Madras High Court
M/S.V.G.N.Home Private Limited vs The Member Secretary on 28 October, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.28660 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.28660 of 2024
W.M.P.Nos.31263, 31264 & 35024 of 2024
M/s.V.G.N.Home Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director,
B.R.Nandakumar,
No.333, Poonamallee High Road,
Amaindakarai,
Chennai – 600 029. ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.2, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2. The Commissioner,
Avadi Corporation,
Avadi.
3. K.Ezhumalai
4. K.Palani
5. V.Munusamy
6. Om Shakthy Fire Realty Pvt. Ltd.,
Om Shakthy Tower-II,
TS-55, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Ekkattuthangal,
Chennai – 600 032.
7. M/s.Lakshmi Homes Private Limited,
No.28/16, Anna Street,
Kallikuppam.
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.
8. P.Mangai. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 12
W.P.No.28660 of 2024
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent
herein to ensure the approach/linkage road to be formed and gifted to the
second respondent by the respondents 3 to 8 from their land in Survey
Nos. 527/2A, 527/1A1, 1A2, 527/1B1 and 527/1B2 of Paruthipattu
Village corresponding to town survey Nos.28/7, 28/9 and 28/11 of Avadi
Town, Thiruvallur District to the petitioner's land in survey
Nos.523/3A1A of Paruthipattu Village corresponding to town survey
No.24/13, Block No.85, Ward No.025 of Avadi Town, Tiruvallur
District, while processing the CMDA file No.L1/183/2024 dated
20.05.2024 while granting lay-out approval in respect of survey
Nos.522/1B, 527/1A2, 1B1, 1B2, 2A and 3 corresponding to Town
survey Nos.23/4, 5; 28/3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of Paruthipattu Village, Avadi
Town, Tiruvallur District, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.PH.Aravind Pandian
Senior Counsel
For Mr.V.Ayyappa Raja
For Respondents
For R1 : Mrs.K.Mageswari
Standing Counsel
For R2 : Mr.R.A.Gopinath
Standing Counsel
For R6 : Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy
For R7 : Mr.N.L.Rajah, Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Balu
For R8 : Mr.Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
For R3toR5& R9 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 12
W.P.No.28660 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for direction directing the first respondent to ensure the approach/linkage road to be formed and gifted to the second respondent by the respondents 3 to 8 from their land to the petitioner's land.
2. The petitioner company is doing real estate business and it had purchased about 99 cents comprised in survey Nos.523/3A1A of Paruthipattu Village, corresponding to town survey No.24/13, block No.85, Ward No.025 of Avadi town, Tiruvallur District and 12 cents in Survey No.533/3B(part), corresponding to town survey No.32/7, Block No.85, Ward No.025 of Avadi town, Tiruvallur District by way of two sale deed registered as document Nos.3325/2003 and 3402/2023 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Avadi. The said land was purchased by the petitioner to develop residential lay out.
3. While being so, the seventh respondent herein submitted application before the first respondent for residential lay out in respect of the property comprised in survey Nos.522/1B, 527/1A2, 1B1, 1B2, 2A, 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024 corresponding to town survey Nos.23/4, 5 and 28/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 situated at Paruthipattu Villate, Avadi Town, Tiruvallur District. The said properties are owned by the respondents 3 to 6 and they had given power of attorney in favour of the seventh respondent to deal with the property, by the registered power of attorney dated 12.07.2023 vide document No.11086 of 2023.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is an obligation on the part of the seventh respondent under the Tamilnadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) to provide a linkage/access road to the petitioner's land from the lay out to be approved by the respondents 1 & 2 herein, since the petitioner's land is situated adjacent to the respondents 3 to 7 lands on the southern part of the land.
4.1. He also relied upon the Rule 47 of the Rules and submitted that the planning authority must ensure to provide linkage road in order to provide proper circulation pattern in the area. However now the respondents 3 to 7 failed to provide linkage road, as per the lay out. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024 Therefore, the earlier application submitted to form a layout, was withdrawn by the seventh respondent. Subsequently, the respondents 3 & 4 had executed settlement deed in favour of the eight respondent ad measuring 5½ cents comprised in survey No. 527/2A(1.5 cents). Survey Nos.527/1B1 (2.25 cents) and in survey No.527/1B1(1.75 cents), by way of registered settlement deed dated 03.05.2024 vide document No.7766/2024.
