Madras High Court
The Industrial Estate Manufacturers' ... vs The Tamilnadu Small Industries ... on 8 August, 2002
ORDER K.P. Sivasubramanian, J.
1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 herein from abridging the width of the 80 feet road to 30 feet road within the Guindy Industrial Estate and the grant of any permission by the respondents 5 to 7 herein to the respondents 1 to 4 herein or claiming under or through them to abridge the roads from 80 feet to 30 feet within the Guindy Industrial Estate.
2. The petitioner is the Industrial Estate Manufacturers' Association which was started in the year 1959. As on the date of filing of the writ petition, they have about 700 registered members consisting of small, tiny and other types of industries. It looks after the interests of the said service units and are also involved in consultation and mediation between the allottees and various authorities. The Industrial Estate at Guindy known as Thiru. Vi. Ka Industrial Estate was established by the Government in the year 1956. A total extent of 404.08 acres were acquired for the purpose of over all development of Madras Metropolitan Area and classified as "General Industrial Zone". Work sheds were constructed with built up area ranging from 1020 sq. ft. to 6930 sq. ft and allotted to the persons desirous to start Small Scale Industries on rental basis. Some of the lands were developed and divided into small industrial plots and allotted to different entrepreneurs. In order to encourage small and tiny entrepreneurs 110 tiny sheds were built with an extent of 200 sq. ft. and 400 sq. ft. They were also constructed and allotted under hire purchase basis.
3. Originally the estate was administered by State Directorate of Industries and Commerce and now Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO) is administering the said estate. The petitioner has given certain other details as regards the facilities and infrastructures features available within the estate, which are not necessary for disposing the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the width of the road according to the plan was required to be about 80' for the entire length. A detailed development plan was formulated in conformity with the Development Control Rules for Madras Metropolitan Area and as per the rules applicable to the laying of public roads. In terms of Section 33 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, the Detailed Development plan was formulated and approved under the Act. It is further stated that several vacant plots were arbitrarily allotted to several unqualified and favoured persons by the respondents 1 to 4 without any authority of law. The respondents 1 to 4 have been violating all the norms and rules of the Development Control Rules and Town and Country Planning Act. The above 80 feet road which runs through the Estate has been ear marked in the estate in conformity with the Detailed Development Plan considering that the total length of the road is more than 3000 meters. But the respondents are trying to narrow the width of the road to 30 feet and to allot the remaining width of 50 feet road to some other persons for extraneous consideration without following the provisions contained in Rules and Act and without obtaining prior approval from the Government and other statutory authorities. The width of the road was prescribed at 80 feet considering the nature of traffic requirements. The impugned action of the respondents to allot the width of 50 feet to some other persons by reducing the width from 80 feet is illegal. The respondents 1 to 4 are acting arbitrarily as though all the rights in the industrial estate is vested with them. The petitioner further states that drainage, sanitation, telephone, water and electricity have all already been laid and provided for the facility of the members and non-members who use the road. Further expansion would not at all be possible as it will damage the drainage, sanitation, telephone, water, electricity connections. The impugned action of the respondents will also affect the drainage system during monsoon thus causing water logging. Aggrieved against the impugned action, the petitioner had made several representations to the first respondent and to the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu pointing out the various violations and anomalies and also requesting the first respondent not to abridge the width of the road. As the representations of the petitioner have not been properly considered and attempts were being made to allot the disputed area, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.
4. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, the deponent being the General Manager of the first respondent Corporation, he has practically sailed with the party respondents in whose favour the allotments have been or proposed to be made. According to him, the width of the road was not required to remain at 80 feet and that the area in question can be reached by a feeder road in the approved lay out which is only 40 feet. In the 80 feet road there were many attempts encroach by hut dwellers, trespassers and some of the areas were already encroached by undesirable elements. It was unnecessary that the roads leading to different plots should be free of such encroachment and cannot be allowed to be used by hut dwellers. The 80 feet road could not be used to a maximum extent and it was becoming impossible to evict the trespassers. The width of 40 feet road was sufficient to serve the requirements of the plot owners. It is not correct to state that the vacant plots were arbitrarily allotted to several unqualified and favoured persons without authority of law and also not in conformity with the DCR Rules. The respondents have allotted these plots only in conformity with the existing rules and as per usual practice.
