Madras High Court
M/S.Jayalakshmi Pressing Pvt. Ltd vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries ... on 9 November, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 14.10.2022
Pronounced On 09.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014, 1098 & 1724 of 2021
and
M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2014
W.M.P.Nos.1215, 1929, 1931, 7804 & 2021
W.P.No.5130 of 2014
1.M/s.Jayalakshmi Pressing Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr.C.Subramanian,
Plot No.6, Venkateswara Nagar,
Opp: DSP Bungalow,
Hosur – 639 126, Krishnagiri District.
2.S.Mani
3.M/s.Sun Bright Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Mr.R.Shanmugavelu,
Off. At 6, Sidco Readymade,
Garment Complex, Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4.M/s.Ganapathi Associates,
Rep. by its Partner, Mr.V.R.Mani,
Off. At No.62, G.R.Nagar,
Seelanaikanpatti Post,
Salem – 636 201. ... Petitioners
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 49
W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Limited (SIDCO),
Rep. by its Chairman / Managing Director,
Guindy Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 32.
2.The Deputy General Manager (IE-II),
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Limited (SIDCO),
Guindy Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 32.
3.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Limited (SIDCO),
Industrial Estate, Five Road,
Salem – 636 004. ... 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 order passed by the third respondent in Rc.No.1378/B/05
dated 28.01.2013 and quash the same and consequently to forbear the third
respondent and their subordinates from preventing petitioners to use the 80
feet road to access their property in Survey No.4/5 of Ward No.36, Block
No.68, P.N.Patty / Mettur Municipality Area (New Survey No.4/1 of
Ward D, Block No.13) in total 25.00 Acres, situated at Mettur
Municipality Area, Mettur Dam-2, Salem District.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 2 of 49
W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
For P1, P2 & P4 : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For P3 : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel, for
M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi
For Respondents : Mr.M.J.Jaseem Mohammed
W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021
Mettur Dam Small Scale Industrialists Association,
Regd.No.109/2010,
Rep. by its President – Mr.A.Madhappan,
No.E2, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Mettur R.S. - 636 402,
Salem District. ... Petitioner
in both W.Ps.
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to
Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner / Director,
Town and Country Planning,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Deputy Director,
Town and Country Planning,
Salem Region, No.6, Sannathi Street,
Subramaniya Nagar,
Sooramangalam, Salem – 636 005.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 3 of 49
W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
4.The Commissioner,
Mettur Municipality,
Mettur Dam, Salem District.
5.The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Ltd., (SIDCO),
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
6.M/s.Sun Bright Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Mr.R.Shanmuga Velu,
No.6, SIDCO Readymade
Garments Complex,
Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondents
in both W.Ps.
Prayer in W.P.No.1098 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear
the first to fourth respondents from granting any permission for conversion
of Industrial lands into Residential Plots in Block No.68, T.S.No.4,
situated at Mettur SIDCO Industrial Estate, Mettur Dam-2, Salem District
as per the application of the sixth respondent and consequently direct the
second to fourth respondents to implement the order of the fifth respondent
dated 28.01.2013.
Prayer in W.P.No.1724 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 4 of 49
W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
records of the impugned order made in G.O. (2D) No.126, Housing and
Urban Development (UD IV-1) Department, dated 05.08.2019 passed by
the first respondent and its consequential Notification issued by the third
respondent dated 19.11.2019, which has been published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette dated 27.11.2019 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.L.Raja, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Balu in both W.Ps.
For R1 to R3 : Mrs.N.Senthil Selvi
Government Advocate in both W.Ps.
For R4 : Mr.L.P.Maurya in both W.Ps.
For R5 : Mr.M.J.Jaseem Mohammed
in both W.Ps.
For R6 : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel,
for M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi in both W.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
By this common order, all the three Writ Petitions are being disposed.
2. W.P.No.5130 of 2014 has been filed by four petitioners to quash the impugned order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the third respondent Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 5 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. Limited (SIDCO), Industrial Estate, Salem, in Rc.No.1378/B/05.
3. By the impugned order dated 28.01.2013, the third respondent has imposed certain restrictions on the use of the land measuring an extent of 25 Acres purchased by the petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014.
4. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 28.01.2013 of the third respondent Branch Manager, SIDCO reads as under:-
“In this connection, we wish to inform that the subject land was transferred to M/s.Mettur Beardsell Co. for establishing Textile Factory and threading operations as per G.O. cited. By this way you are violating the conditions mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.49 (Industries) dt. 11.01.1972. Hench it is informed:-
i. that the land should be utilized only for the industrial purpose.
ii. that the land should not be converted into housing plots.
iii. that the SIDCO 80 feet road will not be permitted to use.
If any deviations are found, appropriate actions will be taken against you through court of law.
5. The petitioners in the above Writ Petition have together ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 6 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. purchased an extent of 25 Acres of land in SIDCO, Industrial Estate, Mettur, Salem in a Court Auction in C.P.No.125 of 1988 held on 08.03.2012 during the liquidation of Mettur Textile Pvt.Ltd.
6. In W.P No 1098 of 2021, the petitioner namely, Mettur Dam Small Scale Industrialists Association represented by its President, has prayed for an order to restrain the first to fourth respondents therein from granting permission for converting 25 Acres of land in Plots in Block No.68, T.S.No.4 purchased by the petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 from industrial use to residential use situated at Mettur SIDCO Industrial Estate, Mettur Dam-2, Salem District as per the application of the sixth respondent (the third petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2020) and for a consequential direction to implement the order of the fifth respondent dated 28.01.2013.
7. Thus, the prayers in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 and W.P.No.1098 of 2021 are for diametrically opposite relief. The prayers in the respective Writ Petitions are reproduced below:-
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 7 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. W.P.Nos. 5130 of 2014 W.P No 1098 of 2021 For issuance of a Writ of For issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for Mandamus to forbear the first to the records of impugned order passed fourth respondents from by third respondent in Rc.No. granting any permission for 1378/B/05 dated 28.1.2013 and quash conversion of Industrial Lands the same, consequently forbearing the into Residential Plots in Block 3rd respondent and their subordinates No.68, T.S.No.4, situated at from preventing petitioners to use the Mettur SIDCO Industrial 80 feet road to access their property Estate, Mettur Dam-2, Salem in Survey No. 4/5 of Ward No. 36, District as per the application of Block No. 68, P.N.Patty/Mettur the sixth respondent and Municipality Area (New Survey consequently direct the second No.4/1 of Ward D, Block No.13) in to fourth respondents to total 25.00 acres, situated at Mettur implement the order of the fifth Municipality Area, Mettur Dam-2, respondent dated 28.01.2013.
Salem District and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
8. W.P.No.1724 of 2021 has also been filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.1098 of 2021 (M/s.Mettur Dam Small Scale Industrialists Association represented by its President. In W.P.No.1724 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.(2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] Department, dated 05.08.2019 and its consequential ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 8 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. notification issued by the third respondent dated 19.11.2019 which has been published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 27.11.2019 and quash the same.
9. By the impugned G.O.Ms. (2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] dated 05.08.2019, the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, the first respondent in W.P.No.1724 of 2012 has accorded permission for converting the land measuring an extent of 6.25 Acres in Plots in Block No.68, T.S.No.4, situated at Mettur SIDCO Industrial Estate, Mettur Dam-2, Salem District as a residential land by accepting the application filed by the third petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 (the sixth respondent in W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021).
10. The impugned G.O.Ms.(2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)], dated 05.08.2019 challenged in W.P.No.1724 of 2021 came to be earlier issued by the first respondent Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department. The above said impugned G.O.Ms.(2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)], dated 05.08.2019 was published by the Deputy Director of Town and Country ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 9 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. Planning, Salem Region.
11. W.P.No.1098 of 2021 filed on 18.01.2021 has been partly rendered infructuous in the light of the impugned G.O.Ms.(2D)No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] dated 05.08.2019 insofar as the third petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 / the sixth respondent in W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021. The other petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 have not sought for conversion of the industrial plot into residential plot.
12. Therefore, the relief sought for in W.P.No.1098 of 2021 cannot be granted in the light of G.O.Ms.(2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] dated 05.08.2019.
13.Relevant portion of the G.O.Ms.(2D) No.126 dated 05.08.2019 passed by the first respondent Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department impugned in W.P.No.1724 of 2021 is reproduced below:-
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 10 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. Nryk; kz;lyk; / khtl;lk;> Nkl;^H cs;SH jpl;lg; gFjp / efuhl;rp / tl;lk;> thHL-D> gpshf; vz;.13> e.f.vz;. 4/42-,y; mike;Js;s 6.50 Vf;fH (26305 r.kP) gug;gsTs;s epyj;jpid> Sun Bright Industries Private Limited, Nryk;> vDk; epWtdj;jpd; Nfhhpf;iff;fpzq;f xg;Gjy; ngw;w Nkl;^H KOikj; jpl;lj;jpy; njhopw;rhiy cgNahfg; gFjpapypUe;J FbapUg;G cgNahfg; gFjpahf epyg;gad; khw;wk; nra;a efH Cuikg;G Jiz ,af;FeH> Nryk; kz;lyk;> mtHfspd; fPo;tUk; Fwpg;Gfspd; mbg;gilapy; ghpe;Jiuj;J chpa eltbf;if vLf;Fk; nghUl;L muRf;F mDg;gpAs;shH:-
cj;Njr kidaplk; 09.05.2017 md;W Neuha;T nra;ag;gl;lJ.
cj;Njr kidaplj;jpw;F fpof;fpy; 24 kPl;lH mfy Nkl;^H – Nryk; nry;Yk; jhHrhiy mZFrhiyahf mikfpwJ. ,r;rhiy rpg;fhl; epWtdj;jhy; guhkhpf;fg;gLfpwJ. efH Cuikg;Gj;Jiwapd; LP/DTCP 1076/9B-,y; njhopw;rhiy kidnad xg;Gjy; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,k;kid mDFrhiyahf mikfpwJ.
cj;Njr ,lj;jpw;F Nkl;^H tphpT mgptpUj;jp jpl;lk; vz;.III-A jahhpf;fg;gl;L murhiz vz;.1654, RDLA, ehs; 17.08.1973-y; xg;Gjy; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
kidapd; Rw;Wr;rhHG tptuq;fs; gpd;tUkhW:-
tlf;F : fhypaplk;
fpof;F : mZFrhiy
njw;F : 15 kP jhH rhiy> epWtd
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 11 of 49
W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
tlf;F : fhypaplk;
fl;Lkhdq;fs; kw;Wk; fhypaplk;
Nkw;F : fhypaplk;
KdjhuH ,lj;jpd; CNl kpd; fk;gp ghij
mikatpy;iy.
kidaplj;jpd; vy;iyapypUe;J 15 kPl;lH Rw;wstpy; ePHepiyfs; / MW / tha;f;fhy; / Xil> 30 kPl;lH Rw;wstpy; ,Ug;Gg;ghij kw;Wk; RLfhL / ,LfhL> 300 kPl;lUf;Fs; fy;Fthhp> 500 kPl;lUf;Fs; fy;Yilf;Fkplk;> flw;fiug; gFjp kw;Wk; tpkhd XLjsk; Mfpait VJkpy;iy.
kidaplk; Guhjhdr; rpd;dg;gFjpapy;
mikatpy;iy.
