Municipal authorities cannot summarily take possession of land from a party in possession, even if the land is earmarked for public purpose in a layout plan, without following the due process of law.

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 and 4 from acquiring petitioner land situated at Old Survey 72-part, new survey No.72/4 Sundakamudhur Village, Coimbatore Tauk, Coimbatore District to an extent of 2175 sq.ft of vacant land without following due process of law on the basis of petitioner representation dated 12.09.2024.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to forbear the respondents 3 and 4 from acquiring petitioner land situated at Old Survey 72-part, new survey No.72/4 Sundakamudhur Village, Coimbatore Tauk, Coimbatore District to an extent of 2175 sq.ft of vacant land without following due process of law on the basis of petitioner representation dated 12.09.2024.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she has purchased a vacant land, situated at Old Survey No.72/part, New Survey No.72/4, Perur Sundakamudhur Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore, to an extent of 2175 sq.ft., in the year 2017. However, the respondents 3 and 4 had placed a name board as if the said property belongs to the Corporation. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without due process of law, the respondents are trying to evict the petitioner. It is further submitted that, since the third respondent has already collected the property tax from the petitioner for the subject property, the claim that the land belongs to the Corporation is unsustainable. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that the third respondent has wrongly collected the property tax from the petitioner and as per the approved layout plan, the subject property is earmarked as Children's Play Space and yet to be handed over to the Corporation.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. In the present case, the petitioner has purchased the aforesaid vacant land in the year 2017 from the private party. According to the respondents, the subject land belongs to Corporation and earmarked for Children's Park. If the said land is meant for a Park, then it is for the public purpose. It is pertinent to note that the third respondent has collected a property tax from the petitioner for the subject land. Having collected the property tax and earmarked the land for Children’s park, the respondents supposed to have handed over the subject land to the Corporation. However, in the case on hand, the land was not handed over to the Corporation. Hence, this Court makes it clear that, in the event, the respondents are taking possession of the subject land, are directed to follow the due procedure of law, since the petitioner is in the possession of the land. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

04-03-2026

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

VM