Madras High Court
W. P.(Md)N O. 1 5 6 6 8 O F 2 0 1 3 vs 2 on 12 August, 2013
1
B E F O R E T H E MADU R AI B E N C H O F MADRA S HI GH C O U R T
Re s er ved on: 0 1. 1 1. 2 0 1 8 D eliv er e d o n : 1 2.1 2.2 0 1 8
C O R AM:
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E T.R A J A
A ND
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E K RI S H N A N R AMA S AM Y
W. P.(MD)N o. 1 5 6 6 8 o f 2 0 1 3
M. P.(MD)N o. 1/2 0 1 3 & M P(MD)N o. 2 o f 2 0 1 3
and
W. P.(MD)N o. 6 5 4 5 o f 2 0 1 4
M. P.(MD)N o s . 1 t o 3 o f 2 0 1 4
and
W. P.(MD)N o. 7 8 0 1 o f 2 0 1 4
M. P.(MD)N o s . 1 t o 3 o f 2 0 1 4
and
W. P.(MD)N o s . 1 5 6 7 o f 2 0 1 4
and
W. P.(MD)N o. 1 9 1 1 0 o f 2 0 1 4
M. P.(MD)N o. 1 o f 2 0 1 4
and
W. P.(MD)N o. 1 9 1 1 6 o f 2 0 1 4
M. P.(MD)N o. 1 o f 2 0 1 4
and
W. P.(MD)N o. 9 0 7 4 o f 2 0 1 5 a n d
W. P.(MD)N o. 2 2 8 0 2 o f 2 0 1 5
M. P.(MD)N o. 1 o f 2 0 1 5
W. P(MD)N o. 1 5 6 6 8 o f 2 0 1 3 :
The Madurai Central Market Vegetables
Perishable Commodities Merchants
Coordianation Association,
Madurai, Rep. By its President
Mr.S.Mnuel Jeyaraj,
Dindigul Main Road,Vilangudi, Madurai. ... Petitioner
http://www.judis.nic.in
Vs.
2
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District.
2.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai.
3.N.Mayeppan ... Respondents
P R AY E R IN W. P. N o. 1 5 6 6 8 o f 2 0 1 3 : Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for
the records relating to the impugned order made by the second respondent in
his proceedings in M1 PO2/013219/12, dated 12.08.2013, and quash the same as
illegal and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneerselvam in W.P.No.22802/15
Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, SC, in WP.Nos.15668//13,
6545 and 7801 of 2014
Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth in W.P.No.1567/14
Mr.T.Lajapathy Raj in W.P.Nos.19110 & 19116/14
Mr.K.Vairaveeran in W.P.No.9074/15
For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, Spl.GP
for R1 in W.P.Nos.22802 & 15668/13,
for R1 to 3 in W.P.No.6545/14,
for R1 & R2 in W.P.Nos.7801 & 1567/14 & 9074/15
for R1 to R3 in WP.No.19110 & 19116/14
: Mr.Mural for R2 in W.P.No.22802/15,
for R2 in W.P.No.15668/13,
for R4 & 5 in W.P.No.6545/14
for R3 in WP.Nos.7801 & 1567/14 & 9074/15
Mr.Ajmal Khan, SC, for M/s.Ajmal Associates
for R3 in WP.No.22802/15,
for R4 in W.P.Nos.1567/14 & 9074/15
for R5 in WP.Nos.19110 & 19116/18
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
C O MMO N O R DE R
K RI S H N A N R AMA S AMY, J .
The main issue involved in these writ petitions is whether the 60 feet road in question should be donated by the Madurai Central Market Vegetables Perishable Commodities Merchants Coordination Association (in short “Assocation”) / the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.15668 of 2013 to the Panchayat or not. For better understanding, the parties are hereby referred to as referred to in the cause title of W.P.(MD).No.15668 of 2013.
2.Brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1.The Central market is located in the heart of the city, which is nearest to the famous Meenakshi Amman temple and it is known for its congested and choked by heavy traffic, and due to the heavy flow of traffic and commercial goods vehicle carrying fruits, vegetables, the other perishable goods were not allowed to use in and around the central market.
2.2.Due to these restrictions, the lorries bringing vegetables, fruits and other perishable goods from other Cities and Districts were not able to reach the central market at any time and even if they reach the said place, they wil http://www.judis.nic.in 4 have to wait till the restricted hours to enter into the city. Therefore, the Traders and Merchants have formed an Association, namely, Madurai Central Market Vegetables Perishable Commodities Merchants Coordination Association / the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.15668 of 2013, to find out the solution to this problem. The said Association identified a location in Villangudi Panchayat, and purchased the land in survey Nos.115,116/1, 116/2 in Villangudi, Paravai village, Madurai North Taluk, for setting up Central Market out of Rural Funds.