Nkl;^H efuhl;rp jdJ 14.09.2016 ehspl;l jPHkhd vz;.14-y; ,e;epyg;gad; khw;wj;ij ghpe;Jiuj;Js;sJ.
epy cgNahf khw;w cj;Njrk; Fwpj;J Ml;Nrgid kw;Wk; MNyhrid Nfhhp 11.07.2017 ehspl;l “jpdj;je;jp” jkpo; ehspjo; kw;Wk; “The New Indian Express” Mq;fpy ehspjopy; gpuRuk; nra;ag;gl;L> xU khjj;jpw;F Nky; Mfpa epiyapy; Ml;Nrgid kw;Wk; MNyhrid VJk; ngwg;gltpy;iy.
2. tl;lhl;rpaH> Nkl;^H> mtHfs; 06.07.2015 ehsd;W ,e;epyg;gad; khw;wk; njhlHghf jilapd;ikr;rhd;W mspj;Js;shH.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 12 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
3. Nkw;fhz; epyg;gad; khw;wk; Fwpj;J NkNy gbf;fg;gl;l fbjj;jpy; efH Cuikg;G Mizauhy; mspf;fg;gl;l ghpe;Jiuia muR Ma;T nra;J mjid Vw;fpwJ. mjd;gb> Sun Bright Industries Private Limited> Nryk;> vDk; epWtdj;jpd; Nfhhpf;iff;fpzq;f Nryk; kz;lyk;/ khtl;lk;> Nkl;^H cs;SH jpl;lg; gFjp / efuhl;rp / tl;lk;> thHL-D> gpshf; vz;.13> e.f.vz;. 4/42-,y; mike;Js;s 6.50 Vf;fH (26305 r.kP) gug;gsTs;s epyj;jpid> xg;Gjy; ngw;w Nkl;^H KOikj; jpl;lj;jpy; gpshf; vz;.68-y; Gy vz;.e.vz;.4> 5> 6> 7-y; xg;Gjy; ngw;w njhopw;rhiy kidg;gphpT miktjhy;> FbapUg;G kidg;gphpT cj;Njrk; NfhUk; NghJ Njitahd ,iljhq;fy; gFjp (Buffer area) tpl Ntz;Lk; vd;w epge;jidf;Fl;gl;L njhopw;rhiy cgNahfg; gFjpapypUe;J FbapUg;G cgNahfg; gFjpahf epyg;gad; khw;wk; nra;a muR mDkjpj;J MizapLfpwJ.
4. efH Cuikg;G MizaH mtHfs;> jkpo;ehL efH kw;Wk; Cuikg;G rl;lk;> 1971-f;Fl;gl;L ,e;epyg;gad; khw;wk; Fwpj;j mwptpf;ifapid jkpo;ehL murpjopy; ntspaplTk;> ,J njhlHghd jf;f Nky; eltbf;ifapid vLf;fTk; mwpTWj;jg;gLfpwhH.
14. By the impugned G.O.Ms.(2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] dated 05.08.2019, the Principal Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has accepted the recommendations of the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Urban Development in his ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 13 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. proceedings dated 21.03.2019 bearing reference Kd.No.3570/ 2019/ MuThi2 for conversion of land in SIDCO Industries into residential area for an extent of 6.5 Acres on the strength of recommendation of the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning and No Objection Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mettur Salem.
15. There is a long history to the land in SIDCO Industrial Estate, Mettur, Salem. Totally, land measuring an extent of 242.5 Acres of land was acquired by the Government of India under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
16. M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd, Madras was given an offer to purchase aforesaid extent of 242.5 Acres of land and buildings on the banks of the river Cauvery known as the “Salem Camp” along with four officers' bungalows at Mettur for a consolidated sum of Rs.90,000/- vide G.O.No.960, Public Works Department (Irrigation), dated 20.04.1936.
17. By G.O.Ms.No.360, Public Works Department (Irrigation), dated 23.02.1937, the land was transferred to the said M/s.W.A.Beardsell ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 14 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. & Co. Ltd, Madras, subject to certain conditions. Relevant clauses from G.O.Ms.No.360, Public Works Department (Irrigation), dated 23.02.1937 read as under:-
The alienation will be subject to the payment of the full value of Rs.90,000 in a lump sum, and to the following conditions:-
(1) The land and buildings shall be used for the purpose of a textile factory and business connected therewith and for no other purpose.
(2) The Government may resume the land and buildings now alienated, wholly or in part, in the event of their being use for purposes unconnected with the grant or for infringement of any of the conditions of the grant.
18. Later, an extent of 209.08 Acres was acquired back by the Government of Tamil Nadu in terms of Award No.1/1996, dated 17.11.1965.
