Madras High Court
E.Selvam vs Pallavan Thirunagar Residential And ... on 13 September, 2023
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
CRP No.3358 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Civil Revision Petition No.3358 of 2023
and CMP.No.20869 of 2023
E.Selvam ... Petitioner
Vs.
Pallavan Thirunagar Residential and Welfare
Association, Reg.No.93/90
Rep by its Secretary,
R.Muthamizh Selvan.
2.M.Rajesh Kumar ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India to set aside the order dated 04.03.2023 made in IA.No.2 of 2022 in
OS.No.37 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thiruvallur.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ilayaperumal
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 04.03.2023 made in IA.No.2 of 2022 in OS.No.37 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thiruvallur https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6 CRP No.3358 of 2023
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
Originally, the suit in OS.No.37 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the defendat from alienating the item 2 of the schedule mentioned properties. During the pendency of the suit, IA.No.2 of 2022 was filed by the third party to implead them as the second defendant in the suit. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 04.03.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present revision.
3. The petitioner in IA.No.2 of 2022 is the Pallavan Thirunagar Residential and Welfare Association with Registration No.93 of 1990 to implead them as 2nd defendant in the suit. The contention of the petitioner therein is that the item 2 of the suit property was earmarked for community hall as per DTCP No.196 of 1983, the said community hall is part of the Pallavan Thirunagar Layout and they are plot owners in the layout and they have interest over the property and they want to protect the land from the illegal land grabbers. It is also submitted that there was an agreement by the plaintiff, which according to them is illegal and sought for contesting the suit by impleadig them as the necessary party, in order to safeguard the interst of the land owners in the layout.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 CRP No.3358 of 2023
4. The plaintiff filed counter in the application stating that it is the open space reservation plot for private commercial activities and the plots reserved for shops in a Residential layout. Due to lack of understanding regarding the latest rules and regulations governed by the Directorate of Town and Contry Planning Act. The defendant being the owner of the suit property entitled to purchase the same. The proposed defendant has not questioned the above sale and possession in favour of the defendant before any authorities till date and filed this petition only to curtail the legal claim of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. The trial Court after enquiry is of the considered view that the proposed party has right to defend the case or not to be decided in the suit, as the suit property is earmarked for community hall, upon which the DTCP approval was granted by the authority concerned, subsequently it cannot be sold to the third parties. The proposed defendant has every right and interest over the property, as the land was earmarked for community hall purposes and allowed the application by impleading the proposed party as second defendant in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 CRP No.3358 of 2023
6. It is seen to be seen that the IA.No.2 of 2022 was allowed on the ground that the community hall was part of the Pallavan Thirunagar Layout and to protect the land earmarked for community hall purposes from the land grabbers. Once the area is earmarked for community hall, as per Directorate of Town and Contry Planning Act approval was also granted for forming the layout, only based on the open space reservation. The petitioner herein cannot say that the land is earmarked for commercial activities, as per the new rules and regulations, whereby the approval of layout was granted only as per the old rules and regulations, the petitoner cannot canvas all these aspects, as the land was already earmarked for community hall purposes. The trial Court has rightly stated that the second respondent herein is the necessary party to contest suit proceeding. At this juncture, this Court is not inclined to interefere with the order passed by the Trial Court, as there is no valid case is made out by the petitioner. It is also to noted that once the property is earmarked for common pruposes, it becomes common property of the parties who have purchased plots in the layout, based on the approval granted by the Directorate of Town and Contry Planning Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 CRP No.3358 of 2023
7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.09.2023.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Nonspeaking order tsh To
1. The Principal District Munsif, Thiruvallur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 CRP No.3358 of 2023 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN J.
tsh CRP.No.3358 of 2023 13.09.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6