Although the Association had initially planned to purchase 15 acres of land out of 62 acres in the above said survey numbers for establishing the Vegetables Market in Villangudi Village, the owner of the land was not ready to sell 15 acres, but, he was willing to sell 62 acres to the Association. Without any other option, the Association purchased the entire extent of 62 acres on 07.11.2004. As the Association required only 15 acres for setting up the Central Market, they have decided to sell the remaining 47 acres to various private individuals. Accordingly, the Association prepared rough sketch for the remaining 47 acres with road facilities by showing 60 feet and 40 feet pathway in the land and accordingly, the Association have sold the plots to the private individuals by showing 40 feet and 60 feet road. The President of the Association is the signatory authority for the sale deed, wherein rough sketch of 60 feet and 40 feet path way was also enclosed along with the sale deed. http://www.judis.nic.in 5 2.3.Thereafter, the Association applied for the building plan seeking permission to construct shops for Vegetables Market to the Town and Country Plan Authority enclosing a sketch showing 60 feet and 40 feet as pathway. Ascertaining the same, the Town and Country Plan Authority granted its approval on 12.03.2008 with a condition that 60 feet and 40 feet roads should be handed over to the Villangudi Panchayat. The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning Authority sent a letter dated 26.11.2007 to the President of the Association directing him to furnish an additional information along with necessary undertaking, as stated in the letter dated 26.11.2007. One of the undertakings sought for by the Town and Country Planning Authority at serial No.10 is stated below:
“10. O p e n space R e s e r v ati o n gFjpfs; kw;Wk; mtw;wph;fhd ghijahf fhl;lg;gl;Ls;s cj;njr rhiyfs; (r o a d s l e a din g t o o p e n s p a c e r e s e r v ati o n ) Mfpait cs;shl;rpf;F jhdkhf xg;gilf;fg;gl;L. gpd;dh; o p e n s p a c e r e s e r v ati o n gFjp khh;f;bfl; chpikahsh;fshy; cs;shl;rpapd; mDkjpal[ d; guhkhpf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;.” Accordingly, the Association, vide its letter dated 10.12.2007, furnished the additional information along with amended drawings with an undertaking as stated below:
“10. O p e n s p a c e R e s e r v ati o n gFjpfs; kw;Wk; mtw;wph;fhf ghijahf fhl;lg;gl;Ls;s cj;njr rhiyfs; (r o a d s l e a din g t o o p e n s p a c e r e s e r v ati o n ) Mfpait cs;shl;rpf;F jhdkhf xg;gilg;nghk; vd;W cWjp http://www.judis.nic.in Twfpnwhk;. nkYk; o p e n s p a c e r e s e r v ati o n gFjp rq;fj;jhy; cs;shl;rp 6 mDkjpa[ld; guhkhpf;f xg;g[f;bfhs;fpnwhk;” 2.4.After accepting the above undertaking, the Town and Country Planning Authority had granted approval for the site plan, vide their proceedings dated 12.03.2008. In the said site plan, it was clearly shown that the 60 feet and 40 feet road as pathway. However, the Association, as per their undertaking dated 10.12.2007, did not hand over the 60 feet and 40 feet road to the Local Panchayat. Therefore, one Meyyappan, who is one of the purchasers of the above said land, filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1639 of 2009 before this Court seeking a direction to initiate action in accordance with law and to consider his representation dated 11.02.2009. This Court also disposed of the said writ petition on 4.11.2009 with a direction to consider the representation, after providing sufficient opportunity.
2.5.As per the order of this Court, Villangudi Panchayat also passed an order, after affording opportunities to all the parties on 05.08.2010. As per the said order, Villangudi panchayat directed the Association to hand over the 60 feet and 40 feet road to the Panchayat as per their undertaking dated 10.12.2007. Challenging the said order of the panchayat, the Association filed writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3958 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 31.10.2011. As against the same, Writ Appeal was filed in W.A.No.1505 http://www.judis.nic.in 7 of 2011. After hearing both parties, this Court passed an order to remand back to the original authorities on the ground that principles of natural justice are violated. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court, the boundaries of the Madurai Corporation are extended and Villangudi Village Panchayat was included under the Madurai Corporation. Subsequently, the Madurai Corporation has taken the authority of Villangudi Village due to the extension of boundaries and thereby conducted an enquiry as per the direction of this Court, vide its order dated 12.08.2013. The said order was passed, after giving due opportunity to all the parties as directed by this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1505 of 2011, dated 23.04.2012. Finally, the Commissioner of the Madurai Corporation, vide his impugned proceedings dated 12.08.2013, has rightly arrived at a conclusion stating that the Association is liable to hand over 60 feet and 40 feet roads to the Madurai Corporation by way of Gift Deed within 15 days from the date of receipt of that order. During the time of enquiry, the Association has produced a copy of the Gift Deed donating 40 feet road to the Madurai Corporation. Therefore, the Association is liable to gift the land to the Madurai Corporation only 60 feet pathway as shown in the site plan.
2.6.Challenging the above said order, once again, the Association filed writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.15668 of 2013. Further, the Assistant Commissioner also issued notice dated 23.09.2013 once again to hand over the roads as http://www.judis.nic.in 8 marked in the site plan, which is approved by the Town and Country Planning Authority. Against the said order, the Association filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.6545 of 2014. In the meantime, one Meiyappan filed writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.1567 of 2014 to implement the order of the Madurai Corporation, dated 02.08.2013, to take over the 60 feet and 40 feet roads.
2.7.In the meantime, ignoring various orders passed by the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, the Association constructed the shops on the 60 feet and 40 feet roads as well as the Open Space Reservation. Against the said construction, one Sankara Sekara Pandiyan, who is the member of the Association, filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2956 of 2014 before this Court. This Court, vide its order dated 21.02.2014, issued a direction to conduct an enquiry, after giving proper notice to the parties and if any principles of natural justice are violated, appropriate action can be taken by the authorities, within 15 days. The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, by conducting a detailed enquiry and by giving opportunities to both parties, passed an order dated Nil of 2014 and found that there was parapet and issued a direction to remove the said parapet and to hand over the 60 feet and 40 feet roads to the Madurai Corporation, after removal of illegal construction in the above said survey numbers.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 2.8.Challenging the order of the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation dated 22.04.2014, the Association filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7801 of 2014. There are several members also filed impleading application, who purchased the 47 acres in survey no.116/2 in Villangudi village. However, this Court was pleased to dismiss all the impleading applications on the ground that they are not maintainable, vide its order dated 30.10.2018.
2.9.This Court dismissed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9047 of 2015 due to the reason that the petitioner association made submission before this Court that revised plan submitted by them was withdrawn. Consequently, the said petition was also dismissed as not maintainable.
