The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court refused to direct eviction of occupants in a housing layout where the plan was revised in 1976 and purchasers entered subsequently. The court left the matter open for authorities.
Court refused to issue direction for eviction; left matter open to authorities to examine if reserved sites are encroached.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.11088 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.(MD) No.11088 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
Chidambaram Nagar Housing Welfare Association rep.by its President S.A.Siva Subramaniyan No.525/B, Chidambaram Nagar Mathur Pudukkottai District ... Petitioner -vs-
1.The Deputy Director Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning 430, Gandhi Street Sivagangai-630 561
2.The President Mathur Panchayat Mathur Pudukkottai District
3.The Official Liquidator Southern Railway Employees Rural Housing Co-operative Society Mathur Office at Kallukuzhi Tiruchirappalli
4.Chitra Padmanabhan
5.V.Mariya Natchatiram
6.N.Suresh
7.K.Anuradha https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
W.P.(MD) No.11088 of 2011
8.K.S.Rengaswami
9.R.Logambal
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to protect the vacant sites earmarked for public utility open areas as referred in the Revised Approved Layout plan L.P.H/D.T.P.No.28/69 in Survey No.10/5, 10/4B, 10/3, 10/4A, 10/5, 4/2 and D.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader for R1 Mr.R.Karthikeyan for R2 Mr.K.Mahendiran for R3 Ms.J.Maria Roseline for R4, R7 & R8 No appearance for R9
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This writ petition has been filed by an Association called Chidambaram Nagar Housing Welfare Association. The petitioner – Association seeks for a direction upon the respondents 1 to 3 to protect the vacant sites earmarked for public utility open areas as referred in the Revised Approved Layout Plan L.P.H/D.T.P.No.28/69 in Survey No.10/5, 10/4B, 10/3, 10/4A, 10/5, 4/2 and D.
2. The petitioner would state that the respondents 4 to 9 are all persons, who have been unauthorizedly occupying sites, which have been reserved for public utility open areas. Therefore, they prayed for action to be initiated by the promoter of the layout, namely, the third respondent, which Society has now become defunct and it is under the control of the official liquidator.
3. The respondents 4 to 8 are stated to be subsequent purchasers, who have purchased the plots / houses from the allottees of the third respondent / Co-operative Society. According to the respondents 4 to 8, the plots purchased by them are not reserved sites, but have been purchased after the revised approval of the layout was obtained in L.P.H/R.T.T.No.6/76.
4. One common feature between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 8 is that the ninth respondent is an encroacher. It is not clear as to how they state that the ninth respondent is an encroacher. We are unable to ascertain the full fact, because the ninth respondent has not filed counter affidavit.
2/3
W.P.(MD) No.11088 of 2011
5. Considering the factual position that the layout plan has been revised in the year 1976 and the subsequent purchasers have entered into the scene, at this juncture, we cannot issue any direction to evict any person from the property.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
first respondent would submit that the ninth respondent has filed a suit against the third respondent / Society and the same is pending.
7. Thus, considering the fact that the layout plan has been revised in the year 1976 and it is stated that the respondents 4 to 8 are purchasers of housesites in the revised layout, we dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the Authorities to examine as to whether if any reserved site, such as, children's park, playground, road etc., is encroached, and if so, appropriate action be initiated in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Writs)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub Assistant Registrar
krk
To:
The Deputy Director, Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning, 430, Gandhi Street, Sivagangai-630 561.
+1 CC to M/s.J.MARIA ROSELINE, Advocate ( SR-91787[F] dated 14/10/2019 )
+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-91931[F] dated 15/10/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.K.MAHENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-91949[F] dated 15/10/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.M.SUBASH BABU, Advocate ( SR-92258[F] dated 16/10/2019 )
W.P.(MD) No.11088 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 14.10.2019
JM/30.10.2019/3P/6C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to issue a direction to evict persons occupying sites reserved for public utility open areas amidst subsequent land revisions.
Chidambaram Nagar Housing Welfare Association
Deputy Director Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning
President Mathur Panchayat
Official Liquidator Southern Railway Employees Rural Housing Co-operative Society
Chitra Padmanabhan
V.Mariya Natchatiram
T.S.Sivagnanam
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
