Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It is on these rival claims that we have to see as to whether the High Court was justified in allowing the petition as it did. The High Court formulated the following points:

(1) Whether the challenged order G.O.Ms.244 dated 23.9.94 was vitiated by mala fides and in excess of the powers of the first respondent in violation of principles of natural justice?

(2) Whether the modification issued under Section 27 of the Town and Country Planning Act reserving disputed 40 plots for the public purpose under detailed development plan had become null and void in the absence of any final orders passed within three years from the date of publication under Section 38 of the Town and Planning Act?

(5) The Commissioner may in his discretion, issue the notice referred to in sub-Section (3) or recover the expenses referred to in sub-Section (4) to or from the owners of any buildings or lands abutting on the street or streets concerned but any such owner shall be entitled to recover all reasonable expenses incurred by him or all expenses paid by him, as the case may be, from the defaulting owner referred to in sub-Section (3)." Relying on this Section and, more particularly, sub-Sections (1) and (2), the High Court was of the view that before the usurp of the land within the Municipal Corporation for a layout, 10% of such land was bound to be reserved for common purposes. The High Court firstly came to the conclusion that the Trust itself sought the approval of the layout plan from the Corporation after Tallakulam Town Panchayat merged with the Madurai Corporation. The High Court made a reference to the earlier plan being P.R. No. 21/1972 approved by the Tallakulam Town Panchayat, wherein the aforementioned 40 plots were not shown as reserved for the public purpose. It refuted the submission made by the appellant Trust to the effect that such plan which has crystallized the rights of the Trust in respect of its property, was bound to be honoured after the Tallakulam Town Panchayat became a part of the Madurai Corporation by its merger. The High Court observed in para 19 of its judgment:-

23. We have nothing to say about those comments. However, the fact of the matter is that the respondent herein and the original Writ Petitioner was a party to that Writ Petition and to the judgment whereby specific permission was granted for the construction in plot Nos. 276 and 269 which was part of the aforementioned 40 plots.

24. Further an application was filed as WMP 3338/92 for extension of time to take appropriate decision in terms of the direction of the High Court which had given three months' time. It is specifically pointed out that the application for sanction could be rejected only in case the detailed development for this area, the two plots came under the classification `reserved for public purpose'. Even giving three months' time, such step could not be taken and indeed it could not have been taken in view of the earlier factual scenario, more particularly, because of the decision dated 30.8.82 whereby the approved plan 12/80 was preferred to plan No.1/75. Though we need not go into the further question as to whether the decision in W.P.No.1565/87 would be res judicata as even otherwise it is clear that the State Government had taken a right stance in passing the order dated 23.9.94 vide G.O.Ms. 244.

25. The High Court in the last, has given the direction that the plots covered in LP/MR 1/75 cannot be used for any purpose other than public purpose mentioned therein with the exception of the plot Nos. 276 and

369. In our opinion, this was a completely incorrect direction particularly because way back in 1982, plan No.1/75 was treated as cancelled and there was no revival of that plan.

26. Last but not the least, respondent No.1 herein, Karpaga Nagar Nala Urimai Sangam represented by Shri A. Shamugavel had filed an Original Suit No.1106/86 in the Court of Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town in his capacity as a resident of Karpaga Nagar Colony wherein he had sought for an injunction restraining the Trust from selling or using the property for any purpose than the purpose for which it was reserved in LP MR 1/75.