2.10.One Mr.Mariya Arul filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.19116 of 2014 to implement the order passed by the second respondent dated nil 2014 to take necessary steps to preserve 40 feet and 60 feet roads. Thereafter, one R.George Edison, has also filed a writ petition challenging the condition No. 10 of the site approval dated 26.11.2007 of the impugned proceedings of the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning Authority in Na.Ka.No.22779 of 2007/BA. Thereafter, one more writ petition was filed in W.P.(MD)No.22802 of 2015 by the PNR Nagar Veetadi Manai Urimaiyalargal Nala Sangam, Rep. by its http://www.judis.nic.in 10 President K.Sivanandam, (herein after called Sangam) to issue appropriate direction to the District Collector of Madurai and the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation to take appropriate action to remove the parapet constructed by the association in the 60 feet and 40 feet roads in survey Nos.115, 116/1, 116/2 to an extent of 62 acres in Villangudi Village, Madurai, as per the condition imposed in the lay out approval, dated 12.03.2008 and as per the undertaking provided by the Association dated 10.12.2007.
3.Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, all the writ petitions are clubbed together and heard the respective counsels on various dates.
4.Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner association in W.P.(MD)Nos.15668 of 2013, 6545 of 2014, 7801 of 2014 and 9074 of 2015 and for respondent Association in W.P.(MD)Nos.1507 of 2014, 19110 of 2014, 19116 of 2014 and 22802 of 2015 would submit that originally the Association was planned to set up the market in 15 acres. Therefore, the Association approached the land owner to purchase 15 acres of land. However, the land owner refused to sell a portion of the land, but, he was willing to sell the entire land of 62 acres to the Association. Without any other option, the Association purchased 62 acres of land and out of 62 acres of land, the http://www.judis.nic.in 11 Association earmarked 15 acres for the purpose of setting up of the Central Market. Accordingly, in the 15 acres, the Association prepared the site plan for setting up the Central Market. In respect of the remaining 47 acres of land, the Association have decided to sell same to the outsiders or members of the Association and in this regard, the Association passed necessary resolution and accordingly, they have sold the land to various individuals with an undertaken that 60 feet and 40 feet roads will be available for general public as well as the purchasers of 47 acres of land.
5.The learned Senior counsel has also admitted the fact that while approving the site plan, the Association gave an undertaking vide letter dated 10.12.2007 agreeing to donate 60 feet and 40 feet roads. However, he advanced his arguments that based on the said undertaking, the Corporation cannot expect to hand over the said land by way of donation or gift as there is no provision in the Panchayat Act for handing over any such land to the Panchayat by way of donation. Therefore, the Association filed the above writ petitions challenging the various orders issued by the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation to handover 60 feet and 40 feet roads by way of donation by executing gift deed in favour of the Corporation.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6.The learned senior counsel referred a judgment of the High Court of 12 Mathiya Pradhesh in S t a t e o f M a t h i y a P r a d h e s h a n d o t h e r s V s . G a u t a m N a g a r H o u s i n g S o c i e t y , reported in 2 0 0 4 ( 1 ) M P H T 4 9 3 , wherein the Division Bench has held as follows:
“2.It i s a p p a r e nt th at th e lan d will v e s t s wit h th e S t at e a n d th e S t at e i s fr e e t o c o n s tr u ct th e h o u s e s o n th e la n d f or inf or m al s e c t o r. In ot h e r w o r d s , th e r e i s a c h a n g e o f o w n e r s hi p t o th e e x t e nt o f 15 % o f lan d fr o m th e S o ci et y ot th e S t at e G o v e r n m e nt o n th e b a s i s o f th e cir c ul ar i s s u e d u n d e r S e c ti o n 73 o f th e A ct.
13.It w o ul d h a v e b e e n a n ot h e r m att e r f or s a n cti o nin g o f th e pl a n , if th e A ut h ority h a d s e t a si d e c e rt ain la n d f or r o a d s a n d p a r k s .
B ut , in thi s c a s e , th e lan d th at i s s o u g ht t o b e ta k e n a w a y p e r m a n e ntly fr o m th e o w n e r t o th e e x t e nt o f 15 % , a n d i s a tra n s f e r o f o w n e r s hi p fr o m th e o ri gin al o w n e r t o th e S t at e G o v e r n m e nt with o ut p a y m e nt o f c o m p e n s ati o n.
14.T h e la w i s w e ll s e ttl e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o urt in P t. C h e tra m Va s hi st V. M u ni ci p al C o r p o r ati o n o f D el hi, r e p ort e d in (1995) 1 S C C 47 . T h e S u p r e m e C o urt m a k e s a di stin cti o n b e t w e e n th e o w n e r s hi p a n d th e m a n a g e m e nt . T h e A ut h ority m a y h a v e th e rig ht t o m a n a g e , b ut th e o w n e r s hi p s h all al w a y s v e s t with th e l e g al o w n e r.”
7. In the above said case, the Division Bench held that change of ownership from the society to the State Government to the extent of 15% of land to construct houses to informal sector, is permanently taken away from the owner of land without payment of compensation. Further, the society was http://www.judis.nic.in 13 directed to produce the land to the State Government for the purpose of providing free house to informal sector without any compensation. In the present case, 60 feet and 40 feet roads were earmarked for the purpose of general public and as per the undertaking of the association dated 10.12.2007, the approval was granted by the town and country planning authorities and accordingly association was directed to donate the said land in favour of Corporation. Therefore, the fact in the present writ petitions are entirely different from the case of S t a t e o f M a d h i y a P r a d e s h a n d o t h e r s V s . G a u t a m N a g a r H o u s i n g S o c i e t y . Therefore, the above said principle laid down by the Hon'ble Madhiya Pradesh High Court is not applicable to the present case on hand.
