SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved On 24.08.2022 Pronounced On 16.09.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.2470 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.2630 & 2631 of 2022

1.K.Sumathi 2.V.Bhavani

3.S.Jagan

4.Debisree Majumdar

5.M.Shyamala

6.M.Kamala 7.M.Lalitha

8.M.Swaminathan

9.N.Gayathri Sridharan

10.N.Sriram

11.R.Balasubramaniyan

12.B.Gnanam

13.S.Ramasubramanian

14.G.Narendran 15.A.Rajendran

16.S.K.Sivakumar 17.K.Loganathan 18.B.Umasankar

19.P.Suseela

20.P.Delhi Babu

21.S.S.Prasad Babu ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member – Secretary, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Office of the Tamilnadu Housing Board, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned proceeding of the second respondent in his proceeding vide Letter No.NHRB/C/472/2021 dated 09.11.2021 and consequential Letter No.PP/NHRB/C/0472/2021 dated 22.11.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to re-consider the application for approval for building plan in respect of the property situated at Valasaravakkam Revenue Village bearing Plot Nos.1A, 1B, 2A & 2B at No.27 and 28, Prakasam Street, Janaki Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087 comprised in Survey No.159 (part), new Survey Nos.159/38, 159/16A2, 159/40 & 159/39 without insisting No Objection Certificate from the third respondent.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.Ilamurugu For R1 : Mrs.Geetha Thamarai Selvan Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.Y.Bhuvanesh Kumar Standing Counsel For R3 : Mr.A.M.Ravindranath Jeyapaul Standing Counsel

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to:-

i. call for the records of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Letter No.NHRB/C/472/2021, dated 09.11.2021 and consequential Letter No.PP/NHRB/C/0472/2021, dated 22.11.2021, ii. quash the same, and iii.direct the second respondent to re-consider the application for approval for building plan in respect of the property situated in Valasaravakam Village bearing Plot Nos.1A, 1B, 2A, 2B at No 27 and 28, Prakasam street, Janaki Nagar, Valasarvakam Chennai- 600087 compromised in Survey No 159(Part), New Survey No 159/38 159/16A2, 159/40& 159/39 without insisting “No Objection Certificate” from the third respondent.

2. The petitioners have purchased undivided shares in a land measuring an extent of 9,400 sq.ft in S.No.159/1C, Valasaravakkam Village (formerly Chengalpattu District). The land belonged to the minor sons of Mr.M.Venkatram namely, Sundararaman & Anantharamakrishnan. The land was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was however sold by his legal heir to various persons. Three persons applied for planning permission in 1986 who promoted flats.

3. The promoters put up a construction. The promoters sold undivided share in the land to the petitioners and others. The petitioners have been living in the aforesaid property since 1986, pursuant to the three planning permissions granted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “CMDA”), for Plot No.1A on 17.02.1986 (App.No.106/1985) and for Plot 1B (App.No

1008/1986) and 2 (App.No 1009/1986) on 13.07.1986.

4. The petitioners have now decided to pull down the existing building as they are in a dilapidated condition. The petitioners have decided to put up a new construction in place of the existing building. Therefore, they approached the second respondent CMDA for building plan approval. The application was rejected by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 09.11.2021 bearing reference Letter No.NHRB/C/472/2021 and vide consequential communication dated

22.11.2022 bearing reference Lr.No.PP/NHRB/C/0472/2021.

5. It is submitted that in the year 1970 much prior to the construction of the building by the promoters in 1986, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had proposed to acquire an extent of 303.89 acres of Patta Land for construction of Housing Units. Further, an Extension Scheme was proposed to acquire land measuring an extent of 248.21 acres of Patta Land. The Special Thasildhar (Land Acquisition), the Tamil Nadu Housing Board issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquisition of land which was approved by the Government vide G.O.(Ms)No.125, Housing and Urban Department, dated 08.05.1975 and G.O.(Ms)No.136, Housing and Urban Department, dated 14.05.1975. A Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by the Government on 07.06.1978 along with 16 other G.O’s.

6. The facts on record indicate that the subject land in S.No 159-1C measuring an extent of 1.14 acres was also a subject land for acquisition in terms of the above Notification under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Later awards were also passed on the following dates as detailed below:-

Extent of Land Date Copy of Award No.
.22 acres 16.09.1986 7/86
.32 ½ 25.08.1988 2/88
.8 ½ 17.08.1989 1/89
.35 ½ 05.01.1990 3/89
.16 ½ 15.07.1996 2/96

7. The land in Survey No.159/1C was acquired along with other survey numbers. The Writ Petition is defended by the third respondent, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board stating that the petitioners and others are encroachers and therefore they are not entitled for get a fresh planning permission on the land which has been encroached by them all along. It is submitted that the acquisition was completed with the credit of the award amount.

8. In this connection, the learned counsel for the Housing Board has relied upon the decision of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top