IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
S. Ponnusamy - Appellant
Versus
V. Chandrasekar & Others - Respondents
S.A. No. 1395 of 2001 & W.P. Nos. 13862 of 2017 & 14501 of 2021 & W.M.P. Nos. 15048 of 2017 & 15394 of 2021
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Public Road - Land Dispute - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, Sections 17, 19, 24, 37, 38, 49 - The court held that the public road earmarked in the layout could not be taken back by the Promoters/Developers on the ground that the Municipality or Corporation has not come forward to lay roads. The promoters are not entitled to claim any possessory right over the public road, since the public roads always continued to be a public road and the persons who are claiming possession over the public roads can only be treated as encroachers.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and use of a public road in a housing layout. The plaintiff, a purchaser of a housing plot, sought permanent injunction to prevent the alteration of the physical features of the road and mandatory injunction to remove encroachments. The defendants, including the promoters of the layout and the Corporation, contested the suit, denying the existence of the road and claiming that the suit was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court held that there was no road formed at the time of layout and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. However, the High Court held that the public road earmarked in the layout could not be taken back by the Promoters/Developers and that the promoters were not entitled to claim any possessory right over the public road.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff for relief, mis-joinder of parties, and the maintainability of the suit. Additional issues related to the approval and existence of the road, possession by the Corporation, and the applicability of the limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the public road earmarked in the layout could not be taken back by the Promoters/Developers on the ground that the Municipality or Corporation has not come forward to lay roads. The promoters were not entitled to claim any possessory right over the public road, as the public roads always continued to be a public road and the persons claiming possession over the public roads could only be treated as encroachers.
Final Decision: The Second appeal was allowed, and the Judgment and Decree made in A.S. No.256 of 1997, dated 25.10.2000 and in O.S. No.25 of 1988, dated 29.07.1997 were set aside. The relief claimed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction was decreed, and the official respondents were directed to remove the encroached portions of the public road and restore the same as per the approved layout plan. The Writ petitions filed by the landowner and the 12th defendant were allowed and dismissed, respectively.
JUDGMENT :
K. Rajasekar, J.
(Prayers: Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S. No.256 of 1997, dated 25.10.2000 on the file of the Principal District Judge of Coimbatore by confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No.25 of 1988, dated 29.07.1997 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Direction or Order directing the first respondent, the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation to evict the encroacher, who has encroached upon the public road in the approved VVC Layout, situated in Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Ward No.25, measuring 220 feet length and 40 feet wide, which is mentioned as Corporation Road in the Corporation Town Planning records.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for the records relating to the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 05.07.2021 under Section 258(1) and 441 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act of the first respondent herein and quash the same.)
1. The plaintiff/ Appellant herein has filed this second appeal to set aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.25/88, dated 29.07.1997, on the file of II Additional District Munsif Judge, Coimbatore, and to set aside the decree and judgment passed in A.S. No.256/1997, dated 25.10.2000 by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The relief sought for in the writ petition in W.P. No.13862 of 2017 is to direct the first respondent, the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation to evict the encroacher, who has encroached upon the public road in the approved VVC Layout, situated in Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Ward No.25, measuring 220 feet length and 40 feet wide, which is mentioned as Corporation Road in the Corporation Town Planning records. Similarly, the relief sought in the writ petition in W.P. No.14501 of 2021 is to call for the records relating to the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 05.07.2021 under Section 258(1) and 441 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act of the first respondent herein and quash the same.
3. The subject matter of this second appeal and writ petitions relating to claiming right over the lands situated on the eastern side of plot nos.9 and 10 of the Verivadu Chettiar Layout, Ward 25, Coimbatore City. Hence all the matters heard together and common Order is hereby passed.
4. The plaintiff / appellant in the second appeal is the purchaser of one of the housing plot numbered as 9' in an approved layout called Verivadu Chettiar layout (VVC layout) as per sale deed dated 14.12.1998. On the eastern side of his plot, there is 40 feet north-south scheme road was running, this road is part of the layout. The roads formed in the housing layout were gifted in favour of the Municipality of Coimbatore. The defendants 1 to 7 are the promoters of the layout and they have sold various plots to various persons. The plaintiff stated that, on the eastern side of his plot, road was earmarked in the layout and the defendants were attempting to sell the road portion. There was a temporary watchman shed, which was not removed by the promoters from the road portion. They have put up a barbed wire, fencing the portion of the road on the eastern side of the plaintiff's plot. The Commissioner of the Corporation was also added as a party, since the Corporation has not taken any steps to remove the encroachment inspite of request made by the plaintiff. Since, the public road has been encroached, the petitioner has come forward to file suit against the promoters and the Commissioner of Corporation, seeking permanent injunction from altering the physical features of the road and mandatory injunction to remove the encroachments.
5. The Defendant No.6 filed written
Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa and Ors.
Pt. Chetra Vashist vs. Delhi Municipal
Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent errors and cannot serve as an appeal; land reserved for public purposes under the prior act remains non-alienable unless specific actions under t....
Failure to acquire land within three years results in automatic release from reservation under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
Failure to acquire land within three years under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act results in automatic lapse of reservation.
Land is deemed released from reservation if not acquired within three years as per Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Legal contention raised about applicability of Article 243ZD etc. has no application to the facts of the present case as the same applies only if the Scheme in question is framed by the concerned Mun....
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....
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.