8.Further, the learned senior counsel referred another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P T. C h e t R a m Va s h i s t ( D e a d ) b y L r s . V s . M u n i c i p a l C o r p o r a t i o n o f D e l h i , reported in ( 1 9 9 5 ) 1 S C C 4 7 , wherein it has been held as follows:
“4. S e c ti o n 313 o f th e A c t r e a d s a s u n d e r "313. L a y o ut pl a n s.- (1) B e f o r e utili sin g , s e llin g o r o t h e r wi s e d e alin g with a n y la n d u n d e r S e c ti o n 312 , th e o w n e r th e r e o f s h all s e n d t o th e C o m m i s si o n e r a w ritt e n a p pli c ati o n with a lay o ut pl a n o f th e lan d s h o wi n g th e f oll o wi n g p arti c ul ar s , n a m e l y:
http://www.judis.nic.in 14 ( a) T h e pl ot s int o w hi c h th e lan d i s p r o p o s e d t o b e di vi d e d f or th e e r e c ti o n o f b uildin g s th e r e o n a n d th e p ur p o s e o r p ur p o s e s f or w hi c h s u c h b uildin g s a r e t o b e u s e d;
( b) T h e r e s e r v ati o n o r all ot m e nt o f a n y s it e f or a n y s t r e e t , o p e n s p a c e , p a r k , r e c r e ati o n g r o u n d , s c h o ol, m a r k e t o r a n y ot h e r p u bli c p ur p o s e s ;
( c) T h e int e n d e d l e v el, dir e cti o n a n d wi dt h o f s t r e e t o r s tr e e t s ; ( d) T h e r e g ul ar lin e o f s t r e e t o r s tr e e t s ;
( e ) T h e ar ra n g e m e nt s t o b e m a d e f or l e v ellin g , p a vin g , m e t allin g , fla g gin g, , c h a n n ellin g s e w e rin g , d r ainin g , c o n s e r vin g a n d lig htin g s tr e e t o r s tr e e t s.
(2) T h e p r o vi si o n s o f thi s A c t a n d th e b y e - la w s m a d e th e r e u n d e r a s t o wi dt h o f th e p u bli c s tr e e t s a n d th e h ei g ht o f b uildin g s a b uttin g th e r e o n s h all a p ply in th e c a s e o f s tr e e t s r e f e r r e d t o in s u b- s e c ti o n (1) a n d all th e p arti c ul ar s r e f e r r e d t o in th at s u b - s e c ti o n s h all b e s u bj e ct t o th e s a n cti o n o f th e S t a n di n g C o m m itt e e . 1 IL R 1969 D el 1055 (3) W it hin s i xt y d a y s aft e r th e r e c ei pt o f a n y a p pli c ati o n u n d e r s u b s e c ti o n (1) th e S t a n din g C o m m itt e e s h all e it h e r a c c o r d s a n cti o n t o th e lay o ut pl a n o n s u c h c o n diti o n s a s it m a y thin k fit o r di s all o w it o r a s k f or furth e r inf or m ati o n with r e s p e c t t o it.
(4) S u c h s a n cti o n s h all b e r ef u s e d-
( a) if th e p arti c ul ar s s h o w n in th e lay o ut pl a n w o ul d c o n fli ct with a n y ar ra n g e m e nt s w hi c h h a v e b e e n m a d e o r w hi c h a r e in th e o pi ni o n o f th e S t a n din g C o m m itt e e lik ely t o b e m a d e f or c ar r yin g o ut a n y g e n e r al s c h e m e o f d e v e l o p m e nt o f D el hi w h e t h e r c o nt ain e d in th e m a s t e r pl a n o r a z o n al d e v e l o p m e nt pl a n p r e p a r e d f or D el hi o r n ot ; o r ( b) if th e s ai d lay o ut pl a n d o e s n ot c o n f or m t o th e p r o vi si o n s o f thi s A c t a n d b y e - la w s m a d e th e r e u n d e r ; o r http://www.judis.nic.in 15 ( c) if a n y s t r e e t p r o p o s e d in th e pl a n i s n ot d e s i g n e d s o a s t o c o n n e ct at o n e e n d wit h a s t r e e t w hi c h i s alr e a d y o p e n.
(5) N o p e r s o n s h all utili s e , s e ll o r ot h e r wi s e d e al with a n y la n d o r lay o ut o r m a k e a n y n e w s tr e e t wit h o ut o r ot h e r wi s e th a n in c o n f or mity with th e o r d e r s o f th e S t a n di n g C o m m itt e e a n d if furth e r inf or m ati o n i s a s k e d f or, n o s t e p s h all b e ta k e n t o utili s e , s e ll o r ot h e r wi s e d e al with th e lan d o r t o lay o ut o r m a k e th e s tr e e t u ntil o r d e r s h a v e b e e n p a s s e d u p o n r e c ei pt o f s u c h inf or m ati o n :
P r o vi d e d th at th e p a s s i n g o f s u c h o r d e r s s h all n ot b e in a n y c a s e d el a y e d f or m o r e th a n s i xt y d a y s aft e r th e S t a n din g C o m m itt e e h a s r e c ei v e d th e inf or m ati o n w hi c h it c o n si d e r s n e c e s s a r y t o e n a bl e it t o d e al with th e s ai d a p pli c ati o n.
(6) T h e lay o ut pl a n r e f e r r e d t o e a rli er in thi s s e c ti o n s h all if s o r e q uir e d b y th e S t a n di n g C o m m itt e e , b e p r e p a r e d b y a lic e n s e d t o w n pl a n n e r."
N o n e o f it s p r o vi si o n s e ntitl e d th e C o r p o r ati o n t o cl ai m a n y rig ht o r int e r e s t in th e p r o p e rt y o f th e o w n e r. S u b- s e c ti o n (3) e m p o w e r s th e S t a n din g C o m m itt e e t o a c c o r d s a n cti o n t o th e lay o ut pl a n o n s u c h c o n diti o n s a s it m a y thin k fit. T h e e x p r e s s i o n , ' s u c h c o n diti o n s' h a s t o b e u n d e r s t o o d s o a s t o a d v a n c e th e o bj e cti v e o f th e p r o vi si o n a n d th e p ur p o s e f or w hi c h it h a s b e e n e n a ct e d . T h e C o r p o r ati o n h a s b e e n gi v e n th e rig ht t o e x a m i n e th at th e lay o ut pl a n i s n ot c o ntrar y t o a n y p r o vi si o n o f th e A c t o r th e rul e s fra m e d b y it. F o r in st a n c e a p e r s o n s u b m ittin g a lay o ut pl a n m a y b e r e q uir e d t o l e a v e c e rt ain o p e n s p a c e o r h e m a y b e r e q uir e d th at th e l e n gt h a n d wi dt h o f th e r o o m s s h all n ot b e l e s s th a n a p arti c ul ar m e a s u r e m e nt o r th at a c ol o ni s e r s h all h a v e t o p r o vi d e a m e niti e s a n d fa ciliti e s t o th o s e w h o s h all p ur c h a s e la n d o r b uildin g in it s c ol o n y. B ut th e p o w e r c a n n ot b e c o n s tr u e d t o m e a n th at th e C o r p o r ati o n in th e e x e r ci s e o f pl a cin g r e s tri cti o n s o r i m p o si n g c o n diti o n s b e f o r e s a n cti o nin g a lay o ut pl a n c a n al s o cl ai m th at it s h all http://www.judis.nic.in b e s a n cti o n e d o nly if th e o w n e r s u r r e n d e r s a p orti o n o f th e lan d a n d 16 tra n s f e r s it in f a v o ur o f th e C o r p o r ati o n fr e e o f c o s t . T h at w o ul d b e c o ntrar y t o th e lan g u a g e u s e d in th e s e c ti o n a n d vi ol ativ e o f ci vil rig ht s w hi c h v e s t s in e v e r y o w n e r t o h ol d hi s la n d a n d tra n s f e r it in a c c o r d a n c e wit h la w. T h e r e s ol uti o n p a s s e d b y th e C o r p o r ati o n dir e ctin g th e a p p ella nt t o tra n s f e r th e s p a c e r e s e r v e d f or tu b e w e ll s , s c h o ol a n d p a r k in it s f a v o u r fr e e o f c o s t w a s d e p rivin g th e o w n e r o f hi s p r o p e rt y a n d v e s tin g it in th e C o r p o r ati o n a g ai n st la w. T h e fin din g o f th e Hi g h C o urt th at s u c h c o n diti o n di d n ot a m o u nt . t o tra n s f e r o f o w n e r s hi p b ut it w a s o nly a tra n s f e r o f th e rig ht o f m a n a g e m e nt c a n n ot be a c c e pt e d . Th e two rig ht s , n a m e ly, o f o w n e r s hi p and of m a n a g e m e nt , a r e di stin ct a n d diff e r e nt rig ht s . O n c e a v a c a nt s it e i s tra n s f e r r e d in fa v o u r o f a n ot h e r fr e e o f c o s t th e n th e p e r s o n tra n s f e rrin g it c e a s e s t o b e o w n e r o f it. W h e r e a s in tra n s f e r o f rig ht o f m a n a g e m e nt th e o w n e r s hi p c o ntin u e s with th e p e r s o n t o w h o m th e p r o p e rt y b e l o n g s a n d th e lo c al a ut h ority o nly g e t s rig ht s t o m a n a g e it. B ut th e c o n ditio n s i m p o s e d b y th e S t a n din g C o m m itt e e cl e a rly m e a nt t o tra n s f e r th e o w n e r s hi p in f a v o ur o f th e C o r p o r ati o n . T h e C o r p o r ati o n a s c u s t o di a n o f ci vil a m e niti e s a n d s e r vi c e s m a y cl ai m a n d th at w o ul d b e p r o p e r a s w e ll, t o p e r mit th e C o r p o r ati o n t o r e g ul at e , m a n a g e , s u p e r vi s e a n d lo o k aft e r s u c h a m e niti e s b ut w h e t h e r s u c h a p r o vi si o n c a n e ntitl e a C o r p o r ati o n t o cl ai m th at s u c h p r o p e rt y s h o ul d b e tra n s f e r r e d t o it fr e e o f c o s t a p p e a r s t o b e fra u g ht with in s ur m o u nt a bl e diffi c ulti e s . T h e la w d o e s n ot a p p e a r t o b e in f a v o ur o f th e C o r p o r ati o n . P u bli c p ur p o s e i s, n o d o u bt , a v e r y i m p ort a nt c o n s i d e r ati o n a n d pri v at e int e r e s t h a s t o b e s a c rifi c e d f or th e w e lfar e o f th e s o ci et y. B ut w h e n th e a p p ella nt w a s willin g t o r e s e r v e th e t w o pl ot s f or p a r k a n d s c h o ol th e n h e w a s n ot a ctin g a g ai n st p u bli c int e r e s t . T hi s c a n n ot b e s tr et c h e d t o c r e at e a rig ht a n d titl e in f a v o u r o f a lo c al b o d y w hi c h ut m o s t m a y b e e ntitl e d t o m a n a g e a n d s u p e r vi s e o nly.” http://www.judis.nic.in 17
9.It is true that the Panchayat cannot insist to donate/gift any land to them without any payment of compensation. However, proposition of law laid down in the above said case cannot apply to the case of the petitioner's Association. Since the petitioner Association on its own filed an undertaking to hand over the 60 feet and 40 feet roads to the public use to the Panchayat vide undertaking letter dated 10.12.2007 and that the Corporation has been insisting to hand over the same as per the undertaking given by the Association, it is not proper for the petitioner Association to go back and deny that the Corporation cannot insist the petitioner Association to donate the land of 60 feet and 40 feet road for the public use.
