Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 895
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
R. Ramasamy & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The President, Karur & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (MD) Nos. 21657 & 21658 of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2023
For the Petitioner:K. Suresh, Advocate. For the Respondent: G. Suriya Ananth, Additional Government Pleader.
The court emphasized the acceptance of the gift deeds and directed the respondent to grant final approval based on the technical approval and the registered gift deeds.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Land Dispute - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Na.Ka.No.585/2022/Ka.Ma, dated 29.04.2022 - Na.Ka.No.586/2022/Ka.Ma - The court directed the respondent to grant final approval based on the technical approval granted by the Assistant Director of District Town and Country Planning. The impugned order refusing final approval was set aside, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the issue and grant final approval within twelve weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land and a portion was gifted for laying a road. The Panchayat passed a resolution affirming the gift deed for widening the road. However, the impugned order refused final approval of the building plan due to the gift deeds being executed prior to the Panchayat's resolution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no irregularity in the gift deeds and directed the respondent to grant final approval based on the technical approval and the registered gift deeds. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the issue and grant final approval within twelve weeks.
Issues: Dispute over the timing of the gift deeds in relation to the Panchayat's resolution and the refusal of final approval by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gift deeds should be accepted, and the respondent should grant final approval based on the technical approval and the registered gift deeds.
Final Decision: The impugned order refusing final approval was set aside, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the issue and grant final approval within twelve weeks. Both Writ Petitions were disposed with the same direction to the respondent. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent, dated 22.08.2022 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to grant final approval in the light of the technical approval granted by the Assistant Director of District Town and Country Planning in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.585/2022/Ka.Ma, dated 29.04.2022.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent, dated 22.08.2022 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to grant final approval in the light of the technical approval granted by the Assistant Director of District Town and Country Planning in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.586/2022/Ka.Ma, dated 29.04.2022.)
Common Order:
1. Arguments were advanced in both the Writ Petitions in common and a counter affidavit had also been filed. Since the facts overlapped, a common order is passed.
2. Let me take as an illustration the averments made in W.P. (MD)No.21657 of 2022. The Writ Petition had been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the order of the respondent/President, Andankovil East Village Panchayat, Thanthoni Union, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District, dated 22.08.2022 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent to grant final approval in the light of the technical approval granted by the Assistant Director of District Town and Country Planning in proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 585/2022/Ka.Ma., dated 21.04.2022.
4. Heard Mr.K.Suresh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Suriya Ananth, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
5. The petitioner had purchased land in Andankulam East Village, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District in S.F.No.626/1 measuring 0.41¾ acres by a registered sale deed, dated 08.12.2021, registered as Doc.No. 9838/2021. Patta had also been issued in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the vendors of the petitioner and other co-owners had gifted a portion of the property in S.F.No.626/1 for common purpose for laying road. This was by a registered gift deed, dated 04.01.2022 registered as Doc.NoS.38 and 39/2023. It was stated that this aspect of execution of gift deed had been an ongoing discussion from the year 2018.
6. The learned Counsel while narrating the facts stated that in the year 2019, there was no elected Panchayat and therefore, to widen the common road from 20 feet to 30 feet, a proposal was given out that land can be gifted for widening the road. The Block Development Officer at that particular point of time had apparently approved such proposal. In the meanwhile, before the gift deed could actually be executed and registered, COVID-19 pandemic set in. In the year 2022, on 04.01.2022, the gift deeds were actually executed and registered.
7. In the meanwhile, the Panchayat came into office and the Panchayat had passed a resolution again affirming that a gift deed must be given for widening the road from 20 feet to 30 feet. They had passed a resolution on 21.01.2022. But even prior to that, gift deeds had been registered. Probably taking umbrage over the fact that gift deeds had been registered prior to such a resolution, the impugned order came to be passed refusing final approval of the building plan submitted by the petitioner herein.
8. It is to be noted that the petitioner had also obtained technical approval from the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, by proceedings 29.04.2022. It is only an issue of the gift deed being executed prior to the resolution of the Panchayat. But as a fact, the concept that such gift deed should be executed had been under discussion from the year 2018 onwards.
9. I do not find any irregularity in the gift deeds being executed and I really hope that the respondent
