Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
15. The learned counsel further submitted that the fifth respondent had sold several plots to various individuals by converting the communal area and the above said purchasers have already been misdirected by the fifth respondent and great hardship will be caused to the above said persons who purchased plots from the fifth respondent. He further submitted that the Apex Court in catena of judgments clearly held that the place earmarked for common purpose http://www.judis.nic.in cannot be converted into plots for the purpose of individual benefits. In support of his contention, he relied the following case laws:
18. Map attached with the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the site plan attached with the scheme completely tally with each other. In the scheme 3.16 kanals of land was left as open space in the centre surrounded by houses on three sides. The photographs produced also show that the land is lying vacant and is being used by the inhabitants for common purposes. It may be noted that the plots carved out in the scheme were sold by Rajinder Kaur as well as her sons including the plaintiffs-respondents. Rajinder Kaur and plaintiffs/respondents could not have sold the land without getting the scheme sanctioned as plots. It is well-known and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that residential plots sell at a much higher price than the http://www.judis.nic.in agricultural land. To sell the land as plots, a part of the land has to be left to provide for common purposes such as roads, communal centre, schools and parks. Having taken advantage of selling the plots in a developed colony and charging a higher price, which were purchased by the inhabitants with the understanding that civic amenities including the park were well provided for, the plaintiffs/respondents cannot be permitted to turn around to claim the land left in the scheme for being used as a park as their personal property.
http://www.judis.nic.in
19. Subsequently, by executing another Gift Deed, the road portions within the layout to an extent of 76,628 sq.ft was also handed over to the respondent Corporation. However, the land, which was reserved as per the original plan 35/68 was not handed over to the Corporation. The fifth respondent Society submitted an application along with a revised plan for the conversion of a portion of the land, which was originally reserved for the common purpose into residential plots. On the basis of that application and after due field inspection, an inspection report dated 14.05.2003 was submitted to the fourth respondent for their further action.
http://www.judis.nic.in
56. In the present case, the private respondents viz., respondents No.6 to 19 started becoming membership of the Society in 1983 onwards based on the Resolution dated 19.04.1985 and they were assigned membership after collecting Rs.1000/- as membership fee and thereafter, persuaded 5th respondent for allotment of plots by converting the above said common land in their favour and even on perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No.6 to 12, they admitted that they have become members of the Society in the year 1983 and in paragraph-3 they clearly stated that they have approached the 5th respondent's Society to allot house sites to them since there was a large area reserved for communal purpose which could not be put to use for which it had been reserved.