10.Mr.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation referred judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S t a t e o f P u n j a b a n d o t h e r s V s . D h a n j it S i n g h S a n d h u reported in ( 2 0 1 4 ) 3 S C A L E 6 2 2 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“21..........In o u r c o n si d e r e d o pi ni o n d e f a ultin g all ott e s o f v al u a bl e pl ot s c a n n ot b e all o w e d t o a p p r o b at e a n d r e p r o b at e b y fir st a g r e e i n g t o a bi d e b y t er m s a n d c o n diti o n s o f all ot m e nt a n d lat e r s e e ki n g t o d e n y th eir lia bility a s p e r th e a g r e e d t er m s.
22.T h e d o ctrin e o f “ a p p r o b at e a n d r e p r o b at e ” i s o nly a s p e ci e s o f e s t o p p el, it i m pli e s o nly t o th e c o n d u ct o f p arti e s . A s in http://www.judis.nic.in th e c a s e o f e s t o p p el it c a n n ot o p e r at e a g ai n s t th e p r o vi si o n s o f a 18 s t at ut e . ( vid e C .I.T v s . M r. P. Fir m M a ur, A I R 1965 S C 1216) . It i s s e ttl e d p r o p o siti o n o f la w th at o n c e a n o r d e r h a s b e e n p a s s e d , it i s c o m pli e d with , a c c e pt e d b y th e o t h e r p art y a n d d e ri v e d th e b e n e fit o ut o f it, h e c a n n ot c h all e n g e it o n a n y g r o u n d . ( Vi d e M a h a r a s htra S t at e R o a d Tr a n s p ort C o p o r ati o n v s . B al w a nt R e g ul ar M ot or S e r vi c e , A m r a v ati & O r s. , A I R 1969 S C 329) . In R . N. G o s ai n v s . Ya s p al D hir, A I R 1993 S C 352 , thi s C o urt h a s o b s e r v e d a s u n d e r:-
“ L a w d o e s n ot p e r mit a p e r s o n t o b ot h a p p r o b at e a n d r e p r o b at e . T hi s prin ci pl e i s b a s e d o n th e d o ctrin e o f e l e cti o n w hi c h p o s t ul at e s th at n o p arty c a n a c c e pt a n d r ej e ct th e s a m e in str u m e nt a n d th at “ a p e r s o n c a n n ot s a y at o n e ti m e th at a tra n s a cti o n i s v alid, a n d th e n tur n r o u n d a n d s a y it i s v oi d f or th e p ur p o s e o f s e c u rin g s o m e o t h e r a d v a nt a g e ”
23.T hi s C o urt in S ri B a b u R a m Alia s D u r g a P r a s a d v s . S ri In dra P a l S i n g h ( D e a d ) b y Lr s. , A I R 1998 S C 3021 , a n d P. R. D e s h p a n d e v s . M ar uti B alra m H ai b atti, A I R 1998 S C 2979 , th e S u p r e m e C o urt h a s o b s e r v e d th at th e d o ctrin e o f e l e cti o n i s b a s e d o n th e rul e o f e s t o p p el th e prin ci pl e th at o n e c a n n ot a p p r o b at e a n d r e pr o b at e inh e r e s in it. T h e d o ctrin e o f e s t o p p el b y e l e cti o n i s o n e o f th e s p e ci e s o f e s t o p p el in p ai s ( or e q uit a bl e e s t o p p el) , w hi c h i s a r ul e in e q uity. B y th at la w, a p e r s o n m a y b e p r e cl u d e d b y hi s a cti o n s o r c o n d u ct o r s il e n c e w h e n it i s hi s d ut y t o s p e a k , fr o m a s s e r tin g a rig ht w hi c h h e ot h e r wi s e w o ul d h a v e h a d.
24.T h e S u p r e m e C o urt in th e R aj a s t h a n S t at e In d u s trial D e v el o p m e nt a n d In v e s t m e nt C o r p o r ati o n a n d A n r. v s . Di a m o n d http://www.judis.nic.in a n d G e m D e v e l o p m e nt C o r p o r ati o n Lt d., a n d A n r., A I R 2013 S C 19 1241 , m a d e a n o b s e r v ati o n th at a p art y c a n n ot b e p e r mitt e d t o “ bl o w h ot a n d c ol d” , “fa st a n d lo o s e ” o r “ a p p r o b at e a n d r e p r o b at e ” .
W h e r e o n e k n o wi n gly a c c e pt s th e b e n e fit s o f a c o ntra ct o r c o n v e y a n c e o r a n o r d e r, i s e s t o p p e d t o d e n y th e v alidity o r bi n din g e ff e ct o n hi m o f s u c h c o ntra ct o r c o n v e y a n c e o r o r d e r. T hi s rul e i s a p pli e d t o d o e q uity, h o w e v e r, it m u s t n ot b e a p pli e d in a m ann er a s t o vi ol at e th e prin ci pl e s o f rig ht a n d g o o d c o n s ci e n c e .
25.It i s e vi d e nt th at th e d o ctrin e o f e l e cti o n i s b a s e d o n th e rul e o f e s t o p p el th e prin ci pl e th at o n e c a n n ot a p p r o b at e a n d r e p r o b at e i s inh e r e nt in it. T h e d o ctrin e o f e s t o p p el b y e l e cti o n i s o n e a m o n g th e s p e ci e s o f e s t o p p el in p ai s ( or e q uit a bl e e s t o p p el) , w hi c h i s a rul e o f e q uity. B y thi s la w, a p e r s o n m a y b e p r e cl u d e d , b y w a y o f hi s a cti o n s , o r c o n d u ct , o r s il e n c e w h e n it i s hi s d ut y t o s p e a k , fr o m a s s e r tin g a rig ht w hi c h h e w o ul d h a v e ot h e r wi s e h a d .” By referring the above judgment, Mr.Murali submitted that initially when the Association has undertaken to gift 60 feet and 40 feet road vide letter dated 10.12.2007, subsequently the Association cannot go back from their own undertaking and deny their responsibilities as per the agreed terms. Therefore, Mr.Murali, strongly opposing the writ petitions filed by the petitioner Association, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions filed by them, since they cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(MD)No. 15667 of 2014, 19110 of 2014, 19116 of 2014 and 22802 of 2015 also adopting http://www.judis.nic.in 20 the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for Corporation, insisted that they have purchased the plots from the association, through President of the Association, who was a signatory for the sale deed, wherein rough sketch of 60 ft and 40 ft pathway was also enclosed along with sale deed. Therefore, the learned counsel urged this Court for appropriate direction to hand over the possession of 60 feet pathway to the Corporation of Madurai and also remove the parapet constructed on the 60 feet and 40 feet roads. The other respondents also adopted the submission of Mr.Murali, the learned counsel appearing for the Madurai Corporation.