4.2. That apart, the respondent 3 to 6 had cancelled the earlier power of attorney executed in favour of the seventh respondent and executed new power of attorney dated 03.05.2024. Accordingly, new application has been filed to form lay out excluding the land settled in favour of the eigth respondent. Therefore, the earlier application for to form lay out was withdrawn in order to avoid for providing an access or linkage road to the petitioner's land. Therefore, the respondents 1 & 2 must ensure while granting lay out approval the approach/linkage road to be formed to the petitioner's land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024
5. The seventh respondent filed counter and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent submitted that the seventh respondent is the power of attorney of the respondents 3 to 6, in order to develop the subject property and he applied for lay out approval. On the southern side, the petitioner owned property. Even as per his sale deed, there is no access to his property from any road. He also categorically admitted in his affidavit. In fact, the land has no direct approach from the public road. After knowing the said fact, he had purchased the said property by the registered sale deed vide document Nos. 3325 & 3402 of 2023 in the year 2023.
5.1. He further submitted that, on the strength of the power of attorney, the seventh respondent made application for lay out approval. Due to family dispute, the respondents 3 & 4 have to settle some property in favour of the eight respondents, who is being their sister. Therefore, the earlier application was withdrawn and subsequently executed settlement deed in her favour. Thereafter, the respondents 3 to 6 had executed new power of attorney in favour of the seventh respondent and applied for fresh lay out. That apart, the writ petition itself premature https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024 since the lay out was not approved and it is pending on the file of the first respondent. Only after granting the lay out approval, the petitioner can say over the lay out approval.
6. The eighth respondent filed counter and the learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent submitted that the eighth respondent was settled with the property as measuring 5½ cents comprised survey Nos.527/1B1, 527/2A corresponding to town survey in T.S.Nos.28/6, 28/7 & 28/10, by way of settlement deed dated 03.05.2024 registered vide document No.7766 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Avadi. It is a small extent of land and now the petitioner compelling the eight respondent to develop the said property. The petitioner cannot compel the eight respondent to lay out that too by providing linkage road to his property.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024
8. This writ petition has been filed only on the strength of Rule 47 of the Rules that the petitioner has right to access for its land based on the said Rule pertains to provisions to be made in connection with the streets and roads within the boundaries of the lay out. It never said that the linkage to be provided to the adjacent land. It is relevant to extract the Rule 47 of the Rules as follows :-
“47. Layout and sub-division Rules.— (1) This rules seeks to ensure access to plots by way of roads and private passages, creating hierarchy of roads depending on the road length and intensity of developments in the area and also to provide adequate linkages to the existing roads and further to provide proper circulation pattern in the area, providing required recreational spaces such as parks or playgrounds, and providing spaces for common amenities such as schools, post and telegraph offices, fire stations, police stations etc.” Thus it is clear that Rule 47 of the Rules nowhere either ensures or mandates that the roads within the layout boundaries should necessarily connect to every adjoining land. The word “to provide proper circular pattern in the area” doesn't mean the out side of the layout area.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024
9. Admittedly, the petitioner's land situated adjacent to the seventh respondent's land and who is seeking lay out approval on next southern side. Further even as per the sale deed of the petitioner, it doesn't have access to any of the public road. After knowing the said fact, the petitioner had purchased the said land and now seeking directions to the respondent 1 & 2 to ensure that the petitioner's land must have linkage or access road from the proposed lay out submitted by the petitioner.
10. That part, the application is now pending for consideration before the first respondent. Even before granting or rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot have any right to ask for linkage road to its property. Therefore, the writ petition is pre-mature and liable to be dismissed. Further Rule 2(10) of the Rules defines the area as follows :-
“2(10) “Area” In relation to a building means the superficies of a horizontal section thereof made at the plinth level inclusive of the external walls and of such portions of the party walls as belong to the building;” Rule 2(88) of the Rules defines the plot or site area as follows :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024 “(88) “Plot or site Area” means the area of a contiguous parcel of land enclosed by definite boundaries over which the applicant has legal right for development and includes part of the site used as exclusive passage, open space reservation area and internal roads within the boundaries;
Thus it is clear that the land enclosed by definite boundaries over which the applicant has legal right for development. It means that the land which is subjected for lay out approval area comes within the meaning of area as far as plot or site area. Therefore, the word “circular pattern in the area” as mentioned in Rule 47 of the Rules means the area which is subjected for lay out. It doesn't mean the adjacent land or other than the area or the land which is not subjected for lay out.
11. Further, part of the land settled in favour of the eighth respondent who is also a family member of the respondents 3 to 6 herein. It is situated on the southern side of the petitioner's property boundaries of the seventh respondent property and adjacent to the petitioner's property. Therefore, the eight respondent has small extent of land as such, the petitioner cannot compel her to develop the same that too by providing linkage road from public road to his road. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024
12. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition itself devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Now the application for lay out filed by the petitioner is pending on the file of the first respondent due to the pendency of this writ petition. Hence, the first respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking lay out approval and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
28.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No rts https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 12 W.P.No.28660 of 2024 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, rts To
1. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.2, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
2. The Commissioner, Avadi Corporation, Avadi.
W.P.No.28660 of 2024
W.M.P.Nos.31263, 31264 & 35024 of 2024 28.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 12