19. The said land was alienated to the Department of Industries for establishing of Industrial Estate as per G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries Department, dated 11.01.1972.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 15 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
20. The said M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd, Madras filed a suit before Sub-Court, Salem with regard to the award passed by the Special Tahsildar. The Sub-Court, Salem passed Judgment and Decree enhancing the compensation payable to the said Company from Rs.87.37 per Acre at which the land was originally acquired by the Government from the said company to Rs.4,000/- per Acre.
21. At that point of time, the said company was actually in possession of a total extent of 67.83 Acres of land assigned to them in the original alienation order.
22. Thus, M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd. requested Government for additional land adjoining its factory measuring an extent of 25 Acres. M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd. came up with a compromise proposal.
23. The Government considered the request and accepted the compromise proposal and therefore the land measuring an extent of 25 Acres was additionally assigned to the said M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co., Ltd., for their purposes at the rate of Rs.200/- per Acre and in accordance ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 16 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. with the terms and conditions stipulated in the draft deed of assignment approved as Annexure III of the G.O.
24. In recovering the cost for 92.83 Acres (67.83 + 25) from the said M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd., Madras, the said Company was to pay at the rate of Rs.112.63 per Acre being the difference between Rs.200.00 – Rs.87.37 already paid by the Company for 67.83 Acres. In respect of 25 Acres, the recovery was to be effected at the rate of Rs.800/- .
25. In 1978, the said M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd., Madras requested the permission of the respondent SIDCO to use the 80 feet SIDCO road for access and the permission was granted with a condition to pay annual charges at Rs.645/- per Acre of land.
26. In 1983, the said M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd., Madras was taken over by the M/s.Mettur Textiles Industries Limited, Mettur. However, within a year of its takeover, the Unit was closed in the year 1984.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 17 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
27. It is that during the interregnum, Company Petition No.125 of 1988 (C.P.No.125 of 1988) came to be filed by M/s.Lakshmi Starch Limited to wind up the said M/s.Mettur Textiles Industries Limited, Mettur.
28. The said M/s.Mettur Textiles Industries Limited, Mettur was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 02.07.1993 in C.P.No.125 of 1988. The petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 have purchased a land measuring an extent of 25 Acres in a Court auction dated 08.03.2012 conducted by the liquidator appointed by this Court in C.A.No.3013 of 2007 filed by M/s.Lakshmi Starch Limited in a proceeding to wind up M/s Mettur Textiles in C.P.No.125 of 1988 which came to be allowed on 02.07.1993. The Official Liquidator had taken possession of the land pursuant to the orders of this Court for settling the claims of the creditors.
29. It is that in the course of liquidation proceedings, the land measuring an extent of 25 Acres which was allotted to M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd., Madras vide G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries Department, dated ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 18 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. 11.01.1972, was allotted to the petitioners in W.P.No.5103 of 2014.
30. Appropriate orders were issued, whereby, it was agreed that a part of the land could be registered in the name of the nominees and thus, the following extent of lands were allotted in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 as detailed below:-
Name of the person / company Extent of land M/s.Jayalakshmi Pressing Pvt. Ltd. 8.24 Acres (The first petitioner in W.P.No.5130 off 2014) S. Mani 4.25 Acres (The second petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014) M/s.Sun Bright Industries Pvt. Ltd. 6.50 Acres (The third petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014/the sixth respondent in W.P.Nos.1098 and 1724 of 2021) M/s.Ganapathi Associates 6.0 Acres (The fourth petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014) Total 25Acres
31. In the company proceedings for sale of land in favour of these petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014, the Government represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department opposed to sale the land stating that the allotment of land to M/s.W.A.Beardsell was on a conditional basis that in the event of any failure, the land would have to be re-conveyed back to the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 19 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.360, Public Works Department (Irrigation), dated 23.02.1937 and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries Department, dated 11.01.1972.
32. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 12.11.2008 in C.A.No.3013 of 2007 in C.P.No.125 of 1988, has held as under:-
Subsequently, an agreement was again entered into on 3rd October 1972 between the Government and M/s.Mettur Beardsell Limited, wherein the earlier G.O. of the Government of Tamil Nadu dated February 1937 was referred to as regards the conditional alienation to M/s.W.A.Beardsell and Company at a total value of Rs.90,000/-. It stipulated that the Government could resume the land in whole or in part, if the same was required for public purpose or for conducting mining operations and in the event of resumption, compensation was payable. The Government had recorded the compromise memo and stated that in consideration of a sum of Rs.12,639.70 paid by the assignee to the assignor, it conveyed, granted and assigned to the assignee an extent of 92.83 acres of land “to hold the same freely alienable and hereditable without any further consent of the assignors subject to the terms and conditions.” The conditions set forth were as follows:
“The land shall be used for the construction and operation of a textile mill or other mill and for the carrying on of any related activities (including ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 20 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. provision of accommodation to the Employees) which the assignee is empowered to carry on under the memorandum of association and which it elects to carry on.
The Assignee shall pay to the Government annually the appropriate assessment or ground rent, as the case may be, on the land which shall be liable to revision at any general revision of the land revenue settlement.”
33. The above order was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 24.08.2009 in O.S.A.No.239 of 2009 in the case of the Secretary Vs. The Official Liquidator and others, with the following observations:-
11. It remains to be stated that an extent of 242.05 acres of land was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings, which were actually acquired by the State, fixing the compensation amount per acre. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the company made a claim petition before the Sub Court, Salem and the rate of compensation was enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per acre.
