Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 38709
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J
Sathiyam Bible Presbyterian Church – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration – Respondent
W.P.Nos.29777 of 2008|14334 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.K.Sriram, P.Gopalan
For the Respondents: V.Manoharan, A.S.Ragul Adhithya, P.T.Ramadevi, P.Veena Suresh
Once a land is earmarked for public purposes like parks or play areas in an approved layout, it belongs to the local body for public use, and any subsequent sale of such land by a developer as private plots is invalid, justifying the cancellation of patta and denial of planning permission.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Cancellation of Patta and Rejection of Planning Permission - Property earmarked as reserved area/park in approved layout under DTCP No.25/1974 and DTCP No.168/1974 - Vendor sold property as private plots to petitioner - Local body/Corporation has right over property as it was earmarked for public purpose - No infirmity in cancellation of patta or rejection of planning permission.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a church organization, purchased land originally earmarked as a children's play space and later as a park in an approved layout. Despite the development authority's requirement that reserved areas be gifted to the local body, the owner sold the land as private plots without such transfer. The revenue authorities subsequently cancelled the patta granted to the petitioner, and planning permission for building construction was rejected.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the subject property was specifically designated for public use in the approved layouts. The illegality in the vendor's sale of reserved land did not vest title in the petitioner. The cancellation of the patta and the rejection of the planning permission were legally sound as the property belongs to the local body for public benefit.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of patta and rejection of planning permission for a land previously earmarked for public utility in an approved layout were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: If a plot of land is earmarked for a public purpose such as a park or play space in an approved development layout, it stands dedicated for that public purpose, and private individuals cannot claim title through sale deeds executed by a developer, even if the land was not formally gifted to the local body.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. history of property purchase, layout approval, and subsequent administrative cancellation of revenue records. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner argues for bonafide purchase and violation of natural justice in patta cancellation. (Para 11) |
| 3. earmarked public property in approved layouts vests in the local body regardless of gift deed status. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. orders confirmed as the authority acted correctly in protecting land reserved for public purposes. (Para 18) |
COMMON ORDER
The writ petition in W.P.No.29777 of 2008 has been filed challenging the order dated 17.11.2008, passed by the first respondent, thereby dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner as against the order dated 14.02.2008, passed by the second respondent thereby cancelled the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land ad measuring an extent of 0.07.30.0 hectare, comprised in T.S.No.67 old survey No.177/2, situated at ward No.2, block No.49, Kodungaiyur Village, Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai.
2. The writ petition in W.P.No.14335 of 2015 has been filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the first respondent thereby rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the order dated 19.06.2009, passed by the second respondent thereby rejected the application submitted by the petitioner seeking planning permission for put up construction in the subject land.
3. The petitioner in both writ petitions are one and the same and the subject property is also one and the same. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass a common order in both writ petitions. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.P.No.29777 of 2008.
4. The petitioner had purchased a vacant land ad measuring 9646 sq.ft., comprised in T.S.No.67 old survey No.177/2 situated at No.31, ward No.2, block No.49, Kodungaiyur Village, Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai, by three sale deeds registered vide document Nos.735 of 1991 dated 27.02.1991; 756 dated 28.02.1991 and 797 of 1991 dated 05.03.1991. The said land was originally situated within the jurisdiction of Mathavaram panchayat union and subsequently merged with the third respondent corporation.
5. Originally, the subject land and other lands owned by one Murugesa Muthaliar and his brother. In pursuant to the partition deed A schedule property was allotted in favour of Murugesa Muthaliar and after his demise the entire property devolved on his only son Krishnamurthy Mudaliar. In the year 1977, the said Krishnamurthy Mudaliar had laid lay out of the land comprised in survey No.177/2 situated in No.31, Kodungaiyur village into house sites and applied for lay out approval from Mathavaram Panchayat. In turn, the panchayat sought technical assistants from the Director of Town and Country Planning. Subsequently, the lay out was approved in LPDM/DTCP No.25 of 1974. Later it was revised in LPDM/DTCP No.168 of 1974. However, both the lay out were not sanctioned by the local body ie., Mathavaram panchayat union, as contemplated under Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Rule 1970. The Deputy Director of town planning, Chengalpatu, by its communication dated 21.04.2008 directed the local bodies to accord sanction, only after fulfilling the conditions by the land owner. Therefore, for the approved lay out, no sanction was ordered by the local bodies.
6. While being so, the said Krishnamurthy Mudaliar sold out the house sites as unapproved house plots. The road portion which has been shown in the approved lay out was not gifted in favour of the local body. Later the major portion of the land in the said lay out was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing board for the purpose of formulating plots and roads, according to their scheme. From the unapproved lay out, the petitioner had purchased the subject property from the said Krishnamurthy Mudaliar, which is earmarked as reserved area. As per the approved lay out, the said land was reserved as children play space. How