12. We have perused the records and various orders passed by this Court in various Writ Petitions filed from time to time.
13. It is an admitted fact that the Association purchased 62 acres of land, wherein they have constructed the Central Market in 15 acres and the balance 47 acres were sold to the public along with the site plan issued with the sale deed. The Association submitted the site plan before the Town and Country Planning Authorities and the Authorities directed the petitioner Association to file an undertaking to comply with the various conditions stated in the letter of the Corporation dated 26.11.2007. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner Association vide letter dated 10.12.2007 filed an undertaking to the Town and http://www.judis.nic.in 21 Country Planning Authorities and undertakes to gift the 60 feet and 40 feet road to the Panchayat by virtue of clause No.10 as stated above in paragraph No.2.3, which is once again stated below:
“10. O p e n space R e s e r v ati o n gFjpfs; kw;Wk;
mtw;wph;fhf ghijahf fhl;lg;gl;Ls;s cj;njr rhiyfs; (r o a d s l e a din g t o o p e n s p a c e r e s e r v ati o n ) Mfpait cs;shl;rpf;F jhdkhf xg;gilg;nghk; vd;W cWjp Twfpnwhk;. nkYk; o p e n s p a c e r e s e r v ati o n gFjp rq;fj;jhy; cs;shl;rp mDkjpa[ld; guhkhpf;f xg;g[f;bfhs;fpnwhk;”
14. Admittedly, it is no doubt true that as per the planning permission issued by the Local Planning Authority, all the roads as shown in the plan measuring 60 feet and 40 feet breadth leading to Open Space Reservation should be donated to the Local Panchayat concerned. Besides, as per the proceedings dated 26.11.2007 of the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, the Association is bound to donate 60feet road in favour of the Local Panchayat, because, the planning permission itself was given only on the said condition that the road leading to Open Space should be handed over to the local body by means of Gift Deeds.
15. After accepting the undertaking filed by the petitioner Association, the Town and Country Planning Authorities have approved the site, vide order dated 12.03.2008. As per the approved site plan, there are roads in 60 feet and http://www.judis.nic.in 22 40 feet. As far as the 40 feet road is concerned, the petitioner Association had already handed over the same as per the undertaking by way of Gift Deed to the Panchayat.
16. Therefore, the main issue for consideration in these writ petitions is only 60 feet road. The petitioner Association is liable to hand over the same as per its undertaking dated 10.12.2007 to the Panchayat/Corporation, Madurai. There is no doubt that there was an undertaking by the petitioner Association to hand over the 60 feet and 40 feet roads and the Association had already handed over the 40 feet road and as per the undertaking, the Association is yet to hand over, only 60 feet road, to the Corporation. Therefore, in our considered view, the Association cannot be allowed to “approbate and reprobate” by first agreeing to abide by terms and conditions and later seeking to deny its liability as per the agreed terms.
17. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S t a t e o f P u n j a b a n d o t h e r s V s . D h a n j it S i n g h S a n d h u [ 2 0 1 4 S T P L ( L E ) 4 8 6 3 9 S C ] , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while rejecting the similar arguments, has held as follows:-
“21........ In o ur c o n si d e r e d o pi ni o n d e f a ultin g all ott e s o f v al u a bl e pl ot s c a n n ot b e all o w e d http://www.judis.nic.in 23 t o a p p r o b at e a n d r e pr o b at e b y fir st a g r e ei n g t o a bi d e b y t er m s a n d c o n diti o n s o f all ot m e nt a n d lat er s e e ki n g t o d e n y th eir lia bility a s p e r th e a g r e e d t er m s.
22 . T h e d o ctrin e of a p p r o b at e and r e p r o b at e i s o nly a s p e ci e s o f e s t o p p el , it i m pli e s o nly t o th e c o n d u ct o f p arti e s . A s in th e c a s e o f e s t o p p el it c a n n ot o p e r at e a g ai n s t th e p r o vi si o n s o f a s t at ut e. ( vi d e C .I.T. v s . M r. P. Fir m M a ur, A I R 1965 S C 1216).
It i s s e ttl e d p r o p o siti o n o f la w th at o n c e a n o r d e r h a s b e e n p a s s e d , it i s c o m pli e d wit h , a c c e pt e d b y th e ot h e r p art y a n d d e ri v e d th e b e n e fit o ut o f it, h e c a n n ot c h all e n g e it o n a n y g r o u n d . ( Vi d e M a h a r a s htra S t at e R o a d Tr a n s p ort C o r p o r ati o n v s . B al w a nt R e g ul ar M ot or S e r vi c e , A m r a v ati & O r s. , A I R 1969 S C 329) . In R . N. G o s ai n v s . Ya s h p al D hir, A I R 1993 S C 352 , thi s C o urt h a s o b s e r v e d a s u n d e r :
Law does n ot p e r mit a p e r s o n t o b ot h a p p r o b at e a n d r e pr o b at e .
