Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Endiyur Village Pandchyat vs The Director Of Town And Country on 6 January, 2023

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

                                                                    W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 06.01.2023

                                                         CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                         W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018
                                  and W.M.P.Nos.14499 of 2016, 29991, 7849 & 29996 of 2018


                     Endiyur Village Pandchyat
                     Endiyur Village
                     Tindivanam Taluk
                     Villupuram District
                     Rep by its President
                     K.P.Munusamy                             .. Petitioner in W.P.No.16930 of 2016

                     V.Munusamy                               .. Petitioner in W.P.No.25788 of 2018

                                                          Versus

                     1. The Director of Town and Country
                     Planning Department
                     No.807 Anna Salai
                     Chennai – 02

                     2.The Regional Deputy Director
                     Town and Country Planning Development
                     Villupuram Region
                     Villupuram

                     3.The Executive Engineer
                     Tamilnadu Electricity Board
                     Tindivanam


                     1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018

                     Villupuram District
                     4. Sub-Registrar
                     Joint No.I
                     Tindivanam
                     Villupuram District

                     5.Vidhyachand (Died)

                     6.V.Vimalabai
                     7.V.Pankaj
                     8.V.Priyanka
                     (R6 to R8 substituted as LRs of the deceased fifth respondent
                     vide Order dated 12.12.2022 made in W.M.P.No.12375/2022 in
                     W.P.No.16930/2016)
                                                         .. Respondents in W.P.No.16930 of 2016

                     1. The Director of Town and Country
                     Planning Department
                     No.807 Anna Salai
                     Chennai – 02

                     2.The Regional Deputy Director
                     Town and Country Planning Development
                     Villupuram Region
                     Villupuram

                     3.The Executive Engineer
                     Tamilnadu Electricity Board
                     Tindivanam
                     Villupuram District
                     4. Sub-Registrar
                     Joint No.I
                     Tindivanam
                     Villupuram District

                     5.Vidhyachand (Died)


                     2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                    W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018



                     6.V.Vimalabai
                     7.V.Pankaj
                     8.V.Priyanka
                     (R6 to R8 substituted as LRs of the deceased fifth respondent
                     vide Order dated 12.12.2022 made in W.M.P.No.1056/2021 in
                     W.P.No.25788/2018)

                     9.The Block Development Officer
                     Marakkanam Panchayat Union
                     Marakannam and Taluk
                     Villupuram District.
                     (R9 impleaded vide Order dated 12.12.2022 made in W.M.P.No.7754/2019
                     in W.P.No.25788/2018)
                                                       .. Respondents in W.P.No.25788 of 2018

                     Prayer in W.P.No.16930 of 2016:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
                     Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
                     1 to 3 to take action restraining the 4th respondent from erecting constructing
                     or converting or laying and residential activities in Survey Nos.88/1A, 1B,
                     89/1, 90/4, 5,6,91/6,92/1,2,93,94/0,2,3A,4,95/1A1 and in the name and style
                     of Sriram Nagar and to maintain the usage of land as an agricultural area until
                     and unless the conversion of the land.

                     Prayer in W.P.No.25788 of 2018:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
                     Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling
                     for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3828/2018/V.M. dated
                     06.09.2018 and quash the same and consequently restrain the fifth respondent
                     from erecting constructing or converting or laying and residential activities in
                     Survey Nos.88/1A, 1B, 89/1, 90/4, 5,6,91/6,92/1,2,93,94/0,2,3A,4,95/1A1
                     and in the name and style of Sriram Nagar and to maintain the usage of land
                     as an agricultural area.

                                  For Petitioners    : Mr.C.Prakasam (both WPs)

                                  For Respondents    : Mr.V.Nanmaran for R1, 2 & 4 (both WPs)


                     3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                          W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018

                                                          Mr.Venkata Seshaiya for R3
                                                          R5 - Died
                                                          Mr.A.Swaminathan for R6 to R8
                                                       COMMON ORDER

These petitions have been filed challenging the approval of the layout granted in favour of the fifth respondent by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3828/2018/V.M. dated 06.09.2018, quash the same and consequently restrain the fifth respondent from erecting constructing or converting or laying and residential activities in Survey Nos.88/1A, 1B, 89/1, 90/4, 5,6,91/6,92/1,2,93,94/0,2,3A,4,95/1A1 and in the name and style of Sriram Nagar and to maintain the usage of land as an agricultural area.

2. The case of the writ petitioners are that the fifth respondent started to promote the survey land in Survey Nos.88/1A, 1B, 89/1, 90/4, 5,6,91/6,92/1,2,93,94/0,2,3A,4,95/1A1 as a residential layout in the name and style of Shriram Nagar by erecting stones. Even though the survey lands are private Ryotwari lands and they are the integral part of the Yeri. They are water shed and serves as a make out channels to source the egress and ingress of the rainwater drainage from the village and for drawing agricultural water into the village and to the nearby areas. Challenging the promotional 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018 activities and the approval granted to the fifth respondent by the second respondent, these writ petitions are filed.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 & 4 submitted that originally the plots were unapproved plots. Pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.78, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department dated 04.05.2017, layout has been approved by the respondents 1, 2 and 4. Therefore, admittedly, it is only the agricultural lands and the approval has been granted only after following the procedure as stipulated in the above Government Order. Hence, the petitioners cannot maintain these writ petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners' main submission is that since the subject lands are agricultural lands, the certificate or status report from the concerned Tahsildar that the layout is not obstructing the waterways on the common field irrigation channels on the ground and flood level or inundation status ought to have obtained before approving the layout. Whereas, no such inspection were carried out and the layout has been approved by the callous attitude of the respondents.

5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018

5. The learned counsel for the respondent 6 to 8 submitted that subject unapproved plots were approved and the same were regularized as per the G.O.Ms.No.78, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department dated 04.05.2017.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

7. On perusal of the Rule 5 of the above Government Order, Sub- Clause 9 (a) deals with the regularisation of unapproved individual plot in a sub-division or layout, it means that a Certificate or Status Report from the concerned Tahsildar be obtained indicating that the layout is not obstructing the waterways on the common field irrigation channels on the ground and flood level or inundation status. Sub Clause 9(b) deals with the regularisation of unapproved layout, wherein, clause (i) to (vi) does not speak anything about status report of the Tahsildar. What is required is only necessary copies, sketches and encumbrance certificate, latest Patta, Permanent Land Records and Field Measurement Book sketches etc., Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the layout has been approved without 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018 following the Rules cannot be countenanced.

8. Admittedly, even in the petition it is averred that it is agricultural lands, wherein, layout has been already developed. Therefore, this Court does not find any merits. It appears that these writ petitions have been filed with oblique motive to stall the entire development.

9. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, these writ petition stands dismissed. However, the proposed respondents 6 to 8 are directed to execute the gift deed in favour the local panchayat for the purpose of creating road and other OSR (Open Space Reservation) areas. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

06.01.2023 dhk To,

1. The Director of Town and Country Planning Department 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018 No.807 Anna Salai Chennai – 02

2.The Regional Deputy Director Town and Country Planning Development Villupuram Region Villupuram N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk

3.The Executive Engineer Tamilnadu Electricity Board Tindivanam Villupuram District

4. Sub-Registrar Joint No.I Tindivanam Villupuram District

5.The Block Development Officer Marakkanam Panchayat Union Marakannam and Taluk Villupuram District.

W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016

and 25788 of 2018 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.16930 of 2016 and 25788 of 2018 06.01.2023 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis