Madras High Court
Maharani Avenue Kudiyiruppor Nala ... vs The Commissioner, Town And Country ... on 14 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)4MLJ719
ORDER K. Suguna, J.
1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the approval granted by the 3rd respondent in Ma.Va/Na.Oo.e.No. 590/91.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the 4th and 5th respondents have promoted the lands comprised in S.F. Nos. 238, 243, 244, 245/C, 249 and 253/P in Veerakeralam Town Panchayat, Coimbatore and DTP approval was obtained for promoting the lands into house sites by putting up plots and laying house sites. While getting approval, the land comprised in S.F. No. 249, measuring 4237 sq.mts was reserved for public purpose, namely, for the purpose of park, children play area, shops, etc. Subsequently, in the year 1991, by the proceedings of the Director of Town and Country Planning dated 28.6.91, approval has been granted for conversion of the area reserved for public purpose into plots. Basing on this, the 4th and 5th respondents, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, are trying to sell the lands to individuals and put up construction therein. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the conversion of the reserved area , which has been set apart for public purpose into that of house sites is ultra vires. The permission granted by the 3rd respondent is also against the rules and according to the learned Counsel, the 3rd respondent does not have the right to sanction the plan for conversion of the area earmarked for public purpose . Besides, the 4th respondent sold the properties, namely, the plots to the members of the petitioner association only by showing the approved plan wherein the said area was reserved for public purpose. The earmarked area, hence, cannot be utilised by the promoters for other purpose. As such, the learned Counsel has contended that the approval granted by the 3rd respondent in LP/R (CN) No. 590/91 has to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th and 5th respondent hascontended tht originally, an extent of 4237 sq.mts was reserved for public purpose. A letter to this effect was also sent to the 3rd respondent . But, the 3rd respondent has sent a reply that the financial position of the panchayat was not in a sound condition, as such, they cannot pay the price for the land reserved for public purpose. Subsequently, after getting permission from the Director of Town and Country planning and by setting apart an extent of 4329 sq.mts, which approximately comes to 1.25 acres, which is more than what had been earlier reserved for public purpose,the area reserved for public purpose earlier was converted into plots and sold to the individuals and in the typed set of papers filed by the 4th and 5th respondents, the details of the individuals, to whom the said lands have been sold are also given. According to the learned senior counsel, when lands are promoted into plots, certain portion of the land should be set apart for public purpose. As far as the land in question is concerned,, after getting approval from the authority concerned, the lands which were originally set apart for public purpose was converted into plots and now more lands have been set apart for public purpose in S.F. No. 251/83 and shop sites 15 and 20 in LP/R (CN) No. 861/90 instead of 249/16. According to the learned senior counsel, originally, the lands comprised in S.F. No. 249/16, measuring 4237 sq.mts, which approximately comes to more than an acre were set apart for public purpose. Since,now an alternative site has been provided, which is, in fact, more than what had ben earlier set apart, the question of violation of rules does not arise. Apart from that, according to the learned senior counsel, the modified sanctioned plan was given in the year 1991 and basing on this, the lands have been sold to individuals, as such, now after a lapse of nearly 14 years, the petitioner has filedthe writ petition. Apart from that, according to the learned senior counsel, even as on date, the said land is being used for the purpose of children's play ground where they have put up shuttle cock court and one playground has also been developed. Apart from that, according to the learned Counsel, no prejudice will be caused by providing an alternative site for public purpose and the same has been even accepted by the 3rd respondent panchayat and a resolution to that effect has also been passed. As such, the writ petition has to be dismissed.
5. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein the 3rd respondent has taken a stand saying that originally, 7.30 hectares, ( nearly 18 acres) situated in S.F. Nos. 238/1, 238/2, 243, 244, 245, 249 and 253 were promoted in the year 1983 by obtaining necessary approval from the Deputy Director of Town planning, Coimbatore by proceedings dated 19.11.83. After the 3rd respondent expressed their inability to purchase the land, which has been set apart for public purpose, after getting necessary approval, for the layout in S.F. No. 249/16 in LP/R (CN) No. 590/91, by proceedings dated 28.6.1991 of the Director of Town and Country Planning , the area earmarked for public purpose was already handed over to the 3rd respondent town panchayat. As such, according to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent panchayat, by conversion of the original area set apart for public purpose, there is no loss to the panchayat.
6. I have considered the submissions of the respective counsel.
7. Admittedly, as per the rules, while promoting the lands into plots, certain area has to be set apart for public purpose, namely, park, children playground, etc. In the year 1983, while seeking approval of layout, the lands comprised in S.F. No. 249/16 were set apart by the 4th and 5th respondent for public purpose,measuring an extent of 4237 sq.mts, which approximately, comes to more than one acre. When the 3rd respondent expressed their inability to purchase the land set apart for public purpose, after getting approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning dated 28.6.91, the 4th and 5th respondents, after setting apart an alternative site, in substitution of the earlier land for public purpose, converted the area meant for public purpose into plots and sold them to individuals. Admittedly, as per the provisions of the Act, the 3rd respondent need not pay any cost for the land set apart for public purpose. But, knowingly or unknowingly, by letter dated 16.3.88, the 3rd respondent expressed their inability to purchase the said land due to financial constraint and subsequently, after getting approval, as already stated, the lands have been converted into plots. The basic principle is to provide an area for public purpose for the use of the residents of the area. As far as conversion of the land in question is concerned, by its conversion, even as per the averment of the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit filed, an extent of 4329 sq.mts has been already handed over to the 3rd respondent. Taking this into consideration all these, the Director of Town and Country Planning granted aporoval by proceedings dated 28.6.1991 for layout in S.F. No. 249/16 in LP/R (CN) No. 590/91. As such, the provision that certain lands should be reserved for public purpose while promoting the lands into plots has been complied with. As such, the requirement of public purpose has not been defeated. As stated earlier, the object is only to enable the residents of the area to have a common land for public use. That has been satisfied by allotting an alternative site. Though, as per the averment in the vacate stay petition, by getting necessary approval alone, the individuals, who have purchased the land, which was originally set apart for public purpose, have commenced construction in certain cases and in certain cases, construction has been completed, but as per the averment of the 3rd respondent, in the counter filed, without getting building approval, certain individuals have constructed and notices have been sent to them. Now, the issue is only with regard to conversion of the land, which had been earlier earmarked for public purpose into plots. Since alternative site has been given and handed over, the condition relating to setting apart an area for public purpose has been complied with. As far as the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner reported in 2002(3) MLJ 375 (Villupuram Municipality V. Subramaniam) and 2001(3) L.W. 828 (Krishna Nagar Residents Welfare Association V. Director of Town and Country Planning and etc.)are concerned, those two cases dealt with the situation wherein no alternative site has been offered. But, as stated earlier, in the case on hand, excess land has been offered as an alternative site for public purpose. As such, the above cited judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the case. The land which has been offered as an alternative site for public purpose should not be utilised for any other purpose. With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed.