JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.) This Writ Appeal arises against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed in

W.P.(MD)No.5036 of 2023.

2.The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

(i)The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property situated at

Neelamegam Nagar, Y.Othakadai, Madurai Old S.No.70/1, New S.No.70/5, 70/6 as Plot No.92A and 92B and total extent of 5012.5 sq.ft. The said layout originally developed by one Annamalai Servai, who had purchased the property from one Kannappan Chettiyar in the year 1957. As per the conditions of layout total number of 100 plots were laid with 10% reserved for OSR plan approved by the Local Planning Authority in approval No.63/1984. The subsequent purchaser Annamalai Servai sold the property to one Udaiyammal in the year 1986 and after the property was transferred to several persons, it was sold to the writ petitioner in the year 2011.

(ii)A Writ Petition was filed in W.P.(MD)No.218 of 2012 by

Neelamegam Nagar House Owners Association seeking for a direction to the authorities to maintain the property for the purpose of common usage of lands as notified in the approved layout. The said Writ Petition was ordered by giving a direction to the Commissioner of Madurai East Panchayat Union and the President of Y.Othakadai Panchayat, which are as follows:-

“14.Accordingly, the third and fourth respondents are directed to initiate appropriate proceedings to restore the plots reserved for library, community hall, pathway and park by issuing notice to the people, who are now in possession and enjoyment of the property. The second respondent is directed to issue notice to the pattadars and cancel the patta, in case it is made out that they have purchased the sites reserved for common purpose. The third and fourth respondents should ensure that sufficient opportunity is given to the people, who are now in possession and enjoyment of the community sites. The action regarding restoration of these amenities should be completed, within a period of seven months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order.”

(iii)Subsequently, other Writ Petition came to be filed in

W.P.(MD)No.734 of 2007, seeking for a direction to the respondents therein to preserve common usage as notified and to comply with the requirements of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn in the light of the submission made by the learned Senior

Counsel appeared for 5th respondent therein.

3.The aforesaid narration shows that the subject property of this appeal had been vexed with one litigation after other.

4.Insofar as the present Writ Petition is concerned, the property that had been reserved as community hall, was sought to be alienated by the writ petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid orders, the Sub Registrar, Othakadai Sub Registration Office / 2nd respondent passed an order dated 19.12.2022, stating that the property cannot be alienated. This order was upheld by the learned Single Judge. Against which, this Writ Appeal is filed.

5.We heard Mrs.B.Bhuvaneshvariganesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.M.Ponniah, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Ms.B.Deepa, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.

6.It is the argument of Mrs.B.Bhuvaneshvariganesan that there was no previous transfer of title from the writ appellant to any third party and the purchase was made in the year 2011 and he continuous to be the owner thereof. In exercise of the power of ownership, he sought for alienation of the same, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent. Her submission is supported by the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.

7.This appeal is stoutly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the

4th respondent, who brought to our notice of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and in par