Aggrieved over the same, the State took up an appeal before this Court. Pending appeal, the said compromise was entered into and G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries Department, dated 11.01.1972 came to be passed. If really the company was not the owner and the Government retained the ownership of the property, that too, when it found the contravention and violation of the conditions imposed in the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 21 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. original assignment, it could have either cancelled the assignment and resumed possession of the land, or at least, issued notice. On the contrary, the Government has taken 209.08 acres of the land by way of acquisition and paid compensation also, which would clearly indicate the recognition of the title of the company over the land. Some of the workers employed in the company filed W.P.No.35411 of 2007. In the said Public Interest Litigation, the Collector, Salem District, has filed a detailed counter, in which, no whisper about the violation of the conditions; on the contrary, it was categorically averred that the lands so assigned were the properties of the assignee. The further contention that there was a breach of conditions also cannot be accepted. In the agreement dated 03.10.1972 between the Government and M/s.Beardcell Company Private Limited, the Government can resume the land in whole or in part, if the same was required for the public purpose or for conducting mining operations and in the event of resumption, compensation was payable. Under the compromise entered into in the year 1972, the consideration was fixed at Rs.12,639.70 and was paid by the assignee to the assignor. A reading of the compromise would indicate that 92.83 acres of land was assigned to hold the same freely alienable and hereditable, without any further consent of the assignor's subject to the terms and conditions. A reading of the same would clearly indicate that the resumption of land by the Government is possible if there was a breach of the condition in clause (2). If there was a failure to pay the ground rent, it has nothing to do with clause(1), whereby the absolute alienable right is granted. As a result of the compromise between the parties and having adjusted the price in the compensation payable to the company on the basis of the land acquisition proceedings and having granted ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 22 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. the rights to the company which are clearly mentioned as alienable and hereditable rights, the Government cannot now be allowed to state that there was a breach of condition and that the land continued to be vested with the State and they can resume the same. It is not the case of the State that there was any arrears of rent. Even to invoke the clause that there was a breach of condition, the Government, though decades passed, did not issue any notice at all. Under such circumstances, the learned single Judge was perfectly correct in rejecting the contentions putforth by the State and the Court is unable to see any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General and hence, the order passed by the learned single Judge has got to be sustained.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.
34. Therefore, 25 Acres of land which was handed over to the said M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd., Madras, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries Department, dated 11.01.1972 came to be purchased by the petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 in a Court auction.
35. An extent of 6.5 Acres of industrial land has now been allowed to be converted into a residential land by the first respondent in favour of the third petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014/ the sixth respondent in W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021 in terms of impugned G.O.Ms.(2D) ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 23 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] dated 05.08.2019 of the Principal Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
36. Arguing on behalf of the third petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014/ the sixth respondent in W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021, the learned Senior Counsel submits that once there is a sale, further embargo cannot be imposed for use.
37. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent in W.P.No.1724 of 2021 was in accordance with Section 32(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. In this connection, a reference was made to Besant Nagar Residents Vs. Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, (1990) 1 MLJ 445, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this court has observed as follows:-
Section 32 of the Act provides for variation, revocation and modification of regional plans, master plans and new town development plans. Sub- section (3) of Section 32 speaks of the provisions of Sections 26, 28 and 30 with such modifications as may be necessary shall apply to such modified regional plan or the master plan. But, it can be seen ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 24 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. that Sub-Section (4) of Section is an independent power. Sub-section (4) of Section 2 reads as follows:
....(4) The Government may, at any time by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, vary or revoke the regional plan, master plan or a new town development plan, as the case maybe, prepared and approved under this Act....
38. That apart, it is further submitted that the rights of the petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 has been recognized not only by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.11.2008 in C.A.No.3013 of 2007 in C.P.No.125 of 1988 but also by the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.239 of 2009 vide order dated 24.8.2009. It is submitted that there cannot be any restrictions in terms of Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
39. It is further submitted that the impugned G.O.Ms.(2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] dated 05.08.2019 of the Principal Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (impugned in W.P.No.1724 of 2021) has been issued in consonance with the requirements of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 25 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. Planning Act, 1971 and therefore, the challenge to the impugned G.O. cannot be countenanced.
40. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner in W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021 is only an association and therefore such an association does not have requisite locus standi to challenge the order passed under Section 32 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is therefore submitted that W.P.No.5130 of 2014 deserves to be allowed and W.P.Nos.1724 & 1098 of 2021 deserve to be dismissed.
41. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021 submits that, all along the petitioner has been sending representations to the respondents to not to re-classify the industrial land into residential land as the land was meant only for industrial purpose.
42. It is submitted that there are restrictions in G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries Department, dated 11.01.1972, particularly in paragraph No.3, wherein, it has been clearly stated that the allotment of land in favour of M/s.W.A.Beardsell & Co. Ltd. was only for industrial purposes and ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 26 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. therefore, Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has to be read along with Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
43. It is submitted that the assignment of land in G.O.Ms.No.49, Industries Department, dated 11.01.1972, can be diluted only by another Notification of the Department of Industries and not under the impugned G.O.(2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] Department, dated 05.08.2019.
