Madras High Court
The Director Of Town & Country Planning vs A.S.K.R.Trust on 7 July, 2021
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam, S.Ananthi
W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5010 of 2021
1.The Director of Town & Country Planning
Chengalvarayan Building, 4th Floor,
807, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Sivakasi Panchayat Union,
Sivakasi.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Virudhunagar Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
: Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
1.A.S.K.R.Trust
Represented by its President,
No.53, Armenian Street,
Chennai-600 001. :Respondent/Writ Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021
2.The President,
Sengamalanachiyapuram Panchayat,
Sivakasi Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar District. :Respondent/4th Respondent
3.VSKD Nagar Housing Society,
Rep by its Secretary,
Satchipuram, Sivakasi (West)
Virudhunagar District. : Respondent/5th Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.224 of 2016, dated
20.09.2018 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Baskaran
Standing Counsel for Government
For R1 : Mrs.G.Thilagavathi, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.P.Balamurugan
For R2 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan
JUDGMENT
*************** [Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2.We have heard Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the appellants, Mrs.G.Thilagavathi, learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/8 W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021 Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.J.Gunaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.The appellants are the Director of Town and Country Planning, the Block Development Officer, Sivakasi Panchayat Union and the District Collector, Virudhunagar District. They are aggrieved by the direction issued in W.P.(MD)No.224 of 2016 dated 20.09.2018. The said writ petition was tagged along with a Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2012 and a common judgment and order has been passed. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
“38.In view of the above discussion,
1)S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2012 is allowed in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo and the judgment and decree in A.S.No.8 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, dated 14.07.2011 is set aside and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.228 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi, dated 28.09.2010 is confirmed and the suit is dismissed. The Joint compromise memo and the plan shall form part of the decree in S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2012.
2)W.P.(MD)No.224 of 2016 is disposed in view3 of the order in S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2012 with the following directions:
“The petitioner Trust shall form a new road from the layout to the Satchiyarpuram -Gangakulam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/8 W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021 main road in accordance with the compromise recorded in S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2012 and in accordance with the plan appended to this order. The fourth respondent is directed to participate in the revocation of the gift deed already executed by the petitioner Trust, dated 26.12.2007, registered as a Document No.6224/2007 the petitioner Trust is directed to execute a gift deed for the lands over which the proposed road is to be put up. After construction of such road, the petitioner is permitted to reclaim the land, over which the existing road lies.
39.S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2012 is allowed, however, in the circumstances of the case, without costs. W.P.(MD)No.224 of 2016 is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
4.After elaborately hearing the learned Government Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, this Court was at a loss to understand as to why the appellants are opposing to the relief granted in the writ petition, since the direction issued to the first respondent Trust to form a road, the road to be a thar road and thereafter, execute the gift deed in favour of the second respondent panchayat. After closer scrutiny of the facts, it comes to light that the respondents namely, the authorities would be unable to explain as to the laying of the road laid by the local body in the present alignment by expending funds sanctioned by the Government under the Scheme https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/8 W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021 called “Thai Scheme”. Furthermore, on account of the direction issued in the writ petition, the existing 20 feet road which had been laid by expending funds from the “Thai Scheme”, cutting upon the first respondent Trust property has to be dismantled and the first respondent should be left to enjoy the property.
5.Admittedly, the road which had been formed by expending funds under the Thai Scheme is a property owned by the Trust and the road was not formed in the alignment which was gifted by the Trust by a deed of gift dated 26.12.2007, registered as Document No.6224/2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruthangal. The civil dispute was between the housing society and private parties. The dispute was as to whether the road has to be formed along a passage which was used by the residents or it should be formed in the alignment gifted by the first respondent Trust.
6.The learned Government Counsel submitted that the substantial sums of Government funds have been spent and the road work took place almost eight [8] months and all the residents did not object and at this juncture, the order of the writ petition would work prejudice to the authorities as substantial money has been spent. However, the moot question would be whether the road could have been formed in the present position which admittedly is a part of the Trust. Therefore, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/8 W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021 first option for the local body to form the road along the alignment as per the Trust deed dated 26.12.2007 has not been done. In fact, the District Collector has submitted that the gift deed was unilaterally executed. Thus, it goes without saying that the gift deed has not been acted upon and the donee has not accepted the gift.
7.The fact that the lands on which the road has been formed using the funds under the “Thai Scheme” is the property of the first respondent Trust. Nevertheless, the first respondent Trust agreed to form a 30 feet road which will be a thar road along an alignment which has been proposed and that area will be gifted to the second respondent panchayat. Thus, in our considered view, the road and other common amenities are for the benefit of the residents of the area and the public. It may be true that the Government funds have been spent for laying the road. Nevertheless, before taking such steps, the local panchayat should have ensured whether the road has been laid in public land or the land which has been gifted. Further, there was an order of status quo granted in S.A.(MD)No.63 of 2012 and the then President of the Panchayat was also impleaded in her personal capacity in a Contempt Petition. Thus, during the pendency of the same, there has been some problem probably some miscreants wanted that road in a particular alignment. If the road is a public land, then, no person can seek any right. It may be a different case if the land has been acquired, but it is not so. Therefore, we are of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/8 W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021 the view that the order and direction given by the learned Writ Court is just and proper and would be beneficial to the residents of the area. Hence, the appellants have not made out any case to interfere with the same.
8.In the light of the above conclusion, there will be a direction to the District Collector, to accept the revocation deed submitted by the first respondent Trust and permit the same to be registered, consequently revoking the gift deed dated 26.12.2007, registered as Document No. 6224/2007 and accept the gift deed which is to be executed by the first respondent Trust in terms of the directions issued by the learned writ court. The above direction be complied with by the District Collector, within a period of four [4] months from the date of submission of the documents.
9.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
07.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7/8
W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.1173 of 2021 07.07.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/8