Madras High Court
D.Robinson Selvan vs The Commissioner on 14 December, 2023
W.P.No.8121 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 08.11.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 14.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BA NU
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.8121 of 2023
and
WMP.No.8366 of 2023
D.Robinson Selvan
...Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner,
Corporation of Coimbatore,
Coimbatore. ...Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
respondent in Na.Ka. No.9102/ 2016 / M.H.2 (Ki) dated 15.10.2022 and
quash the said proceeding of the respondent in Na.Ka. No.9102/ 2016/
M.H.2 (Ki) dated 15.10.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently
direct the respondent to extend the building license of the petitioner in
terms of the Section 280 of the Coimbatore city Municipal Corporation
act based on the petitioner's explanation dated 15.11.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page: 1/18
W.P.No.8121 of 2023
For Petitioner: Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
for Mrs.R.Abirami
For Respondent: Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
for Mr.N.Umapathy.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.MALA,J.) Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in Na.Ka. No.9102/ 2016 / M.H.2 (Ki) dated 15.10.2022 and quash the said proceeding of the respondent in Na.Ka. No.9102/ 2016/ M.H.2 (Ki) dated 15.10.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to extend the building license of the petitioner in terms of the Section 280 of the Coimbatore city Municipal Corporation act based on the petitioner's explanation dated 15.11.2022.
Pleadings of Petitioner:
2. The larger extent of land measuring to an extent of 13.48 cents originally belonged to Devadoss Vagaira who partitioned the properties among themselves under two registered partition deeds dated 23.03.1977 and 07.04.1977. The said lands were laid out as housing sites and layout approval was granted on 02.06.1977 vide L.P/R (C.N) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 2/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 No.49/77, which was later approved by Singanallur Municipality on 27.07.1977 and named as “Thiru Krishna Colony”. The approved layout was revised twice vide L.P/R(C.N) No.329/80 and L.P/R(C.N) No. 294/81. On the approval of the layout, gift deeds were executed by Lakshmi Ammal, Devadoss and others in favour of Corporation of Coimbatore vide gift deed dated 29.12.1981. The sketch annexed to the gift deed showed the road portion in green colour and also referred to the revision of the layout L.P.No.49/77 by L.P.No.294/1981.
Subsequently a rectification deed was executed on 05.12.1985 vide document No.6366/1985, reciting that the lands originally left for roads comprised in both Sowripalayam and Uppilipalayam village was erroneous and that the lands left for roads were in Sowripalayam village only. According to the petitioner the land in Town Survey Number: 81, was shown as 'Existing Building' in L.P.No:294/1981 and the description therein was 2796 Sq.ft. land, together with 729 Sq.ft., Titled house and 290 Sq.ft., Cement Sheet house with the building thereon.
3. The petitioner purchased the land in Sowripalayam village in S.No's: 199/part, 200/part, 201, 203 and 204 in Thiru Krishna Colony in Plot Nos'. 62A, 63 and 64 from Vasantha, Prabha, Subhashini, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 3/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 Jayalakshmi and Ranganayagi Ammal vide sale deed dated 18.02.2005, under document nos.415/2005, 416/2005 and 417/2005. As all three plots were adjacent to each other, the petitioner with an intention to construct a single building comprising of ground and 1st floor to an extent of 335.77 Sq.mtrs. applied for building plan approval to the respondent along with the required documents including the TSLR extract for Town Survey Numbers: 81 and 83 and title documents. The respondent being satisfied granted approval vide Building License dated 25.11.2016, valid till 23.11.2019. After the expiry of the approval, the petitioner applied for extension of building license and the same was denied by the respondent stating that he had encroached on 30 feet wide road and part of the land allotted for park. The petitioner therefore filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7401 of 2021 and this Court vide order dated 16.08.2021 set aside the order with further direction to the respondent to afford opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his explanation and also to give an opportunity of personal hearing and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. The respondents thereafter granted extension of the building plan vide order dated 06.10.2021. The petitioner was summoned to appear on 18.07.2022 vide communication dated 12.07.2022 and he submitted his explanation for the queries raised, but https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 4/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 was unable to attend the personal enquiry. The respondent thereafter issued the impugned order dated 15.10.2022 cancelling the building approval with further direction to the petitioner to demolish and hand over vacant possession to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 15.10.2022, the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
Pleadings of Respondent:
4. There is no plot No.62A in the approved layout No. 49/77 or in the revised approval No.294/1981.The verification of the boundaries in the sale deeds of the petitioner dated 18.02.2005 registered as document Nos. 416 of 2005 and 417 of 2005 on the file of SRO, Peelamedu, in respect of plots No.63 and 64 would show that plot No.62A does not exist. From the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 18.02.2005 in Doc.No. 415/2005 with reference to Plot No.62-A it would be clear that the said Plot No.62A was carved out of the 30 feet road and portion of site reserved for park. It was stated that the writ petitioner purchased the aforesaid three plots on the same day under three separate sale deeds by mentioning the boundaries contrary to the approved layout.
