Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ
R. Sudha – Appellant
Versus
K. Durairaj – Respondent
WA No. 676 of 2020|WA No. 3115 of 2019
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property and Housing
Act Referred
Town and Country Planning Act
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905
Constitution of India: Art.21
Headnote
(B) Appellate Review - Scope - The Court exercises restraint in appellate jurisdiction, upholding the Writ Court's findings when no perversity or illegality exists in the appreciation of the protection afforded to common purpose lands for public welfare. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
A Co-operative Society developed a housing layout in 1968, which included earmarked communal areas, roads, and parks. The society later failed to gift these areas to the local municipal authority and instead sold the OSR lands and common areas to its members, justifying its action based on a government order issued in 2005. The Writ Petitioner challenged this conversion, resulting in the setting aside of the government order.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decision to set aside the government order, emphasizing that common purpose lands cannot be converted once a layout is sanctioned. The High Court directed the municipal corporation to identify and clear encroachments on these lands and ordered administrative action against the officials responsible for the illicit conversion.
Issues: The validity of a retrospective government order attempting to reduce common purpose areas in a long-standing sanctioned layout and the duty of the state to protect OSR lands from illegal development.
Ratio Decidendi: Earmarked common areas in a layout plan constitute a public trust; once a layout is sanctioned, such lands are immune to unauthorized conversion or retrospective policy changes, and any attempt to divest these rights by the developer is contrary to the town planning framework.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Venkatesh, Avinash Wadhwani
For the Respondents: S. Senthil Murugan, N. Velmurugan, D. Gopal, Avinash Wadhwani, T. Mohan, S. Arun Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the housing society layout and the unauthorized conversion of common lands. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. common purpose areas in layouts are held in public trust and cannot be retrospectively altered. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. directions to authorities to initiate action against illegal conversions and recover losses. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
WA No. 676 of 2020
PRAYER
To allow the above Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 18.07.2019 passed in WP No.34395 of 2007.
WA No. 3115 of 2019
PRAYER
To set aside the order in WP No.34395/ of 2007 dated 18.07.2019.
WA No. 676 of 2020
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Venkatesh S.
For Respondent(s): R1 & R8 died (steps taken)
Mr.S.Senthil Murugan
Special Government Pleader for R2 & 3
Mr.N.Velmurugan
Standing Counsel for R4
Mr.D.Gopal
Government Advocate for R5
No appearance R6
Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for R7, 9-13, 17-19
Mr.T.Mohan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Arun Kumar for R14-16
WA No. 3115 of 2019
For Appellant(s): Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
For Respondent(s): R1 (Died) – Steps taken
Mr.S.Senthil Murugan
Special Government Pleader for R2 & 3
Mr.N.Velmurugan
Standing Counsel for R4
Mr.D.Gopal
Government Advocate for R5
Mr.S.Venkatesh for R7-13
Mr.T.Mohan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Arun Kumar for R14-16
No appearance - R6
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 18.07.2019 passed in WP.No.34395 of 2007.
2. 6th respondent in writ petition is appellant. 1st respondent Mr.K.Durairaj instituted writ proceedings challenging Government order issued in G.O.(D).No.245, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.06.2005.
3. Facts in brief are that Peelamedu Industrial Worker's Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd, a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 developed layout and sold plots to its members. Allottees are workers of Pioneer Mills and Radhakrishna Mills, both situate at Peelamedu, Coimbatore. Housing scheme was developed for the benefit of members of co-operative society and lands were acquired by Government for development of scheme through Co-operative Society.
4. Layout had been initially approved by Singanallur Municipality vide D.Dis 84/61, dated 29.06.1968 under L.P.D.M./D.T.P. No.35/68. Layout was approved on condition that roads and other communal areas as provided in approved plan ought to be transferred to the municipal authorities for maintenance. However, Co-operative Society failed to transfer lands till the year 1999. It is the failure on part of Co-operative Society and its authorities to execute gift deeds of roads and common areas as per layout in favour of local bodies.
5. Allegation set out by 1st respondent/writ petitioner is that, in violation of layout approval, common areas have been reduced and remaining common areas were sold by Co-operative Society in favour of other members. Co operative Society converted the OSR lands allotted for common usage, including development part, and those common lands were sold in favour of other members and sale deeds executed by receiving sale consideration. Said Act of Co-operative Society and its management is in violation of building plan approval granted under the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act and Rules framed thereunder. Non-gifting of land itself is an irregularity committed by officials of Co-operative Society, and Co-operative Department officials, managing the affairs of the Co-operative Society.
6. Initially, as per approved layout of the year 1968, 24.5% out of total extent of 7.96 acres were sold, reserved for communal purposes. All the members are entitled to utilise the said land as common area, and depriving their rights to utilise the common area, Society sold the OSR lands, including portions of the road, in violation of Rules in force.
7. Only reason stated by Co-operative Society is that 24.5% initially approved by Planning Authority was subsequen
