Madras High Court
Kongu Nadar Kuriyiruppor Nala Sangam vs The Director Of Town And Country ... on 25 August, 2022
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.27839 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.27839 of 2013
and W.M.P.No.1 of 2013
Kongu Nadar Kuriyiruppor Nala Sangam
Rep. by its President,
N.Ganapathy
6/165A, Kongu Nagar,
Chittalandur,
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
807, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Deputy Director of
Town and Country Planning Authority,
No.6, Sannathi Street,
Subramaniam Nagar,
Suramangalam,
Salem.
3.The District Collector,
Namakkal District,
Namakkal.
4.The Commissioner,
Tiruchengode Panchayat Union,
Tiruchengode (Rural)
Namakkal District.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27839 of 2013
5.The President,
Chittalandur Village Panchayat,
Chittalandur,
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District.
6.The Sub Registrar,
Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District.
7.C.Kandasamy
8.C.Periannan
9.P.Balakrishnan
10.P.Rathinasabapathi
11.Sakunthala
12.Selvamani
13.T.Paramasivam
14.S.Deivaraj ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the conveyance deeds
registered as Doc. No. 7452/2012 dated 26.11.2012, Doc. No.5804/2012
dated 13.9.2012 and Doc. No. 386/1997 dated 9.6.1997 registered on the
file of the 6th respondent relating to the open space measuring 28440
Sq.ft. which has been exclusively earmarked for a park area and
children's playground in the plan approval dated 30.12.1996 made in
DTCP No.919/1996 in Na. Ka. No.25305/96 LA3 issued by the 1st
respondent, as void, illegal and contrary to Sections 49, 52, 56, 57 of the
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27839 of 2013
Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the Tamilnadu
Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and against the decisions reported in
1995 (1) SCC 47 and 2011 (1) CTC 257 (DB), by considering the
petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2013.
For Petitioner : M/s.N.Manokaran
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R3 & R6
Mr.D.Venkatachalam for R4 & R5
No Appearance for R7, R8 & R10
Mr.M.Loganathan for R11, R13 & R14
Mr.T.Dhanyakumar for R12
ORDER
This writ petition was filed to declare the Conveyance Deeds executed by private respondents as void and illegal on the ground that the subject properties were already gifted to the local authority and it has been earmarked for park area and children's playground.
2.The case of the petitioner Sangam is that respondents 7 to 9 were the owners of the lands measuring an extent of 6.50 acres comprised in 3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013 S.Nos.148/2b, 148/4A, 148/5, 148/2A and 148/3 at Chittalandur Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. It is further stated that respondents 10 to 12 are promoters and real estate agents and they entered into an understanding with the land owners to promote and develop their lands as house sites. Accordingly, respondents 7 to 9 joined hands with respondents 10 to 12 and applied for a plan approval to the 1st respondent. The application for plan approval was made on 20.06.1996 and along with the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 28.06.1996, it was forwarded to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent considered the same and granted site plan approval through proceedings dated 30.12.1996 and such approval was granted subject to certain terms and conditions.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the plan approval granted by the 1st respondent, respondents 10 to 12 plotted out the entire extent of 6.50 acres into 59 house sites after earmarking an extent of 28,440 Sq. Ft. towards public purposes. The entire 59 house sites were sold to various persons through different Sale Deeds executed by respondents 7 to 9 for themselves and as power of attorney holders of the other sharers.
4/17https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013
4.It is also stated that respondents 7 to 9 executed Gift/Settlement Deeds dated 12.08.1998, through two documents registered as Document No.755 and 756 of 1998 in favour of the 4th respondent who is the local authority.
5.The grievance of the petitioner Sangam is that the respondents 7 to 12 have dealt with the property which was already gifted and earmarked for open space, children's park and play ground and Sale Deeds were created.
6.The petitioner made representations in this regard to the official respondents and sought for taking action. Since there was no response for the representations, the petitioner left with no other alternative has filed the present writ petition seeking to declare all the Conveyance Deeds as null and void and illegal.
7.The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:
5/17https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013
3. It is submitted that the respondents 7 to 9 were the owners of the lands measuring an extent of 6.50 acres comprised in S.Nos.148.2B, 148/4A, 148/5, 148/2A and 148/3 Chittalandur Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.