44. It is submitted that the petitioner in W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021 sent repeated letters to the fifth respondent in W.P.No.1724 of 2021, to not to re-classify the land and that the Branch Manager of SIDCO also confirmed by letter dated 28.01.2013 (the impugned order in W.P.No.5130 of 2014) that the land would not be converted into housing plots and would be utilized only for industrial purpose. It is submitted that it was clearly mentioned that if any deviation was found, appropriate action will be taken through court of law.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 27 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
45. It is submitted that Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, by communication dated 30.01.2013 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.107/2013, Se.Ma-3, has also confirmed that there was no proposal to allow conversion of the land purchased by the petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 into housing plots and as and when such application comes, the complaint will be considered.
46. By an order dated 22.02.2013 of the Chairman and Managing Director of Town and Country Planning bearing reference R.C.No.237/IE- 8/2013, the proposal for conversion of industrial land into residential land was rejected.
47. Thus, it is submitted that though the petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 have been repeatedly requesting for conversion of land, the official respondents have not given any permission to convert the industrial land into residential land behind the back of the petitioner in W.P.Nos.1098 & 1724 of 2021.
48. That apart, it is submitted that under Section 32(1) of the Tamil ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 28 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, before the Notification was issued under Section 32(4) of the Act, it is imperative to be prepared and approved the subsequent Regional Plan, Master Plan or New Town Development Plan. It is submitted that even otherwise, the impugned exercise in the two impugned G.Os. is contrary to Section 32(1) of the Act.
49. It is further submitted that there cannot be any variation of the Master Plan and mere the paper publication by the respondent calling for objection is not sufficient, particularly, in the light of the fact that the petitioner's representation was pending with the Director of Town and Country Planning. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.1724 & 1098 of 2021 relied on the following two decisions and prayed for allowing W.P.Nos.1724 & 1098 of 2021.
i. K.Rajamani and others Vs. Alamunagar Residents Welfare Association and others, 2011 (1) CTC 257 : (2011) 3 MLJ 69.
ii. Oswal Agro Mills Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others, (2014) 2 SCC.
50. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 29 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
51. There is no dispute that a Master Plan existed in the Mettur Industrial Estate. It would have encompassed the land allotted to W.A.Beardsell & Co., Ltd., under G.O.Ms.No.49 (Industries) Industries Department dated 11.01.1972.
52. 25 Acres of land allotted to the W.A.Beardsell & Co., Ltd. under G.O.Ms.No.49 (Industries) Industries Department dated 11.01.1972 which was taken over by M/s. Mettur Textiles Pvt. Ltd. was later auctioned and sold to the petitioners in W.P.No.5130 of 2014 in the course of liquidation of Mettur Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
53. Out of the aforesaid 25 Acres of land, an extent of 6.50 Acres was sold in the aforesaid court auction to the third petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014/the sixth respondent in W.P.Nos.1098 of 2022 and 1724 of 2021. By the impugned G.O.(2D) No.126, Housing and Urban Development (UD4(1)), dated 05.08.2019, the land has been allowed to be ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 30 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. converted for being used for residential purpose.
54. Any conversion of an approved plan has to be strictly in accordance with Section 32 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. For the purpose of these Writ Petitions, Section 32(2)(b) and Section 32(4) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 are relevant. They read as under:-
Section 32:-
Variation, revocation and modification of regional plans, master plans and new town development plan:-
Sub- A regional plan, master plan or Sub- Sec. new town development plan Sec.
(1) approved under Section 28 may, at any time, be varied or revoked by a subsequent - -
regional plan, master plan or new town development plan as the case may be prepared and approved under this Act.
2(a) ………….. (4) The Government may at any time by Notification in 2(b) Once in five years after the the Tamil Nadu Gazette date of which the master plan vary or revoke, the for an area comes into regional plan, a master operation, the local planning plan or a new town authority may, and if so Development Plan, as the directed by the Government case may be, prepared and shall, after carrying out such approved under this Act.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 31 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. fresh surveys as may be considered necessary and in consultation with the regional planning authority and the local authorities concerned, review the master plan and make such modifications in such plan wherever necessary and submit the modified master plan for the approval of the Government.
55. A reading of the above provisions makes it clear that under Section 32(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, a Master plan can be “modified” after a “review” and under Section 32(4), the Master plan can be “varied” or “revoked”.
56. The expression used in Section 32(2)(b) of the Act is 'review' and 'modification', whereas, the expression used in Section 32(4) of the Act is 'vary' and 'revoke'.
57. There is a marked but a subtle difference between the power of "review" under section 32(2)(b) resulting in modification of the Master Plant and the powers to "vary or revoke" a Regional Plan, a Master Plan or a New Town Development Plan under Section 32(4) of the Act. These ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 32 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. provisions are nuanced.
58. The power to review a Master Plan is a suo muto power contemplated under Section 32(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. It is to be exercised once in a every five years after the date on which a Master Plan came into operation.
59. When power of review under Section 32(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is exercised once in five years after a Master Plan came into force, it can result in the modification of the Master Plan.
60. The Local Planning Authority can make such modification in such plan wherever necessary and submit the modified Master Plan to the Government for approval under the aforesaid provision.
61. On the other hand, when power under Section 32(4) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is exercised, it results in either revocation or variation of the Regional Plan, a Master Plan or a New ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 33 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. Town Development Plan as the case may be.
62. The power under Section 32(4) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is much wider. It can result in a “variation” or “revocation” of a Regional Plan, Master Plan or a New Town Development Plan, as the case may be.
