Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, N. MALA, JJ.
A. Suriya - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
Decided On : 07-06-2022
ultra vires - Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective 2025 - Section 46 of the RFCTLARR Act, Section 37 of the TTCP Act, Appendix-IV clause 6 of the Auroville Master Plan, G.O. dated 20.1.2003 - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging certain clauses of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective, 2025, and the land exchange deeds and purchase deeds executed since 28.8.2010, citing misuse of the court's jurisdiction and lack of justification for the delay in filing the petition. The court emphasized that the Master Plan cannot be challenged unless it violates constitutional or statutory provisions, and highlighted the need to protect environmental balance, ecology, and biodiversity.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed to challenge certain clauses of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective, 2025, and the land exchange deeds and purchase deeds executed since 28.8.2010. The court found that the petitioner had filed multiple writ petitions seeking the same relief, without justifying the delay, and highlighted the misuse of the court's jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the misuse of the court's jurisdiction, lack of justification for the delay, and the acceptance of the Master Plan by the petitioner's father through land exchange with the third respondent.
Issues: Misuse of the court's jurisdiction, lack of justification for the delay in filing the petition, acceptance of the Master Plan through land exchange.
Ratio Decidendi: The Master Plan cannot be challenged unless it violates constitutional or statutory provisions, and there is a need to protect environmental balance, ecology, and biodiversity.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, but it was made clear that the dismissal would not affect the petitioner's use of the land for permissible purposes under the law and the Master Plan, and there would be no hindrance for exchange or purchase of the land by the third respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of declaration for declaring the foundation's selfmade Appendix-IV Clauses 1-5 of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective 2025 (Gazette of India notified on 16.8.2010, Gazette of India published on 28.8.2010) as ultra vires and also their entire illegal land exchange deeds and purchase deeds done since 28.8.2010 (Gazette of India publication date) by using these appendix IV Clauses 1-5 of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective 2025 as Void ab initio" (m7 land and my family land purchased, exchanged by the foundation survey numbers annexed) for Section 46 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act), Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, 2018 (TTCP Act), Appendix-IV clause 6 (para 1) of the said Auroville Master Plan and G.O. dated 20.1.2003 and may kindly exclude the land title dispute exchange deed dated 24.9.2013 document No.5000 of 2013 registered at Vanur S.R.O.)
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.
1. The writ petition has been filed to challenge certain clauses of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective, 2025, notified on 16.8.2010 and published in gazette on 28.8.2010. A challenge is also made to the land exchange deeds and purchase deeds executed since 28.8.2010.
2. The writ petition to challenge the notification dated 16.8.2010, published in the gazette on 28.8.2010, is after lapse of almost 12 years without giving any justification for the delay and otherwise the jurisdiction of this court is being misused by the petitioner, as the present writ petition is the third in succession. The first writ petition, being W.P.No.17181 of 2020, was filed by the petitioner's father for the same relief. The said writ petition was withdrawn, as per the statement of fact given in paragraph 27 of the affidavit to the writ petition. The petitioner himself filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.18220 of 2021, which was withdrawn on 20.1.2022 with liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law against the infraction of his personal interest. It seems to be without bringing to the notice of the court that, for the same relief, earlier the petitioner's father preferred a writ petition and withdrew it unconditionally, without liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
3. Yet, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, after the dismissal of the writ petition filed by him seeking the same relief. The second writ petition itself was not maintainable and even if liberty was given, it cannot go against the order passed by the court in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner's father for the same relief, as stated in paragraph 27 of the affidavit which is quoted hereunder:
“27. I state that, my father had approached this Hon'ble High Court earlier for the same relief via the W.P.No.17181 of 2020 and my father had withdrawn it due to his health issues and we had applied for counter affidavit certified copy in the same W.P.No.17181 of 2020 to get it annexed in the present petition and the certified counter affidavit copy was not issued till date by the CD – copy section (S.R.No.3174 of 2022 or 3176 of 2022) and I am filing the counter affidavit that was received by my father via registered post from the Auroville Foundation's Advocate. I had also filed a PIL and was withdrawn as per the order of this Hon'ble High Court in the W.P.No.18220 of 2021 on 24.1.2022 and gave me liberty to file a petition in accordance with law while hearing the W.P.No.597 of 2022 dated 20.1.2022. No other petition was filed by me or my family members for the above-mentioned Auroville Foundation's illegal land exchange/purchase. I am also affected by the Auroville Foundation's aforementioned illegal, self-serving coercive land purchase/exchange methods and illegalities done by the Auroville Foundation Authorities since 28.8.2010, as I am also one
The Master Plan cannot be challenged unless it violates constitutional or statutory provisions, and there is a need to protect environmental balance, ecology, and biodiversity.
Auroville Foundation's Governing Board has the authority to manage and exchange property without challenge from permissive occupants.
The Governing Body of the Auroville Foundation can conduct land exchanges without prior government approval, provided it adheres to the Auroville Master Plan and consults necessary committees.
The Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation has exclusive authority to manage Auroville and issue Standing Orders, and suppression of material facts by a litigant disqualifies them from obtaining....
Point of Law - As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he sh....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