5. As stated earlier, the said General Manager who was also only an Incharge-Manager had filed a counter obviously with a view to support the allotments and does not contain proper statement of facts as could be observed from a subsequent counter affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the SIDCO. The contention that the allotments are being made in accordance with law and DCR Rules as claimed by the General Manager in his counter does not find concurrence with the counter affidavit filed by the Managing Director. In the counter filed by the Managing Director, it is clearly admitted that the SIDCO is only entrusted with the responsibility of the maintenance of the industrial estate and also management of the Government property. The fact remains that the property was and continues only to be a Government property. It is further stated that the allotments in favour of the allottees were made from out of the area which had become available by reducing the width of 80 feet to 50 feet and not 30 feet as alleged by the petitioners. It is further stated that the allotments have been made only on specific condition that it was the responsibility of the allottee to obtain the approval of the building plan from the local authorities and that any construction should be commenced only after getting the building plan approval from the SIDCO. It is further stated that it was made clear to the allottees that their building plans should be not only approved by the local authority but also by other statutory authorities as may be required and in the event of non-compliance of any of the said conditions allotment would be cancelled and plot will be resumed.
6. Separate counter has been filed by the fifth and sixth respondents being the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. The said counter has clearly brought out that the proposed allotments would be in total violation of the Master Plan for Madras Metropolitan Area. The Detailed Development Plan for the area was approved by the Government in their G.O. Ms. NO. 1035, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 12.8.80 and the area has been earmarked as for institutional and general industrial purposes/plots. In terms of Section 32, a Detailed Development plan could be varied or revoked only by a subsequent Detailed Development plan prepared and approved under the Act. The entire road network in the said detailed development plan, should on no account be changed, as any unauthorised change would affect the users of the layout roads and the industrial units which are existing already on either side. It is also stated that if the approved layout width is reduced it would be illegal. Any such action without prior approval of the planning authority would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. The respondents 1 to 4 have no right to convert the alleged portion of the road of 80 feet width to any other purpose. If there are any beneficiaries, they cannot acquire better right or title than that of the respondents 1 to 4.
7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. During the pendency of the writ petition, though originally an interim order was granted, the beneficiaries/ allottees filed a petition for vacating the interim order. T.JAYARAMA CHOUTA,J while disposing WMP NO. 4767 of 1996, has held that it will be open to the concerned authorities, if the respondents 8 to 13 have not obtained sanction to put up constructions, to issue notice and stop the constructions. It was further made clear that the constructions if made, would be at the risk of the respondents.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the SIDCO was totally illegal as clearly brought out in the counter affidavit of the respondents 5 and 6. Even now, there is much congestion in the traffic and that the contention of the respondents that it was sufficient to have the width of the road at 40 feet or 50 feet cannot be sustained. It has been made clear from the counter of the fifth respondent that no such permission can be granted.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment reported in G.N.KHAJURIA -vs.- DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY in support of his contention that the allotment of land to any party in violation of the layout plan is liable to be cancelled. The fact that in the allotted site, permanent structures had been put up is not a relevant consideration.
10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. It is rather a pity that the respondents 1 to 4 being the statutory authorities should seek to support the improper and illegal utilisation of the land which has been allotted for specific public purpose. As stated earlier, the original counter filed by the General Manager In charge is intended only to support the encroachments and the illegal claim of the beneficiaries. The repeated contention that the width of the road had to be reduced in order to avoid the encroachments cannot be entertained from a responsible public authority. If SIDCO was incapable of preventing encroachment, then they should have surrendered the Estate to the Government. In the second counter, by the Managing Director, a more responsible stand has been taken to the effect that the allotment was being made subject to proper approval from all the statutory authorities.
