Pillayar P.K.V.K.N.Trust Thru ... vs Karpaga N.N.U.S Rep.By Secretary & Ors

2. The appellant-a religious Trust challenges the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein. The respondent No.1 claims to be the representative body of the residents of the area called Karpaga 2 Nagar. The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition issued the following direction:

3. Some factual background would be necessary before we approach the controversy. The appellant is a Trust formed in the year 1924 to look after religious and secular activities of Pillayarpatti Koil situated at Pillayarpatti and for the welfare of Nagarathar community. The Trust acquired properties in Tallakulam village in Madurai District including lands in S. No. 92, 94, 120 to 126, 130 to 133, 176/1 and 178. These properties were sub-divided into 910 plots and they are named as Karpaga Nagar. The Trust thereafter prepared a detailed layout plan for the entire extent of 76.12 acres in all, in which the provision was made for 60 feet, 50 feet and 40 feet roads. The road area was to the extent of about 21 acres. This layout plan was submitted to Tallakulam Town Panchayat which was the appropriate authority in the year 1972. This layout plan was approved by Tallakulam Town Panchayat vide its order dated 19.5.1972 in P.R. No. 21 of 1972 under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1970. 3 Pursuant thereto, majority of the plots were sold by the Trust retaining about 40 plots for its use. The said Tallakulam Town Panchayat along with other Town Panchayats merged with Madurai City Municipal Corporation on 30.1.1974 and, therefore, the laws applicable to Madurai Corporation were made applicable to Tallakulam. The Madurai Corporation insisted to revalidate the plan. The Trust again applied for revalidation of the original plan in 21/72. Plan No.1/75 showed 40 plots as reserved for school. The appellants herein claimed that as per the savings clause the Corporation was bound by all rights and liabilities created by the erstwhile Town Panchayat before the date of merger.

4. Thereafter, in the year 1979-80, the Local Planning Authority of Madurai prepared a detailed development plan which also included the lands covered by the appellant's layout plan. This detailed development plan was approved as DTP (MR) 12/80. In this plan the area relating to the 40 plots which were retained by the appellant Trust, was demarcated and shown as residential area. Finding that they were contrary to plan No.1 of 75, clarification was sought and it is claimed that the Deputy Director, Regional Town & Country Planning, by his letter ROC No. 4589/82 dated 30.8.1982 informed the Corporation of Madurai that plan No.1/75 may be treated as cancelled and plan No.12/80 alone would be valid.

5. Thereafter when the Trust proposed to make some constructions in plot No.342, Madurai Corporation granted its approval by order No. K.3/PR 533/82. However, when the fresh application was submitted for putting up construction in plot No. 276 and 369, the Corporation by its order dated 16.12.1986, rejected the application on the ground that this area was reserved for public purpose of putting up school building. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 1565 of 1987 for quashing the order of rejection and for a direction to the Madurai Corporation for grant of approval for putting up the construction. In this, the plea was taken by the Corporation that the detailed development plan bearing No.12/80 was sought to be modified and hence the plan could not be approved. The High Court by its order dated 21.11.1991 allowed this petition and held that the rejection of the plan was illegal. The High Court restored the applications in respect of plot Nos. 276 and 369 and directed Madurai Corporation to pass orders expeditiously. It was further stated that if the orders were not passed within three months of the said date, the application for sanction of construction would be deemed to have been granted. It was, however, made clear by the High Court that the applications could be rejected only if this area comprising of 40 plots was in the meantime classified as `reserved for the public purposes' in the detailed development plan.

6. It seems nothing was done for inclusion of this area into the detailed development plan as per the procedure laid down under Section 25, 27, 29 and 33 of the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 read with Rule 13,14 and 16 of the Preparation, Publication and Sanction of Detailed Development Plan Rules. The appellant thereafter applied for approval of plan in respect of four other plots bearing No.326, 331, 336 and 340 of the layout plan. However, by its order dated 27.4.1993, the Corporation rejected the said application on the ground that the plots were forming part of the area reserved for construction of a school and hence the application for construction could not be allowed. Quoting all these facts, the appellant made a representation to the Director, Town and Country Planning No.807 Annasalai, Madras dated 15.6.1993 and pointed out that the stance taken by the Corporation was not correct and that this new plan No. 9 of 92 would be completely illegal and against law. The appellant reminded the concerned authority that the plans were approved in the year 1972 itself by Tallakulam Town Panchayat by its order dated 19.5.1972 and the rights of the respective parties had been crystallized at that time itself and it would not be just to disturb it after a lapse of 20 years by introducing new modifications in the detailed development plan and, therefore, the stand taken by the Corporation that the said area was reserved for school purpose, was clearly in contravention of plan 12/80. In that representation the Trust gave the whole history which has been stated 6 above by us. It was pointed out that the whole area was reserved for residential purpose under the approved plan and on that strength, several plots were sold to several persons and they would also be affected if the modified plan No. 9/92 is approved as it is. A prayer, therefore, was made that this petition to the proposed detailed plan No. 9 of 92 was liable to be considered in favour of the Trust on the basis of the detailed development plan No. 12 of 80, so that the Trust could utilize 40 plots for constructions. It seems that this representation was accepted by the State Government which passed G.O.Ms. No.244 dated 23.9.1994. In this order it was suggested that the Government accepted the recommendation by the Director, Town and Country Planning and the permission was accorded to de-reserve 2.5 acres of land earmarked for school in the approved layout LP/MR 1/75 in T.S. No.92/94 etc. and the same would be deemed to be residential area in Madurai Corporation subject to the condition that all the roads in the layout area should be handed over to the Madurai Corporation by Pillayarpatti Karpaga Vinayagar Koil Nagarthar Trust.

12. It also took notice of the fact that when Madurai Corporation had demanded Rs.80,69,784/- under Section 250 (4) of Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act from the present appellant, the said demand notice was quashed as per order in W.P. No.8962 of 1988. The High Court also made reference to the order passed in W.P. No.1565 of 1987 and found that in that judgment the High Court had not dealt with the development plan No. 9 of 92. The High Court then came to the conclusion that G.O.Ms. 244 11 dated 23.3.1994 was illegal, vitiated by mala fides and was in excess of powers of the Government.

out for the common purpose in addition to the area provided for laying out streets. If any owner contravenes any of the conditions specified above, he shall be liable for prosecution.

(4) If such street or streets are not laid out and made in the manner and within the time specified in the notice, the Commissioner may lay-out and make the street or streets, and the expenses incurred shall be recovered from the defaulting owner.

27. For all these reasons, we cannot affirm the judgment of the High Court. It is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the respondent is directed to be dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

New Delhi.