T hi s prin ci pl e i s b a s e d o n th e d o ctrin e o f e l e cti o n w hi c h p o s t ul at e s th at n o p art y can a c c e pt and r ej e ct th e same in str u m e nt a n d th at a p e r s o n c a n n ot s a y at o n e ti m e th at a tra n s a cti o n i s v alid a n d th e r e b y o b t ain s o m e a d v a nt a g e , t o w hi c h h e c o ul d o nly b e e ntitl e d o n th e f o otin g th at it i s v alid , a n d th e n tur n r o u n d a n d s a y it i s v oi d f or th e p ur p o s e o f s e c urin g s o m e o t h e r a d v a nt a g e .
24 . T h e S u p r e m e C o urt in T h e R aj a s t h a n S t at e In d u s trial D e v el o p m e nt a n d In v e s t m e nt C o r p o r ati o n http://www.judis.nic.in and A n r. v s . Di a m o n d and Gem D e v e l o p m e nt 24 C o r p o r ati o n Lt d . a n d A n r., A I R 2013 S C 1241 , m a d e a n o b s e r v ati o n th at a p art y c a n n ot b e p e r mitt e d t o bl o w h ot a n d c ol d , fa s t a n d lo o s e o r a p p r o b at e a n d r e p r o b at e . W h e r e o n e k n o wi n gly a c c e pt s th e b e n e fit s o f a c o ntra ct o r c o n v e y a n c e o r a n o r d e r, i s e s t o p p e d t o d e n y th e v alidity o r bi n din g e ff e ct o n hi m o f s u c h c o ntra ct o r c o n v e y a n c e o r o r d e r. T hi s rul e i s a p pli e d t o d o e q uity, h o w e v e r, it m u s t n ot b e a p pli e d in a m a n n e r a s t o vi ol at e th e prin ci pl e s o f rig ht a n d g o o d c o n s ci e n c e .
25 . It i s e vi d e nt th at th e d o ctrin e o f e l e cti o n i s b a s e d o n th e rul e o f e s t o p p el th e prin ci pl e th at o n e c a n n ot a p p r o b at e a n d r e p r o b at e i s inh e r e nt in it. T h e d o ctrin e o f e s t o p p el b y e l e cti o n i s o n e a m o n g th e s p e ci e s o f e s t o p p el in p ai s ( or e q uit a bl e e s t o p p el) , w hi c h i s a r ul e o f e q uity. B y thi s la w, a p e r s o n m a y b e p r e cl u d e d , b y w a y o f hi s a cti o n s , o r c o n d u ct , o r s il e n c e w h e n it i s hi s d ut y t o s p e a k , fr o m a s s e r tin g a rig ht w hi c h h e w o ul d h a v e ot h e r wi s e h a d .” From the above said proposition, it is clear that law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instruments and that “a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid and then turn round and say that it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage”. Therefore, the Association cannot now say that they are unable to gift 60ft road to the Madurai Corporation. http://www.judis.nic.in 25
18. The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, in his counter affidavit filed before this Court, has stated that there was already a direction by this Court in W.A.(MD).No.1505 of 2011, dated 23.04.2012, directing the Executive Officer, Vilangudi Panchayats Union, Madurai, to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner Association and other interested parties and then to decide whether 60 feet road in question should be donated. Subsequently, Vilangudi Town Panchayat has merged with Madurai Corporation. Therefore, in the light of the order passed by this Court, notices were issued to all the parties concerned to participate in the enquiry along with written objections, if any. After considering the objections of all the parties concerned, the Madurai Corporation has passed an order dated 12.08.2013 directing the Association to hand over 60 feet road to the Madurai Corporation. As Section 47 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes it obligatory on the part of the petitioner to develop the land in conformity with the development plan, in the light of the undertaking given by the petitioner Association to handover 60 feet and 40 feet roads, the Statutory Authority, having vested with such power, has rightly passed an order directing the petitioner Association to handover the land in question. Therefore, it is proper for the petitioner Association to hand over 60 feet pathway as shown in the approval site plan to the Madurai Corporation and accordingly, we direct the petitioner Association to hand over 60 feet pathway http://www.judis.nic.in 26 as shown in the site plan to the Madurai Corporation.
19. As per the orders passed by this Court in various Writ Petitions, the Madurai Corporation conducted an enquiry and collected all the records and finally, they have come to the conclusion that the petitioner Association is bound to hand over the 60 feet road as per the undertaking given by the petitioner Association dated 10.12.2007, which the petitioner Association not only failed to comply with, but also wrongly challenged before this Court by way of the above writ petitions, hence, the writ petitions filed by the Association are liable to be dismissed.
20. Further, when the petitioner Association gave an undertaking that the 60 feet and 40 feet road would be made accessible for the public use and for the use of the plot owners of 47 acres of land, which was sold by the Association to various persons, now they cannot go back and say that it is not for the general public and only for the private plot owners. Therefore, we hold that any construction in 60 feet and 40 feet road by the Association is an encroachment and the same is liable to be evicted.
21. Accordingly, this Court hereby directs the petitioner Association to remove the parapet construction in the 60 ft and 40 ft road and then hand over http://www.judis.nic.in 27 the 60 feet road as shown in the site plan to the Madurai Corporation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. In the light of the above said observations and directions, W.P. (MD).Nos.15668 of 2013, 6545 of 2014 and 7801 of 2014 and 9074/15 are dismissed. Consequently, W.P.(MD).Nos.1567, 19110, 19116 of 2014 and 22802 of 2015 are disposed of to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(T.R., J . ) (K. R. , J . )
1 2.1 2.2 0 1 8
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
gns/rj2/rkm
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District.
2.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
28
T.R A J A , J .
and
K RI S H N A N R AMA S AMY, J .
gns/rj2/rkm
Ord er m a d e in
W. P.(MD)N o. 1 5 6 6 8 o f 2 0 1 3
a nd et c. bat ch
1 2.1 2.2 0 1 8
http://www.judis.nic.in