity to prevent further development of unauthorized layouts and conversion of agricultural areas for non-agriculture use.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Lay-out Rules 2017 and the Government Order dated 25.01.2021, seeking extension for regularization of unapproved plots and layouts. The petitioner argued that the rules and orders were illegal and unconstitutional, and requested an extension for making the application for regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification of the Rules of 2017 was published in the Government gazette, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The court also noted the conflict between Rule 3 and Rule 5(1) but refused to strike them down. The court condemned the practice of frequent extensions and emphasized the necessity to prevent further development of unauthorized layouts and conversion of agricultural areas for non-agriculture use.
Issues: The issues involved the conflict between Rule 3 and Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2017, the extensions given for regularization, and the petitioner's request for an extension for making the application for regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules of 2017 and the Government Orders were not to be struck down for the petitioner's convenience. The court emphasized the necessity to prevent further development of unauthorized layouts and conversion of agricultural areas for non-agriculture use.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.21676 of 2022 was closed.
JUDGMENT :
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Lay-out Rules 2017 and the G.O.No.16 Housing and Urban Development (UD4(1))Department dated 25.1.2021 passed by the respondents as illegal and unwarranted and unconstitutional and further direct the Respondents to Regularise the Petitioners Layout called Sun-City at Veerapandi Nagar and Veerapandi Village, Villupuram District as per the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of unapproved Plots Layout Rules, 2017 on obtaining necessary charges from the petitioners.)
The writ petition has been filed to challenge Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Lay-out Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as - the Rules of 2017) and G.O.No.16 dated 25.01.2021 issued by the Housing and Urban Development (UD4(1))Department.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a conflict between Rule 3 and Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2017 and thus cannot coexist together and at the same time, Government Order dated 25.01.2021, fixing the extended time limit of 28.02.2021 for regularisation of plots, sold or unsold in the unapproved layouts unless at least one plot in the said layout should have been registered on or before 20.10.2016.
3. It is submitted that in the absence of the knowledge of the notification of 2017 to bring Rules and subsequent Government Orders to extend time, petitioner was unable to make an application to seek regularization of the layout and individual plot sold by him on or before the cut-off date of 20.10.2016 given under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017.
4. Since the respondents have denied to extend the period, application made by the petitioner on 04.04.2022 has not been considered as it is beyond the extended cut-off date of 28.02.2021. The respondents may accordingly be directed to extend the date further for those who could not apply for regularization of unapproved plots and layouts, and for that purpose, Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2017 and the G.O. Dated 25.01.2021 have to be struck down.
5. The learned counsel elaborating the arguments, submitted that Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017 provides for consideration of the application for regularization of unapproved plots and layouts which were sold through a registered deed as on 20.10.2016 or before, and individual plots in a sub-division registered by a sale or title deed as on 20.10.2016. As a proof and evidence, the plot holder or the layout promoter is required to furnish copies of the sale deed or title deed for the plots sold. The agreement for sale or General Power of Attorney shall not be considered as evidence for proof of sale of plot.
6. In contrast, Rule 5(1) permits application even in regard to the plots sold with registration of sale deeds on or after 20.10.2016 because the compulsory application for regularization would not be guided by the riders placed in Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017. Therefore, Rule 5(1) deserves to be struck down.
7. The challenge to the Government Order dated 25.01.2021 has been made on the ground that the last extension has been given till 28.02.2021, as no application after the aforesaid date would be admissible and even for the application on or before 28.02.2021, it was necessary that at least one plot/layout should have been registered on or before 20.10.2016. It is submitted that fixing of cut-off date in the Government Order dated 25.01.2021 is arbitrary and it was not given due publicity and thereby, the petitioners and others were not aware of it. Rule 15 refers to the consequences of non-regularisation and therefore, petitioner is compelled to apply for regularization. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the Government Order dated 25.01.2021 with a direction to the respondents to extend the date for making application for regularization having sold the plot on or before 20.10.2016.
8.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.