63. Such “variation” or “revocation” can either mean substitution or a complete obliteration of the plan. Such substitution or a complete obliteration of the plan has to be also approved under the Act by following the procedure under Sections 26, 28, and 30 of the said Act.
64. The expression 'revoke' would mean the complete obliteration of the existing plan. The expression 'vary' is also similar to the 'modification'.
65. Power to “revoke” or “vary” a Master Plan, Regional Plan and New Town Development Plan as the case may be as contemplated in Section 32(4) of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 implies a complete substitution of the existing plan, viz. “Master Plan”, “Regional Plan” and “New Town Development Plan”.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 34 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
66. A Master Plan, a Regional Plan or the New Town Development Plan, as the case may be, can be varied or revoked at any time under Section 32(4) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
67. Such variation or revocation is also required to be approved under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
68. Both the expressions “Modification” and “Vary” are incapable of precise definition. However, since legislature has used these expressions, it has to be assumed that the power of review resulting in modification of the Master Plan is different from the power to revoke and vary in Section 32(4) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Therefore, their meanings have to be culled from context language used in the Act. In this connection, the Court will be governed by Rules of interpretations of the State and Rules of construction of the provisions. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 35 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
69. As per P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon - 5th Edition (Volume – 4, Page No.4554), the word 'review' means a proceeding which exists by virtue of statute. It is in its nature a new trial of the issue previously tried between the parties, the cause of action being brought into Court again for trial by a new petition. The proceeding in some respects resembles a writ of error, and also a new trail.
70. In Black’s Law Dictionary - 8th Edition, the expression ‘Modification’ has been defined as 1. A change to something; an alteration <a contract modification. [Cases: Contracts 236. C.J.S. Contracts §§407, 409-411.] 2. A qualification or limitation of something <a modification of drinking habits. 3. Parliamentary law. A change in a motion that its mover initiates or accepts before the chair has set in motion. The mover controls a motion only until the chair states that the question, after which the motion belongs to the assembly and the mover cannot modify it without the assembly's permission. See request for permission to modify a motion under REQUEST.
71. In Puranlal Lakhanpal Vs. President of India, AIR 1961 SC ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 36 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. 1519, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word 'modification' means the action of making changes in an object without altering its essential nature or character.
72. In Sant Singh Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1959 J & K 35, 40 (FB), the Full Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, while interpreting Article 370(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, held that the word 'modification' would include an addition.
73. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 146, observed that 'modification' in Article 370(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, must be given the widest meaning in the context of a constitution and in that sense it includes an amendment and it cannot be limited to such modifications as do not make any radical information.
74. In the context of Section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Gupta Vs. K.P.Jain, AIR 1979 SC 734, has held that the term 'modification' would include the making of additions ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 37 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. and omissions and would mean additions to the scheme of compromise and/or arrangement or omission therefrom solely for the purpose of making it workable.
75. In Collective Farming Society Ltd. Vs. The State of M.P. AIR 1974 MP 59, 67, (FB) [Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, a Modification does not mean or involve any change of policy. It is confined to alteration of such a character which keeps the policy of the Act intact and introduces such changes as are appropriate to local conditions.
76. In Union of India Vs. Kanahaya Lal Sham Lal, AIR 1957 PH 117, it was held that “The expression 'modify' means to change, vary or alter an existing thing. It implies no power to create or destroy but only the power to change, alter or amend a thing which has already been created. It includes the elements of increasing or decreasing. A judgment of modification is a determination by which the appellate Court alters partially the order of the lower Court by adding something to or by subtracting something from the judgment under appeal leaving the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 38 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. remaining portion to stand affirmed and in full force and effect.”
77. In the P.Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon - 5th Edition (Volume – 4, Page No.5397), the expression 'variation' has been explained as follows:-
“Variation of an agreement preserves the original agreement but amends it in one or more particulars”.
78. In Hudsons's Building and Engineering Contracts, 11th Edition, Volume 1, Paragraph 7.001, Page No.877, the word has been stated that “variation” can be used in a number of different senses. Thus, it is frequently used by lawyers for an agreed alteration or modification by the parties of the terms of the pre-existing contract between them. Even in construction contracts it may occasionally be used by the draftsman for an agreed alteration or extension of the contract completion date, or for compensatory provisions which may alter the contract price, such as fluctuations or “variation of price” clauses, or “changed conditions”.
79. In Cresswell on Building Contracts, 1954, Ed.P.28, it has been explained that the word 'variation' is generally used in building and ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 39 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. engineering contracts, as meaning changes, alterations, substitutions in the drawing, plans, specifications etc.
80. In Prem & Saharay’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrase, 3rd Edition, the term “variation” has been defined as follows:-
The word "variation" is generally used in building and engineering contracts, as meaning "changes, alterations, substitutions in the drawings, plans, specifications, etc." The change as contemplated by the expression does not mean replacement of one work by another. The change may be fairly considered to be an addition or an omission. Cresswell on Building Contracts, 1954 Ed., p.28.
81. In Black’s Law Dictionary - 8th Edition (Volume 3), the expression “variation” is defined as variance. 1. A difference or disparity between two statements or documents that ought to agree; esp.
