Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Kongu Nadar Kuriyiruppor Nala Sangam, Rep. by its President, N. Ganapathy, Namakkal - Appellant
Versus
The Director of Town & Country Planning, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 27839 of 2013 & W.M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 25-08-2022
Conveyance Deeds - Land Dispute - Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, Tamilnadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 - Sections 49, 52, 56, 57 - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Tamilnadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997, emphasizing the restrictions on dealing with lands earmarked for common purposes and the legal implications of executing Conveyance Deeds in violation of the approved plan.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to declare Conveyance Deeds as void and illegal, alleging that the subject properties were already gifted to the local authority and earmarked for public purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to proceed with the complaint for cancellation of the Conveyance Deeds and conduct a survey to identify the lands already gifted to the 4th respondent. The court emphasized that the concerned authority should assess the claims and take a decision in accordance with the law.
Issues: Validity of Conveyance Deeds executed in violation of land earmarked for public purposes, the authority of the 4th respondent to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the Conveyance Deeds, and the need for a survey to identify the gifted lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it was unnecessary to determine the legality of the Conveyance Deeds as the 4th respondent had initiated proceedings for their cancellation. The concerned authority should assess the claims and make a decision in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to proceed with the complaint for cancellation of the Conveyance Deeds and conduct a survey to identify the lands already gifted to the 4th respondent within three months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the conveyance deeds registered as Doc. No. 7452/2012 dated 26.11.2012, Doc. No.5804/2012 dated 13.9.2012 and Doc. No. 386/1997 dated 9.6.1997 registered on the file of the 6th respondent relating to the open space measuring 28440 Sq.ft. which has been exclusively earmarked for a park area and children's playground in the plan approval dated 30.12.1996 made in DTCP No.919/1996 in Na. Ka. No.25305/96 LA3 issued by the 1st respondent, as void, illegal and contrary to Sections 49, 52, 56, 57 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the Tamilnadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and against the decisions reported in 1995 (1) SCC 47 and 2011 (1) CTC 257 (DB), by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2013.)
1. This writ petition was filed to declare the Conveyance Deeds executed by private respondents as void and illegal on the ground that the subject properties were already gifted to the local authority and it has been earmarked for park area and children's playground.
2. The case of the petitioner Sangam is that respondents 7 to 9 were the owners of the lands measuring an extent of 6.50 acres comprised in S.Nos.148/2b, 148/4A, 148/5, 148/2A and 148/3 at Chittalandur Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. It is further stated that respondents 10 to 12 are promoters and real estate agents and they entered into an understanding with the land owners to promote and develop their lands as house sites. Accordingly, respondents 7 to 9 joined hands with respondents 10 to 12 and applied for a plan approval to the 1st respondent. The application for plan approval was made on 20.06.1996 and along with the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 28.06.1996, it was forwarded to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent considered the same and granted site plan approval through proceedings dated 30.12.1996 and such approval was granted subject to certain terms and conditions.
3. The further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the plan approval granted by the 1st respondent, respondents 10 to 12 plotted out the entire extent of 6.50 acres into 59 house sites after earmarking an extent of 28,440 Sq. Ft. towards public purposes. The entire 59 house sites were sold to various persons through different Sale Deeds executed by respondents 7 to 9 for themselves and as power of attorney holders of the other sharers.
4. It is also stated that respondents 7 to 9 executed Gift/Settlement Deeds dated 12.08.1998, through two documents registered as Document No.755 and 756 of 1998 in favour of the 4th respondent who is the local authority.
5. The grievance of the petitioner Sangam is that the respondents 7 to 12 have dealt with the property which was already gifted and earmarked for open space, children's park and play ground and Sale Deeds were created.
6. The petitioner made representations in this regard to the official respondents and sought for taking action. Since there was no response for the representations, the petitioner left with no other alternative has filed the present writ petition seeking to declare all the Conveyance Deeds as null and void and illegal.
7. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:
3. It is submitted that the respondents 7 to 9 were the owners of the lands measuring an extent of 6.50 acres comprised in S.Nos.148.2B, 148/4A, 148/5, 148/2A and 148/3 Chittalandur Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. The respondents 10 to 12 are the promoters and Real Estate Agents and they entered into an understanding with the land owners and the respondents 7 to 9 to promote and develop their lands as house sites. Accordingly, the respondents 7 to 9 had obtained power of attorney deeds dated 22.04.1996 from the other sharers and plotted out the lands in the name and style as "Kongu
AI
The legal point established is that lands earmarked for common purposes, once gifted, cannot be dealt with or utilized for any other purposes, and the concerned authority should assess the claims and....
The classification of land as an open space in approved layout and town planning schemes precedes any request for re-classification, and re-classification of land meant for an open space is impermiss....
The conversion of land designated for public purposes, such as parks or playgrounds, to private use is impermissible under the Town and Country Planning Act, emphasizing the local authority's duty to....
A civil suit to declare a dedicated public road as private is barred under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, and lacks cause of action.
The judgment establishes the principle that reserved open spaces in layouts cannot be used for any other purpose, emphasizing the public trust doctrine, the importance of preserving open spaces, and ....
OSR land in approved layouts for public parks cannot be sold privately; title disputes resolved in civil court, not writ jurisdiction.
The court affirmed that the failure to allot equivalent land or provide compensation for lost property violates Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Land reserved for public purposes cannot be claimed by the landowner for private benefit unless formally acquired; it must be held in trust for public use.
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