According to the respondent the promoters of the layout had no right to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 5/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 alienate the areas reserved for public purposes such as road, playground, park, etc. The petitioner after receipt of summons dated 12.07.2022 failed to appear on 18.07.2022 to prove his case and no documents were furnished to prove that plot No.62A existed in the approved layout. The petitioner submitted a forged plan and obtained building permission. Under the circumstances, the respondent had no other option but to cancel the building permission granted on 25.10.2016 and subsequent extension of time granted on 06.10.2021 vide proceedings dated 15.10.2021.
CONTENTIONS:
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no dispute as regards Plot Nos.62 and 63. The disputed Plot was Plot No.62A only. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted voluminous documents to support his claim that plot No.62A was not a road and a park site as contended by the respondent. The learned counsel relying on the voluminous documents filed by him submitted that the respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner had valid title and was in possession of Plot No.62A. The learned counsel further submitted that he purchased three contiguous plots in Plot No. 62A, 63 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 6/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 and 64 and as the petitioner intended to put up a building, he applied for planning permission which was originally granted and later cancelled. The petitioner therefore filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7401 of 2021 before this Court challenging the cancellation order which was allowed by this Court. Thereafter the petitioner was given extension of building approval on 06.10.2021 and later the same was again cancelled vide the impugned order dated 15.10.2022.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that once the approved plan was extended vide order dated 06.10.2021 in pursuance of the order of this Court in W.P.No. 7401 of 2021, the respondent had no jurisdiction to again cancel the building approval. The learned counsel referring to the documents filed by him in the writ petition submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same deserved to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner obtained building plan approval by filing forged layout plan stating that the disputed land in Plot No.62A was duly approved by the DTCP in layout L.P/R (C.N) No. 49/77 as revised in L.P/ R(C.N).
No.294/81. According to the counsel, the disputed land purchased by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 7/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 the petitioner under sale deed dated 18.02.2005 was shown as a road and part of park in the layout plan L.P./R (C.N) No.49/77. It was contented by the respondent that the petitioner had produced forged layout plan and got the approval mentioning the land as plot No.62A when there was no such Plot No. in the original layout 49/77 or the revised layout in L.P/R(C.N) No. 294/81. The learned counsel for the respondent further stated that, if the land in plot No.62A is considered as a site, then Plot Nos. 63 and 64 would have no access to the public road and such a layout with no access road to one of the plots would never be approved by the DTCP. It was therefore stated that as the petitioner made a false claim and produced forged documents the approval was rightly cancelled. The counsel finally submitted that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed, as the petitioner played fraud on the authorities by submitting forged documents.
8. We have heard both the learned counsels and we have perused the entire materials placed on record.
9. The property in Survey Nos. 199/2, 199/3, 200/part, 201, 203, 204 of Sowripalayam Village and Survey No.196/1 part of Uppilipalayam Village to an extent of 13.49 acres of land originally https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 8/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 belonged to one Devadoss Vagaira who formed the same into a layout after due permission of Director of Town and Country Planning Authority in L.P/R (C.N) No.49/77. The said layout was named as 'Thiru Krishna Colony'. As per the layout, the plots were sold to several third parties and an extent of 1 Acre 62 cents in the approved layout was reserved for public purposes like park, roads, shops etc. The approved layout in L.P.No.49/77 was revised in L.P.No. 294/81.