82. In Corpus Juris Secundum at Page 804,the word “vary” has been explained as under:-
Vary, to change to something else.It has been held to be synonymous with “alter” see, 3 C.J.S 898 Note 89, and “amend” see 3 C.J.S 1039 Note 35.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 40 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
83. In CIT Vs. Saliq Ram Sood, (2001) 249 ITR 716 (Del), it has been held that 'variation' means the act of varying, change in the form. Vary means to change.
84. In Rakesh Kumar Trivedi Vs. The Hon’ble Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1400, it was held that in New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, the word "vary' means to introduce into, to undergo change, to deviate from a standard, and to change in value, amount or quality in direct or indirect proportion. Thus the expression 'vary' means to undergo change, or alter, to differ, diverge or depart.
85. In Ashokbhai Zinabhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat, 1987 (2) GLR 719, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the word “vary” in the context of the said enactment may mean “alter or embellish preserving identity”.
86. In State of Bombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610, it has been observed that “associated words take their meaning ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 41 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. from one another under the doctrine of Noscitur a Sociis the philosophy of which is that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than the maxim Ejusdem Generis.”
87. The meaning of the expression 'vary' has to be inferred from the meaning of the word “revoke” by applying principles of Noscitur a Sociis. The principle of Noscitur a Sociis is one of the legitimate Rules of construction recognized by the Courts to construe meaning of the words in a Statute of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly.
88. The meaning of the word 'vary' is therefore to be inferred from the meaning of the word 'revoke' by applying the above principles. As per MAXWELL: Interpretation of Statues, 11th Edition, P.321], the above rule means that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. A Reference is made to the following cases:-
i. Angus Robertson Vs. George Day, (1879) 5 AC 63, ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 42 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. P.69 : 64 LJ PC 9 (PC) ii. M.K.Ranganathan Vs. Government of Madras, AIR 1955 SC 604 iii. Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association Vs. Administrative Officer, AIR 2004 SC 1426 : (2004) 1 SCC 755.
iv. Rasila S Mehta Vs. Custodian, (2011) 6 SCC 220.
89. In my view, Section 32(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 can be invoked only in the exercise of power to review to modify a pre-existing old plan once in every five years. Such modification will not obliterate the pre-existing plan. In other words, it would retain the basic features in the pre-existing plan and required changes are made.
90. Under Section 32(4) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, there can be either variation or revocation of the Master Plan, Regional Plan or New Town Development Plan as the case may be. What has been done by the respondents is a partial modification of the sanctioned Master Plan. Such the partial modification of the Master Plan by allowing the conversion of the industrial land into for residential purpose is impermissible and is liable to be interfered with. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 43 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
91. Modification of a Master Plan would involve a partial change without making changes to the fundamentals of the Master Plan. Thus, when the power is exercised under Section 32(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, a plan can be reviewed and modified without altering the integrity of the pre-existing plan. The basic structure of the plan remains intact.
92. On the other hand, when power is to be exercised under Section 32(4) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, there has to either a revocation of the Plan or substitution of the Plan.
93. The facts on record indicate that in the impugned Government Orders, the Master Plan has been modified. Since the power to modify a Master Plan can only be made only once in five year after a review as is contemplated under Section 32(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, impugned exercise is liable to be held without jurisdiction and quashed.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 44 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc.
94. A variation of a plan has to be a complete rehaul of the existing approved plan. What the first respondent has done is a partial alteration of Master Plan viz., modification of the Master Plan. It is at the request of the third petitioner in W.P.No.5130 of 2014/the sixth respondent in W.P.Nos.1098 of 2022 and 1724 of 2021.
95. When a plan is varied, it presupposes a preparation of a new plan and substitution of the pre-old existing plan. On the other hand, when a plan is modified, there is no substitution of a pre-existing plan with a new plan but a mere alteration or tinkering of the pre-existing old plan.
96. Therefore, what has been done by the respondents is a modification which is possible only under section 32(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
97. There is no scope for a partial variation of the Plan for an area under Section 32(4)of the Act. This is not permissible. Such power of modification is to be exercised only once in five years in terms of Section ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 45 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. 32(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. It cannot be at the request of a third party who has purchased the land in an industrialized.
98. Thus, the impugned exercise under Section 32(4) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is contrary to the power vested with the Government. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent Government is liable to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed. In the light of the above, W.P.No.1724 of 2021 deserved to be allowed.
99. Thus, W.P.No.5130 of 2014 filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in view of the above observation. As mentioned above, W.P.No.1098 of 2021 is dismissed as infructuous.
100. In the result, i. W.P.No.5130 of 2014 is dismissed, ii. W.P.No.1098 of 2021 is dismissed as infructuous, ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 46 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. and iii. W.P.No.1724 of 2021 is allowed.
iv. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
09.11.2022 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Jen To
1.Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, The State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner / Director, Town and Country Planning, Government of Tamil Nadu, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Salem Region, No.6, Sannathi Street, Subramaniya Nagar, Sooramangalam, Salem – 636 005.
4.The Commissioner, Mettur Municipality, Mettur Dam, Salem District.
5.The Chairman & Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 47 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. Corporation Ltd., (SIDCO), Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
6.The Deputy General Manager (IE-II), Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO), Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 32.
7.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO), Industrial Estate, Five Road, Salem – 636 004. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 48 of 49 W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014 etc. C.SARAVANAN, J.
Jen Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.Nos.5130 of 2014, 1098 & 1724 of 2021 and M.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2014 W.M.P.Nos.1215, 1929, 1931, 7804 & 2021 09.11.2022 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 49 of 49