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
| 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
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr
North Bihar Agency v. State of Bihar
Bhikhubhai Vithalabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Binapani Kar Chowdhury v. Sri Satyabrata Basu
Hubert Probhat Pereira v. Narayan Adhya
M.Somasundaram & another v. Srinivasan & another
Satvithri Padmanabhan & 7 others v. M.Rajendran
Ambika Prasad Thakur and others v. Ram Ekbal Rai and others
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others v. Commercial Steel Limited
Academy of General Education, Manipal and another v. B.Malini Mallaya
Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel
Shiv Kumar and another v. Union of India and another
K.S.Palanisami v. Hindu Community in General and Citizens of Gobichettipalayam
Minor Ibramsa Rowther v. Sheik Meerasa Rowther
Bhubaneshwar Prasad v. Sidheswar Mukherjee
Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi and another v. Dudddukuru Subba Rao and others
Hem Nolini Judah and after her LR Marlean Wilkinson v. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose and others
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd., v. Union of India & others
Ram Kumar Ram Chandra & Co., v. Commissioner of Income Tax, UP
Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter
S.Devaraj v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot & others
R.Antony Doss & Ors, v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corpn
M.Vaidurayamma v. P.Suryanarayana Rao & Others
Rukmani Devi and 4 others v. R.M.Lakshmandoss
Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad
Illachi Devi v. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India
Sumathi Devi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala
Crystal Developers v. Asha Lata Ghosh
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
K.Pavan Raj v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and others
K.Saraswathy v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
G.Ganesan & others v. P.Sundari & others
Sainath Mandir Trust v. Vijaya & others
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the planning authority's power to revoke or modify permission for development under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning ....
A mandamus issued by the court creates vested rights that restrict the imposition of additional charges for planning permission if initial conditions were met according to earlier mandates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate 'sufficient interest' or title in the property for seeking development permission under Section ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation, as the Planning Authority, has the jurisdiction to consider the grant of building permission based on applicable Rules and Re....
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.