10. It is the petitioners case that plot Town Survey No. 81 was shown as 'existing building' in the revised layout plan No: 294/1981 and it comprised of land measuring 2796 Sq.ft with 729 Sq.ft., Titled house and 290 Sq.ft., Cement sheet house building thereon and the same was not allotted plot number at the time of approval on 27.07.1977 by the Singanallur Municipality. The said existing building referred to in the revised layout during 1981 was retained by the original owners i.e. Devadoss Vagaira. The said property was sold by Devadoss Vagaira to one R.M.Karuppaswamy vide sale deed dated 02.02.1985, in Doc.No.376/1985. In the schedule of the sale deed, no plot number was given and the property was correlated with the boundaries in the layout. Thereafter the property was sold by R.M.Karuppaswamy to one https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 9/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 V.Venkatapathi vide sale deed dated 20.01.1993 and in the schedule to the sale deed, the property was assigned plot No.62A. Thereafter the petitioner purchased the property from the legal heirs of Venkatapathi vide Doc.No.415/2005 dated 18.02.2005. In the schedule to the said sale deed, the property was assigned as Plot No. 62A. The petitioner on the very same day purchased two other plots Nos.63 and 64 in the same layout, but there is no dispute as regards the said plot numbers 63 and
64. The dispute is only with regard to the plot No.62A. The petitioner after purchasing the three plots viz., 62A, 63 and 64 applied for building plan approval and the same was approved on 25.11.2016 and the approval was valid till 23.11.2019. After expiry of the approval, the petitioner applied for extension of approval but the same was denied by the respondent stating that the petitioner had encroached upon 30 feet wide road and part of the land allotted for park. The petitioner therefore challenged the said rejection before this Court in W.P.No.7401/2021 and the same was allowed on 16.08.2021, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders by following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner thereafter submitted a letter on 06.09.2021 for extension of building plan approval and the extension was granted on 06.10.2021. On 12.07.2022, the petitioner received summons from the respondent to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 10/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 appear for enquiry on 18.07.2022 and to submit his explanation for the queries raised therein. The petitioner did not appear on the said day and thereafter the respondent passed the impugned order on 15.10.2022. Aggrieved over which, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.
11. The issue to be decided in this writ petition is whether the impugned order cancelling the building plan approval of the petitioner on the basis that the petitioner obtained the same by producing forged documents is sustainable. The petitioner claims that he had purchased the plot No. 62A and the said plot was in existence even as per the revised plan in L.P/R (CN).No.294/81, wherein it was referred to as 'existing building'.
12. The respondents on the other hand contend that there is no such plot as 62A either in the original L.P.No.49/77 or in the revised L.P.No. 294/81. The petitioner states that the original owners who promoted the layout retained the land described as 'existing building' in the revised layout measuring 2796 Sq.ft together with 729 Sq.ft Tiled house and 296 Sq.ft Cement sheet house and building thereon. The petitioner claims title to the said property on the basis of the sale deed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 11/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 dated 18.02.2005 in Doc.No. 415/2005. There is a serious dispute as to the existence of plot No. 62A by the respondent. A number of documents have been filed by the petitioner in support of his contention that plot No. 62A was in existence and the same was purchased by him from the heirs of Venkatapathi.
13. We do not think it fit to venture into the disputed facts and examine all the documents produced by the petitioner as this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot decide on complex questions of fact. We propose to examine the sale Deed and the Layout Plans alone for the purpose of finding out if the impugned order cancelling the plan approval granted to the petitioner on the ground of forgery is made out or not. The title to the disputed property is not germane to the issue under consideration and so the documents relied on by the petitioner to show that the land was reserved by the original owners for their own use and hence excluded in the Layout are not probed. We will now examine the sale Deed of the petitioner dated 18.02.2005 under which he purchased the disputed Plot No.62-A.