11. I have also heard the learned counsel for the allottees. He has submitted that they had put up the construction which is remaining for a long period. As stated above, the allotments itself were made only during the end of 1995 and beginning of 1996. This writ petition has been filed in the beginning of 1996 itself. While vacating the interim order, this Court has made it clear that any construction which is being put up will be only at the risk of the allottees. It is not disputed that till date, no proper approval from the authorities have been taken by the allottees. It is also not disputed that the allotments were made only subject to receiving approval by all the competent authorities. Therefore, the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own illegal action and also in the face of the order of this Court that the constructions could be put up only at their own risk. The allottees/respondents cannot be heard to perpetuate their rights only due to the passage of time for which the petitioners cannot be blamed. They are also estopped from raising such contention having regard to the conditions of allotment and orders of this Court.
12. The attitude of the SIDCO in reducing the width of the roads without approval by the Government and the planning authorities deserves to be deprecated. As admitted, they are only the custodian and the management of the "Estate" and the property belongs to the Government. They have no right to make any allotment by reducing the road size. The plea that they have to allot the area in order to curtail the encroachment is rather too flimsy and dishonest to be accepted. If they cannot control the encroachment when the width of the road is 80 feet, equally they cannot do so if the width is 40 feet or 50 feet. The reasons contained in the counter filed by the General Manager in charge and the tenor of the stand taken by him is highly improper and it is obvious that the motives for such illegal allotment are not proper. He would go to the extent of pleading that the existing allotees have no vested right to claim allotment only in their favour and that as and when the need arises, the SIDCO can allot units. Nobody disputes the right of the SIDCO to allot plots subject to prior approval by the Government whenever the existing plots fall vacant for any reason or new plots are earmarked with the concurrence by all the authorities. But the SIDCO has no right to reduce the road margin without consulting the Government or the local authorities and to allot it to whomsoever they like. As seen from his counter, which appears to have been signed during April 1996, he was aged 58 years and probably awaiting his retirement. But for the said reason, I would have directed Departmental action to be taken against him. It is such officers who bring disrepute to public institutions by their illegal and high handed action which are motivated for extraneous reasons. The existing unit owners have every right to question such illegal action as and when their interests are affected and the conditions of allotment are altered and proper enjoyment of their plots are affected. The only consolation is that at least in the later counter by the Managing Director, the SIDCO appears to have realised their limitations and had stated that the allotments have been made to six establishments subject to their obtaining approval from the local authorities and that as on date of the affidavit, SIDCO had not received any intimation from the allottees about the fulfilment of the other conditions. Apart from pointing out the admitted position that the lay out as envisaged in the Detailed Development Plan cannot be altered without the approval of the concerned authorities and no allotment can be made without the prior approval of the Government, it is needless to emphasise that reducing the width of the road would positively result in traffic congestion and disruption of the existing facilities. Admittedly, the vehicular traffic, especially of heavy vehicles which should have ingress and egress to the various units, have increased. In these days of increased vehicular traffic when widening of the roads have become compelling necessity, it is strange that a public body like SIDCO should plead for reducing the width of the road quiet unmindful of the adverse effect which is bound to be caused. That the SIDCO should have ventured into such an illegal action to favour a handful of persons is rather deplorable. If the petitioners had not come to the Court, the situation would have spread to other areas also in the Estate complex. If there are increasing demands, the Government should plan the location of such units in other areas and not by removing the infrastructural facilities in the existing Estates.
13. For the above reasons, I am inclined to hold that the action of respondents 1 to 4 in restructuring and allotting the road margin cannot at all be sustained. On the very face of the counter filed by respondents 5 and 6, the action of respondents 1 to 4 is illegal and cannot be sustained.
14. As regards the rights of the allottee/respondents, they cannot claim any better rights than that of the SIDCO itself. They have accepted the allotment knowing fully well, the limitations and the illegalities involved. The allotment itself was conditional and the conditions have admittedly not been fulfilled. They have also put up superstructure, if any, only by virtue of the orders of this Court specifically at their own risk. I have already dealt above with their unsustainable claims. Showing any sympathy to them would only amount to hood winking and granting premium to illegal action.
15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and ordered as prayed for with costs of Counsel fee at Rs.5,000/- as against respondents 1 to 4.