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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust Rep. by its Managing Trustee - Appellant
Versus
Dr. A.C. Muthiah & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 18058 of 2021 & W.M.P.Nos. 19285, 19286, 19288, 19289 & 23161 of 2021
Decided On : 23-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Srinivas for M/s. S. Sithirai Anandam, Advocates. For the Respondents:R1, R. Shanmugasundaram, Advocate General assisted by V.Yamuna Devi, Spl G.P., R2, P. Veena Suresh, Standing counsel, R3, P.T. Rama Devi, Standing counsel, R4, M.S. Krishnan, Senior counsel, M. Praveen Kumar, R5, V. Raghavachari, R6, G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel, T. Sathiyamoorthy, R9, T. Mohan, Abinav Parthasarathy, Advocates.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Dispute over title and planning permission - The petitioners challenged the permission granted to the Trust for constructing a commercial building on the ground that the property is part of undivided ancestral land and no valid title was established - The Court held that the jurisdiction of CMDA to grant planning permissions does not extend to deciding ownership disputes or title over the land, which must be resolved in Civil Court - Writ petition dismissed for failure on merits, with locus of petitioners accepted. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 81-83)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners argued against the grant of planning permission to a Trust, claiming it violated their undivided rights over the property. The Trust contended that it had rights based on historical family agreements and documents, with permissions previously granted for commercial use. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 9, 58.1)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the title issues could only be adjudicated in civil proceedings and not through the writ jurisdiction. The planning permission process by CMDA met statutory requirements, and the decisions by the Government affirmed the trust's entitlement to develop its property. (Paras 58.2-78)

Issues: Main issues included the locus standi of the petitioners, the question of title over the property, and the validity of planning permission granted to the Trust. (Paras 35, 58.1)

Ratio Decidendi: It was determined that the CMDA and Government adhered to procedural protocols in granting planning permission, while substantive disputes regarding ownership should be resolved in civil courts. (Paras 58.7-78)

Result: Writ petition dismissed; interim orders vacated. (Paras 81-83)

Table of Content
1. writ for building permission and quash orders. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trust and property ownership history detailed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments based on trust deeds and ownership. (Para 17 , 18)
4. previous cases of planning permission and objections. (Para 19 , 20)
5. government authority and planning permission context. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
6. issues of locus standi highlighted. (Para 34 , 35)
7. final thoughts on sustainability of the planning permission. (Para 80 , 81)

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the order, dated 25.02.2021 in C3(S)730/2019 granting building plan permission to the fourth respondent in respect of land in R.S.No.4277/6 in Thandavarayan Street, Duraisamy Dinakaran Road, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028 and quash the same and direct the third respondent to cancel the building permission and all approvals granted to the fourth respondent in pursuance of the planning permission, dated 25.02.2021 of the second respondent in favour of the fourth respondent.)

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the order, dated 25.02.2021 granting building plan permission to the fourth respondent in respect of the land in R.S.No.4277/6 in Thandavarayan Street, Duraisamy Dinakaran Road, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028 and to quash the same and direct the third respondent to cancel the building permission and all approvals granted to the fourth respondent in pursuance of the planning permission, dated 25.02.2021 of the second respondent.

2. PLEADINGS :

The case projected by the writ petitioners as per the affidavit averments in support of the writ petition is as follows :

2.1. That one Raja Sir Muthiah Chettiar (for the sake of easy understanding and brevity, herein after called as “father Muthiah”) and his wife, one Meyyammai Achi had two sons, namely Kumararajah M.A.M.Muthiah Chettiar (for the sake of convenience and brevity, hence forth would be called as “son Muthiah”) and Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy.

2.2. The father Muthiah created a Trust, namely, the fourth respondent, i.e., called Raja Muthiah Chettiar Charitable and Educational Trust by a Trust Deed, dated 14.03.1957 registered as Document No.213/57 on the file of the Registrar of Chennai. The father Muthiah executed a registered Gift Deed, dated 24.03.1960 in respect of half undivided share of the property by Document No.517/60 at SRO, Mylapore in favour of son Muthiah and the said settlement was accepted and acted upon. Thus the son Muthiah became the owner of the undivided 50% share in the entire property and he was in possession thereon.

2.3. The said son Muthiah was the brother of Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy and son Muthiah died intestate on 24.01.1970. On the death of son Muthiah, his undivided half share in the entire property, i.e., about 63.50 grounds devolved equally on the sixth respondent who is the wife of the son Muthiah and late Meyyammai Achi, mother of the son Muthiah. Therefore, each inherited 31.75 grounds undivided share.

2.4. The said mother Meyyammai Achi died intestate on 01.03.1970, pursuant to which her share, i.e., 31.75 grounds undivided share devolved equally on her class-I heirs, i.e., her husband father Muthiah and her second son Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy, each inherited 15.89 grounds undivided share in the entire property.

2.5. The father Muthiah executed an registered deed, dated 28.03.1970 as Document No.635/1970 at SRO, Mylapore transferring his undivided half share of the entire property to the fourth respondent Trust. The remaining 50% undivided share belonging to son Muthiah was never transferred, conveyed or vested in the fourth respondent Trust in any manner.

2.6. Th

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