Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2453
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
S. Sulthan Beevi – Appellant
Versus
The Director of Town & Country Planning, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal (MD) No. 1250 of 2023 & CMP(MD) No. 9353 of 2023
Decided On : 08-08-2023
For the Appellant:Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for S. Karthick, Advocate. For the Respondent:R1 to R4, M. Linga Durai, Special Government Pleader. for R.M. Makesh Kumaravel, for R5 & R6, M. Ajmalkhan, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates.
The dispute over land title should be resolved in the civil court, and technical approval for regularization should be granted in compliance with the rules.
Headnote:
Regularization Rules - Land Title Dispute - The court dismissed the writ appeal challenging the technical approval for regularization of an unapproved layout, holding that the dispute over land title should be resolved in the civil court and not in the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the technical approval for regularization of an unapproved layout, claiming that the land belonged to them and not to the respondents. The court held that the dispute over land title should be resolved in the civil court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the technical approval was granted after due scrutiny and compliance with the rules. It held that the dispute over land title cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the dispute over land title and the applicability of the Regularization Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute over land title should be resolved in the civil court and that the technical approval was granted in compliance with the rules.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court directed the appellant to approach the civil court to establish their title and seek other reliefs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 27.06.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.1770 of 2022 on the file of this Court.)
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
1.This Writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 27.6.2023 made in W.P.(MD )No.1770 of 2022. In the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order dated 12.11.2021, whereby the second respondent granted technical approval to regularize the unapproved layout called “IBN BATTUTA CITY” formed by the respondents 5 and 6.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that a total extent of 50 cents of lands comprised in S.Nos. 376/1B, 376/2 and 376/4B of Soolamangalam 2 - Sethi Revenue Village, Ayyampettai Town Panchayat, Thanjavur District belongs to the appellant and not to the respondent 5 and 6. Therefore, when regularization is sought by including the appellant’s land, the same ought not to have been granted by the respondents.
3. The Writ petition is resisted by the respondents by filing separate counter affidavits. It is the case of the official respondents that the technical approval was granted upon due scrutiny of the application and compliance of the Rules. It is the case of the respondents 5 and 6 that their title deeds include the 50 cents of land claimed by the appellant and patta in respect of the entire extent stood in their name.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the respective cases of the parties, held that the petitioner will have to approach the civil court seeking necessary relief and the issue is raised cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition and dismissed the same.
5. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the onus to establish the title by approaching the civil Court ought to have fastened only on the respondents 5 and 6, the promoters of the layout who are only duty bound to prove their tittle. She would submit that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the appellant/writ petitioner challenged the technical approval for violation of statutory rules. Firstly in the present layout, no part of the layout has been sold through a registered sale deed as on 20.10.2016 and therefore, the present layout in question cannot be dealt with under the Tamil Nadu Regularization of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017, framed vide G.O.(Ms). No. 78, dated 04.05.2017. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon Rule 5 (8) which mandates that an application made by any person for regularization of plot or layout who does not have any right over the land shall be summarily rejected. She also placed reliance on Rule 9(b)(v) which mandates production of a self attested copy of the ownership documents in favour of the promoter. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the impugned order and ought not to have relegated the appellant to the Civil Court.
6. Per contra, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6 would submit that the layout was formed prior to the year 2016 and house sites have been sold prior to 20.10.2016. He would further submit that the claim of title by the appellant is untenable. The fifth and sixth respondents have demonstrated their title in detail vide paragraph Nos.12 to 15 of the counter affidavit and have produced all the documents and the patta before the second respondent. When the second respondent had prima facie satisfied himself in respect of the title of the promoters, any further dispute by setting up of a rival claim cannot be gone into in the regularization proceedings and the Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning cannot pronounce upon the lis between the parties.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
8. Regarding the applicability of the Regularization Rules, in para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the first