The respondents 10 to 12 are the promoters and Real Estate Agents and they entered into an understanding with the land owners and the respondents 7 to 9 to promote and develop their lands as house sites. Accordingly, the respondents 7 to 9 had obtained power of attorney deeds dated 22.04.1996 from the other sharers and plotted out the lands in the name and style as "Kongu Nagar".
4. It is submitted that the respondents 7 to 12 joined together and applied for plan approval to the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Accordingly, application for plan approval dated 20.06.1996 along with the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 28.06.1996 was forwarded to the 1 respondent for getting the plan approval. The 1st respondent has considered the application dated 20.06.1996 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and granted house site plan approval in DTCP No.919/1996 in Na.Ka.No.25305/96 LA3 dated 30.12.1996 subject to the terms and conditions as contemplated under the provisions of the Act 1971.
6/17https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013
5. It is submitted that in pursuance of the plan approval granted by the 1st respondent in DTCP No.919/1996, the respondents 10 to 12 plotted out the entire extent of 6.50 acres (283140 sq.ft) into 59 house sites after earmarking an extent of 28440 Sq.ft towards public purposes namely open space, children's play ground, park and basic amenities.
6. It is submitted that this department is granting technical sanction after considering the documents along with application received from the applicant through the Local Bodies that too after personal inspection of the site.
7. It is submitted that this department is sanctioning the technical sanction with instruction to the Local Body authorities that the final permission should be granted only after getting the lands allotted for public purpose such as Roads and Park as Gift to the Local Body authorities. Hence, it is just and necessary for the Local Body Authorities to maintain the Roads and Parks which were given as Gift by the applicants. Hence, as per Approved layout DCTP No.919/96, the Park area should be retained.
8.The local authority viz., the 4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:
7/17https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013
6. It is submitted that as per the plan approval there are 59 house plots in Kongu Nagar and some plots were allotted for establishing the shops. The said approval clearly establishes that the 4860 sq. ft. of land is allotted for the children's park and 17.730 sq. ft., of land is allotted for the open space area and 5850 sq. ft., of land is allotted for the common area. It is pertinent to mention that the promoters of the land have to convey 87,441 sq. ft., of the land to the Village Panchayat for the purpose of forming roads. By a gift deed dated 12.08.1998 the 7th respondent and others were conveyed the land admeasuring 28,440 sq. feet's towards the road and the park vide Document No.755 of 1998, on the same day they executed another gift deed No.756 of 1998 by which the promoters were executed 27525.5 sq. ft., towards formation of road. As stated supra, the promoters have gifted 56,009,5 sq. feets in total, to the local authority but the promoters were failed to convey the remaining extent 31,431 sq. feet's to the 4th respondent, which is clear violation of the plan approval.
7. It is submitted that on 13.09.2012 the 10th respondent and others were sold 9480 out of 28440 sq. ft., to in favour 13th & 14th respondents vide sale deed registered as document No.5804 of 2012 on the file of the 6th respondent.
Again on 26.11.2012, 10 respondent has sold 9480 sq. ft., of 8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013 land in favour of 14th respondents, the same was registered as document No.7452/2012. The above documents were conveyed the area, which was allotted towards park, road and open space area. It is further submitted that the promoters were razzed the trees in the park area. Based on the complaint, the 4th respondent timely intervened the clogged activities of the 7th respondent. Earlier on 09.06.1997, the 7th and 8th respondents were sold 28,440sq.feets in favour to 10th and 11th respondents vide Document No.387/1997 in the SRO Nallur, as per the plan approval the said extent allotted towards open space area and children park.
8. It is submitted that after sanction of plan approval, the promoters cannot convey the lands earmarked for general public, the following sale deeds executed by the promoters are illegal, i. Document No.387/1997 dated 09.06.1997 (on the file of SRO, Nallur, now the said Nallur SRO is merged with SRO, Thiruchegodu), ii. Document No.5804/2012 dated 13.09.2012 (on the file of SRO, Thiruchengodu) iii. Document No.7452/2012 dated 26.11.2012 (on the file of SRO, Thiruchengodu The promoters deliberately sold the extents, which were allotted to road, open space area and children park and the 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013 said documents bound to be cancelled.)
9.When the writ petition came up for final hearing on 03.08.2022, this Court passed the following order:
This writ petition was filed questioning the conveyance deed that were registered on the file of the 6th respondent relating to the open space that was already gifted in favour of the 4th respondent to an extent of 28440 Sq.ft.
