Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20906

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N.Kirubakaran, P.Velmurugan, JJ
T.G.Naveen – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Respondent
W.A.Nos.340 & 360 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ARL.Sundaresan, Arunachalam.M
For the Respondents: S.K.Rameshuwar, V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, R.Udhayakumar, G.Masilamani, Iaemdar Ameenur Rahman

Once land is earmarked as a road or public utility space in a housing layout, it acquires a character of public commonality. The developer is immediately divested of ownership rights, and any attempt to subdivide, sell, or claim such land as private property is fraudulent and void.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Jurisdiction of High Court - Suo motu power to strike off fraudulent documents - Fraud vitiates all actions - Court cannot remain a silent spectator when illegality and lack of title are established regarding public property or rights of innocent third parties. (Paras 42, 43)

(B) Property Law - Unapproved Layout - Road and public utility spaces - Once a portion of land is earmarked as road, it assumes public character/common utility and the developer is divested of ownership rights - Subdivision and sale of such road portions to self by developer is illegal and fraudulent. (Paras 23, 25, 27)

(C) Easement/Access Rights - Electricity Connection - Right to access - Owners of plots in a layout have an inherent right to access and public utility services (like electricity) through identified roads/paths - Developers cannot obstruct such access by claiming road portions as private property. (Paras 47, 48)

Facts of the case:
The appellants (developers) formed an unapproved layout and sold various plots to third parties. In the layout, specific portions of land were earmarked as roads to provide access to the plots. Subsequently, the developers subdivided these road portions, claiming them as private property, and executed sale deeds in favour of their family members. They also sought to obstruct electricity connections granted to other plot owners through these roads. The lower revenue authorities cancelled the pattas (land titles) granted to the appellants for these road portions, which was challenged through writ petitions.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that once land is earmarked as a road in a layout, it is meant for common use by all plot owners. The developer is divested of ownership over such portions, regardless of whether they have been officially handed over to the local body or not. The subdivision and sale of these portions as private property were deemed fraudulent actions. The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to strike down these fraudulent sale deeds.

Issues: Whether a developer can subdivide and sell land earmarked as a road in an unapproved layout as private property, and whether the appellants can prevent access for utility services to other plot owners.

Ratio Decidendi: If a piece of land is earmarked as a road or pathway in a layout, it acquires the status of public utility land, divesting the developer of any exclusive ownership. Such lands cannot be subdivided or sold for private profit. Fraudulent documentation created to claim title over utility lands is void ab initio and liable to be struck down by the Court.

Result: Appeals dismissed; impugned sale deeds struck off.

Table of Content
1. illegal acts in real estate development and land grabbing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. factual history of property subdivision and disputed access. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. promoter's claim of continuing ownership over unapproved layout road segments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. public utility status of layout roads regardless of approval status. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. common property status of roads in layout development; prohibition on private conversion. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. fraudulent subdivision of roads constitutes illegality justifying cancellation of titles/pattas. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
7. judicial authority to dismiss fraudulent title claims without needing civil court intervention. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
8. high court's suo motu power to annul fraudulent documents involving public utility lands. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
9. rights of plot owners to public utilities and rejection of private ownership claims over roads. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)

The Real Estate is meant for land grabbers, land mafias and Goondas in collusion with politicians and police force violators. These people join together and grab the properties of the Government as well as private parties and even if layouts are made, the lands meant for road and public places are also being grabbed or encroached upon and made as a private land by the developers, violating the rights of the persons who have purchased the plots in the layouts. These kinds of illegal acts are being done on for long and the general public are the victims.

2.This is one such case wherein the land which was meant to be used as roads has been subdivided and registered in the name of developer's family members as a private property.

3.Whether the developer has got any such power or authority to convert the piece of land which has been shown as road to be made as a private land is the issue in this case?

4.The appeals have been filed against the orders of dismissal of the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants. The Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants to remove the electricity cable laid in S.No.287/1A1 and to quash the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, cancelling the sub-division of road and cancellation of patta for the sub-divided portion of the road.

5.One Mr.Bir Shahbuddin was the owner of the property measuring about 17.5 acres comprised in S.No.287, Injambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. Having acquired the same by virtue of sale deed dated 05.02.1980, she settled the same in favour of her five sons equally 3.50 acres each in the following manner:

Name	Survey No.	Date	Settlement Doc.No.	Extent
Mr.Amanuddin	287/1A1	05.07.1985	828/91	3.50 Acres
Mr.Syed Salauddin	287/1A2	16.07.1985	830/91	3.50 Acres
Mr.Shahbuddin	287/1A3	23.07.1985	829/91	3.50 Acres
Mr.Zakkauddin	287/1A4	23.07.1985	831/91	3.50 Acres
Mr.Ziauddin	287/1A5	23.07.1985	832/91	3.50 Acres

6.Mr.Amanuddin gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 11.07.2003 and 30.09.2003 to an extent of 2 acres & 1.45 acres comprised in S.No.287/1A1 respectively. Mr.Zakkauddin gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 03.07.2003 and 21.10.2003 to an extent of 2 acres and 1.45 acres comprised in S.No.287/1A4 respectively. Mr.Shahbuddin sold the 3.50 acres comprised in 287/1A3 to Mrs.Geetha and Mr.Balakrishnan, who in turn gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 17.05.2004 to an extent of 1 acre and to an extent of 2.45 acres.

7.Having got power to sell the properties, i.e, the respective shares of three sons of Mrs.Salimunnissa, Ms.P.G.Sobha has developed the property by way of an unapproved layout. The appellants purchased 80 cents of land comprised

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20906

HIGH COURT OF MADRASN.Kirubakaran, P.Velmurugan, JJT.G.Naveen – AppellantVersusTamil Nadu Electricity Board – RespondentW.A.Nos.340 & 360 of 2019

Once land is earmarked as a road or public utility space in a housing layout, it acquires a character of public commonality. The developer is immediately divested of ownership rights, and any attempt to subdivide, sell, or claim such land as private property is fraudulent and void.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N.Kirubakaran, P.Velmurugan, JJ
T.G.Naveen – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Respondent
W.A.Nos.340 & 360 of 2019