14. The schedule of property to the sale deed dated 18.02.2005 in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 12/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 Doc.No.415/2005 with respect to plot No.62A is as follows:
“nfhaKj;J}h; hpoL. GpsnkL rg;hpoL.
nfhaKj;J}h; jhY}f;fh. nfhaKj;J}h; khefuhl;rp
vy;iyf;Fs;. brshpghisak; fpuhkk;. f/r/199 ghfk;.
200. 203 & 204 be/ fhiyfspy; V/13/48
tp!;jPuzKs;s g{kpapy; ny mt[l; bra;F nkw;go
nyat[l gpshd; 2/6/1977 njjpapy; vy;/gp-Mh; (rp/d;)
be/49-77 bek;guhf m';ff
P huk; bgw;W rp';fhey;Y}h;
Kdprpghypoahuhy; 27/07/1977 njjpapy; Mh;/X/rp/be/6894-
77 vg;-1 bek;guhf m';ff
P huk; bgw;Ws;sJkhd
jpU/fpUt&;zh fhydp vd;w ny mt[l;oy; rapl;
vz;/62A cs;sjpy; nkw;go tPjk; cs;sJkhd
brhj;Jf;F brf;Fg;ge;jp tpguk;/”
15. From a reading of the schedule of property, it is seen that the layout referred to therein is LP.No.49/77 and plot No.62A is shown as part of the said layout. The respondent produced a copy of the layout plan in L.P.No.49/77 from the official records and it is seen from the layout plan that there is no such plot as 62A. The layout plan shows plot Nos. 63 and 64 only and the disputed Plot No.62-A is shown as 30 feet https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 13/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 road and the land earmarked for park. But the layout plan produced by the petitioner shows Plot No.62-A. Perhaps, to get over this anomaly, the petitioner contended that Layout Plan 49/77 was revised in L.P/R (C.N) No.294/81 and in the said Plan, Plot No.62-A is shown. We are afraid the said contention cannot be countenanced for more than one reason, first, there is absolutely no reference to the revised plan L.P/R (C.N) No.294/81 in the schedule of property to the sale Deed. Secondly, even as per L.P/R (C.N) No. 294/81 the existence of Plot No.62-A is doubtful. Plot No.62-A is shown as the dead end plot of the 30 feet road. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly contended that if existence of Plot No.62A is accepted then plot Nos.63 and 64 would have no ingress and egress and a layout which does not provide for ingress and egress to any single plot of the layout would never be approved by the authorities. We have perused the Layout Plans LP.No. 49/77 and L.P/ R(C.N) No.294/81 produced by the respondent from their records and we are convinced that Plot No.62A is carved out by including the 30 feet road and the land reserved for park. We are therefore of the view that the revised Layout L.P/ R (C.N). No.294/81 is forged and Plot No.62-A has been incorporated for getting the Building Plan Approval. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no illegality or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 14/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 impropriety in the impugned order.
16. The petitioner relies on the property tax assessments and other revenue documents to contend that plot No.62A was assessed to tax and therefore the respondent cannot dispute the existence of the same. In our view, the said contention is untenable, as mere collection of tax will not legitimise the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that in pursuance of the order of this Court in W.P.No.7401 of 2021, the extension order was passed and hence the respondent had no jurisdiction to cancel the approved plan. We find no merit in the said contention as we have already held that there is no improprietory or illegality in the impugned order.
17. In view of the above discussions, we find no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.The respondents are directed to take immediate steps to demolish the unauthorised structure in plot No.62A and restore it to its https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 15/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 original use viz. for park and road purpose within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Post for compliance on 12.03.2024.
(J.N.B,J.) (N.M,J.) 14.12.2023 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No dsn To The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 16/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 J. NISHA BANU, J.
and N.MALA, J.
dsn PREDELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.No. 8121 of 2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 17/18 W.P.No.8121 of 2023 ORDER DELIVERED ON 14.12.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page: 18/18