2.The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit and has virtually endorsed the stand taken by the petitioner and it is stated that the 7th and 8th respondents have sold 28440 sq.ft in favour of 10th and 11th respondents and the 10th respondent in turn had sold 9480 Sq.ft each out of 28440 sq.ft in favour of 13th and 14th respondents. All these documents have been registered and thepecific stand of the 4th respondent is that what has been conveyed was ear-marked towards park, road and open space area.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 7 to 14 sought for some time.
4.If the 4th respondent was made aware about the conveyance of the property that was ear-marked for Park, road and Open space reservation area, it is not enough for the 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013 4th respondent to just file a counter affidavit before this Court and the 4th respondent is expected to take action to restore the property which belongs to the Municipality.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader is directed to take instructions from the respondents 4 and 5 and inform this Court as to what action was taken by them inspite of being aware that lands that were gifted to the municipality has been dealt with by the private respondents. The learned Special Government Pleader seeks for time to take instructions.
6.Post this case under the caption part heard cases on 17.08.2022.
10.The matter was again taken up for hearing on 17.08.2022 and this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to take instructions on the further action to be taken by the official respondents.
11.When the writ petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned Special Government Pleader based on the instructions received from the 4th respondent submitted that already action has been initiated and a complaint has been given before the District Registrar for the cancellation of the Sale Deeds pertaining to those lands which were already conveyed through Gift Deeds and which was already earmarked as 11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013 a open space for being utilized for other common purposes.
12.Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 & 6, Mr.D.Venkatachalam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 & 5, Mr.M.Loganathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 11, 13 & 14 and Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 12th respondent.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PT.Chet Ram Vashist vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47 and the judgments of this Court in K.Rajamani and others vs. Alamunagar Residents' Welfare Association, Alamu Nagar, Sathi Road, Coimbatore and others reported in 2011 (1) CTC 257, Villupuram Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Villupuram vs. M.Subramanian and others reported in 2002 (5) CTC 729 and R.Varadarajan and Others vs. The Director of Town and Country Planning and Others reported in AIR 2005 Mad 173 submitted that 12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013 once the Gift Deed has been executed and has been earmarked for common purposes, the same cannot be dealt with or utilized for any other purposes and hence, all the Conveyance Deeds executed by the promoters and owners of the property should be held to be null and void and illegal.
14.In the considered view of this Court, there is no requirement for this Court to get into the legality or otherwise of the Conveyance Deeds that have been put to challenge in this writ petition, since the 4th respondent has already initiated proceedings for the cancellation of the Conveyance Deeds. In view of the same, the concerned authority who is dealing with the complaint given by the 4th respondent, will issue notice to the persons who have executed the Conveyance Deeds and to the persons to whom the lands have been conveyed and after hearing them, will take a decision strictly in accordance with law. That exercise need not be undertaken by this Court in the present writ petition. The concerned authority will have to necessarily assess the claims made by respective parties and it would require factual consideration and therefore, this Court need not burden itself conducting such an enquiry.
15.In the result, taking into consideration the stand taken by the 4th 13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013 respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to proceed further with the complaint given to the District Registrar for cancellation of the Conveyance Deeds and the District Registrar before passing final orders shall issue notice to all the interested parties and hear them and thereafter, take a final decision strictly in accordance with law. This process shall be completed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While this process goes on, there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to conduct a survey of the entire property with the help of a Surveyor as per the DTCP approval granted by the 1st respondent and specifically identify and demarcate the lands which have already been gifted in favour of the 4th respondent. By undertaking this process, there will be more clarity in identifying the lands which were gifted in favour of the 4th respondent. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssr
14/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27839 of 2013
15/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.27839 of 2013
To
1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning Authority, No.6, Sannathi Street, Subramaniam Nagar, Suramangalam, Salem.
3.The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
4.The Commissioner, Tiruchengode Panchayat Uniion, Tiruchengode (Rural) Namakkal District.
5.The President, Chittalandur Village Panchayat, Chittalandur, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.
6.The Sub Registrar, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.
16/17https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27839 of 2013 N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr W.P.No.27839 of 2013 and W.M.P.No.1 of 2013 25.08.2022 17/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis