Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1530
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.
U. Nagarajan - Petitioner
Versus
Logambal – Respondent
Rev. APLW.(MD)No.69 of 2018 in W.P.(MD)No.21834 of 2015 & W.M.P.(MD) No.22195 of 2018
Decided On : 06-04-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, Senior counsel, for Ms. C. Sangamithirai.
For the Respondents:Mr. T. Amjad Khan, Government Advocate, Mr. K.P. Krishnadoss, Mr. M. Saravanan, Mr. C.V. Karthikeyan.
Once a road is earmarked in a layout sketch and plots are sold based upon it, the pathway must be treated as a public amenity. The original promoter holds no legal right to obstruct or dispose of such road portions, irrespective of the layout's formal approval status.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act - Section 48 - Priority of rights - Unapproved layout - Once a road is earmarked in a layout sketch and plots are sold based thereon, the road retains its character as a designated access path; the promoter lacks the authority to consolidate, encroach, or obstruct such area, as such land cannot be validly transferred as an independent plot to subsequent purchasers. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 47 Rule 1 - Review jurisdiction - Grounds for review are strictly limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; a party's failure to enter an appearance during original proceedings due to inadvertence does not constitute a valid ground for revisiting the finalized order. (Paras 3 and 8)
Facts of the case:
The review applicant sought a review of a court order that directed the demolition of a compound wall obstructing a designated roadway in a residential layout. The respondent claimed that the wall blocked access to her property, which she had purchased based on a layout sketch where the road was clearly earmarked. Although the layout was unapproved, the respondent had purchased her land prior to the review applicant's purchase of the plot upon which the wall was constructed.
Findings of Court:
The court held that even in an unapproved layout, once a plan has been sketched and used to sell individual plots, the areas earmarked for roads serve the public or residents. The developer is precluded from reclaiming or obstructing such areas. Furthermore, property laws dictate that the rights of an earlier purchaser prevail, preventing the subsequent sale or conversion of the road portion into private plots.
Issues: The central issues were: (1) Whether a promoter has the right to block a roadway in an unapproved layout, and (2) Whether the sale of land earmarked as a road to a subsequent purchaser holds legal validity against the prior easementary or access rights of earlier plot owners.
Ratio Decidendi: A layout sketch that earmarks access roads creates a binding implied obligation upon the promoter to maintain said areas as public access points. Any obstruction of these areas is contrary to principles of planned development and property law, as the designated road cannot be treated as an alienable land parcel by the promoter to subsequent buyers.
Result: Review application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the dispute concerning the blockage of an access road in an unapproved layout. (Para 5) |
| 2. roads in unapproved layouts earmarked for common access cannot be blocked, and prior purchasers hold superior rights. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. dismissal of the review application as no error apparent on the record was established. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
The review applicant herein seeks review of the order dated17.08.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.21834 of 2015. The said writ petition was filed by one Logambal. The case of Logambal was that the 30 feet road lying to the south of her plot had been compounded and that the authorities are declining to treat it as an encroachment. The promoter of the layout Thiru.Ravi Murugaiah had put up the compound wall and the 13th respondent / review applicant herein was actually the contesting respondent. Even though they had been served, they did not choose to enter appearance. The writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench in the following terms:-
“The writ petitioner is in occupation of the land comprised in Survey Nos.80/6, 84/1A, 84/1B and 84/1C measuring 1.72 acres. To reach the land from the main road, there is a customary pathway running through the Survey Nos.80/2, 80/3 and 80/4 in the same village. The private respondents herein have promoted the layout in the Survey Nos.80/2, 80/3 and 80/4 and named it as Vasan Nagar South Extension.
2.Even though, the planning norms mandate that while forming a lay out, all the roads must end in the neighbouring lands so as to ensure continued access, the promoters in this case have chosen to put up a wall in Survey Nos.80/6, 84/1A in Nachikurichi Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District. This wall has blocked the petitioner's access completely.
3.The allegation of the writ petitioner is that such a wall has been illegally put up and there is no planning approval for the same. It appears that even the lay out was not promoted after getting appropriate permission from the competent authorities.
4.None appears for the private respondents. Since the action of the private respondents in putting up a compound wall is opposed to the very concept of planned development, this Court directs the authorities particularly the respondents 6 and 7 to demolish the wall in question within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since it is a part of an unauthorised layout.
5.The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
2. The learned Senior counsel representing the review applicant reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of review. He pointed out that the land lying to the south of the writ petitioner's plot was purchased by the review applicant vide sale deed dated 07.08.2014. It had been numbered as plot No.1074-B and 1074-C. He drew our attention to the claim made by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had projected that on account of the obstruction made by the promoter, her customary and easementary right had been affected. The writ petitioner is said to be owning agricultural lands to the east of the petition mentioned plot. He submitted that such issues should be resolved only before the jurisdictional civil Court and not in writ jurisdiction. He also relied on the decisions reported in (2005) 4 SCC 741 ( Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club ), 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 357 (Sathuvachary Raghavendra Nagar Residents' Welfare Association, Rep. by its Secretary G.Nedumaran, No.1/4, 2nd Street, Ragavendra Nagar, Sathuvachary, Vellore-632 009 Vs. Palar Garden Association, Rep. By its Secretary C.Rajavelu, at H-4, Palar Garden, Sathuvachary, Vellore-632 009) and 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927 (Malleeswari Vs. K.Suguna).
3. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the contentions now urged before us would very much fall within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. According to him, the review applicant failed t
