Madras High Court
R.Jeyasudha vs The Secretary To State Government on 19 August, 2016
Bench: Nooty.Ramamohana Rao, S.S.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.08.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Writ Petition (MD) No.4015 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 3 and 4 of 2014, 1 of 2015 and C.M.P.(MD)No.5017 of 2016 R.Jeyasudha ... Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Secretary to State Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai ? 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Y. Othakadai Main Road, Madurai District. 4.The President, Y.Othakadai Panchayat, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District. 5.K.Kannan, S/o.P.R.Krishnan, Secretary, Plot No.21, Neelamega Nagar House Owners' Association, Y.Othakadai, Madurai. ... Respondents (Respondent No.5 is impleaded vide Court order dated 08.08.2016 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015 by NRRJ and SSSRJ) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting the petitioner in Plot No.20A in Neelamega Nagar, Y.Othakadai, Madurai, pending revision on the file of the first respondent. !For Petitioner : Mr.AN.Ramanathan ^For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian 1 to 3 Special Government Pleader For Respondent 4 : Mr.M.Ponniah For Respondent 5 : Mr.R.Kamaludeen :ORDER
The Petitioner sought for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from evicting her from out of Plot No.20A, Neelamega Nagar, Y.Othakkadai, Madurai, pending revision on the file of the first respondent.
2.The writ petitioner submits that she has purchased Plot No.20A in the Neelamega Nagar lay-out of Y.Othakkadai Village on 21st February, 2005, from one Smt.Subbulakshmi who in turn has purchased the property by way of a registered sale deed on 05.05.1996 from Mr.Annamalai Servai. It would be apt to notice that the vendor's vendor of the writ petitioner was the one who seems to have laid out a vast extent of land and developed it into a lay- out. The lay-out has been sanctioned and approved by the Director of Town and Country Planing as long back as on 21st August, 1984. The approved lay- out in all contained 100 plots. There are also certain 'lung spaces' provided in the lay-out and one such lung space is abutting a 30 feet road lying on the northern tip of the lay-out. Between Plot No.20 and the lung space called as park, a 30 feet road is laid. It appears, contrary to the approved lay-out, the space occupied by the road in between Plot No.20 and the park has been unauthorisedly converted into Plot No.20A and sold off by the developer of the lay-out. That is how the present petitioner landed in purchasing the Plot No.20A lying in between the park and Plot No.20.
3.Heard Mr.AN.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.M.Ponniah, learned counsel for the fourth respondent panchayat and Mr.R.Kamaludeen, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the approved lay-out which is placed at page No.1 of the material paper book (typed set). From a perusal thereof, we could realise that a 30 feet road was shown to have been formed, based on which, the lay-out has been sanctioned. Since a portion of the 30 feet road is lying in between Plot No.20 and the park, the greedy developer converted that into Plot No.20A and succeeded in selling it off as well.
5.The action of the writ petitioner continuing to occupy Plot No.20A and also carry on a small time industrial activity of wood carving therefrom has led to a series of cases being filed. Ultimately, it is now realised that there is no Plot No.20A sanctioned by the Director of Town and Country Planning in the lay out and that the plot has been carved out by way of manipulation by the developer. In the face of such a finding of fact, the District Collector found no hesitation to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order of the Panchayat Union for the eviction of the petitioner therefrom. Against the orders of the Collector, dated 24.02.2014, the writ petitioner herein appears to have preferred a revision before the State Government on 04.03.2014. The said revision is stated to be still pending with the State Government. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
6.When once a lay-out developed has been subjected to scrutiny and subsequently, it was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, it is impermissible for any individual or for that matter of the local body to alter the boundaries or the nature of the lay-out itself. Even though a portion of the 30 feet road lying on the northern side of the lay- out may be a dead end, but still, that space cannot be converted into a plot by the developer. The reason is very simple. If the developer has shown one plot additionally in the lay-out, the Director of Town and Country Planning may not have sanctioned the lay-out itself, as the open spaces left for community living would relatively fall short of the requirement and consequently, the density of the plotted land would become more than the permissible limit. In such an event, the lay-out itself would not get approved. In the instant case, by maintaining a 30 feet road, the norms for sanction of lay-out may have been satisfied. Even otherwise, once a lay-out gets approved and a particular land area is demarcated therein either for a lung space / community space or for formation of road, the said position cannot be altered subsequently and convert a portion thereof into an additional plot in the lay out. It is, in fact, opposite to the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 430 which reads as under:
?6.Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a lay-out plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. The effect of such reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit of the society or the public in general.?
7.We are, therefore, convinced that carving out plot No.20A by the developer after the lay-out has been approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning is wholly an unauthorised act and hence, the petitioner cannot take any advantage out of it.
8.However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact that the writ petitioner being a female entrepreneur carrying on small time business in wood carving, we consider that ends of justice would be adequately served by providing her time till 31st December, 2016 for quietly and peacefully vacating the land occupied by her forming part of Plot No.20A and relocate herself in the meantime.
9.In the meantime, we also hope and trust that the State Government would have decided the revision said to have been preferred by the petitioner on 04th March, 2014 as it is more than two and half years time has elapsed. Upon quietly vacating the premises in question, the writ petitioner shall deliver the vacant possession of the said land to the fourth respondent Panchayat.
10.The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Secretary to State Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar, Madurai East Taluk, Y. Othakadai Main Road, Madurai District.
4.The President, Y.Othakadai Panchayat, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District..