In a second appeal, the Madras High Court held that a plaintiff who obtained conversion of public purpose land to residential use acts as a trustee for other layout owners and cannot alienate the land to their detriment, dismissing the appeal based on Apex Court principles.
None. The second appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court.
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.
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
S.Sridevi ...Appellant
-Vs-
1.Mariappan
2.Thanagamuthu Nachiar
PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.62 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court at Kovilpatti in reversing the judgment and decree made
1/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
in O.S.No.157 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Kovilpatti, dated 30.07.2003.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah For R3 & R5 : Mr.C.Baskaran Government Advocate
For R1, R2 & R4 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The legal representative of plaintiff in the suit is the appellant as the plaintiff died subsequent to disposal of the first appeal. The suit is for bare injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the alleged possession of the plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the said judgment and decree was reversed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, appellant is before this Court.
2/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
1980, as per the plan marked as Ex.B.3. The plaintiff further averred in the plaint that as per the original layout plan approved in the year 1980, the land lying in south of Kammavar Kalyana Mandapam was reserved for public purpose. She made an application to the third respondent for conversion of the land reserved for public purpose into residential plots and obtained an order for conversion under Ex.A.2. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order passed by the third respondent, the fourth respondent herein also passed orders for conversion of the land reserved for public purpose. Thereafter, when the plaintiff tried to put up a compound wall surrounding the suit property, which was converted into residential plots, the respondents 1 and 2 tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for bare injunction.
3/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
there are approved plots, which have been sold to number of persons. It was stated that the second respondent herein purchased Plot No.11 on the western side of the road. It was specifically pleaded by the respondents 1 and 2 that the suit property, which was reserved for public purpose, is for the benefit of the plot owners, who purchased the property in the said layout. The plaintiff herein cannot try to disturb the users of the land reserved for public purpose by putting up compound wall. It was further pleaded that the Kammavar Kalyana Mandapam situated on the north of the suit property belongs to Kamamavar Community and it cannot be stated that the same was used by the general public.
4/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
of the other respondents. On behalf of the appellant, six documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 and on behalf of the respondents also, six documents were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6. Apart from that, the order passed by the High Court in W.A.No. 1430 of 1998 was marked as Ex.C.1.
5/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
“ a) Whether the judgment and decree of the Lower appellate Court is vitiated by misapplication of law in failing to consider the case in terms of Section 32 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, while recording a finding that the 9.6 cents land allotted for public purpose i.e. the schedule property cannot be changed for residential purpose by way of re-approval by the statutory authority?
b) Whether the Lower Appellate Court misapplied the ratio decedente of the cases reported in 2002(5) CTC 729 and 1995(I) SCC 47 to the facts of the case on hand or not?”
6/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
purpose in the layout for residential use. The said order was challenged by the respondents 1 and 2 by way of writ petition and the said writ petition was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal in W.A.No.1430 of 1998, which came to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the third respondent with a direction to the third respondent to consider the case of the appellant afresh, after issuing notice to the respondents 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the appellant forcefully contended that after the order passed in writ appeal, the plaintiff again moved the third respondent and obtained an order under Ex.B.7, dated 23.04.2002, for conversion of the land reserved for public purpose into the one for residential use. Therefore, it is open to the appellant to use the same as a land for residential purpose.
7/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
The First Appellate Court while deciding this question, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PT.Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by Lrs Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in 1995(1) Supreme Court Cases 47 . The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case law is as follows:-
“ 6. Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a layout plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. The effect of such reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit of the society or the public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it. It may be true as held by the High Court that the interest which is left in the owner is a residuary interest which may be nothing more than a right to hold this land in trust for the specific purpose specified by the coloniser in the sanctioned layout plan.”
when a particular land is reserved for public purpose in an approved layout plan, the original owner of the land (namely the appellant herein) ceases to be a legal
8/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
owner of the land. It was further emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the owner of the land holds the same for the benefit of the society or the public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it. Therefore, the original owner of the land, on approval of the layout plan by reserving the said land for public purpose in the plan, becomes a trustee of the land to hold it for the benefit of other plot owners in the layout. In other words, he looses his status as the owner of the land instead his status is converted into that of the trustee. Therefore, he is divested of his right to exercise the special rights of owner including the rights of alienation over the said property. He is imposed with a duty to preserve the nature of the property as the one for the public use. Therefore, it is not open to him to seek conversion of the land reserved for public purpose into the one for residential purpose and try to alienate the land as a residential plot. Therefore, even assuming that the plaintiff moved the third respondent and got an order in her favour for conversion of land reserved for public purpose into the one for residential use, it is not open to the plaintiff to put up a compound wall surrounding the same so as to impair the right of user by the general public. Therefore, the order obtained by the plaintiff under Ex.B.7 will
9/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
not allow her to treat it as a residential land and alienate the same to the third parties so as to affect the rights of other plot owners in the layout. The First Appellate Court rightly applied the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case law to the facts of the case.
10/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
help her to treat the suit property as a land for residential use and alienate the same to third parties. In view of the law laid down in the case law referred above, the appellant is only the trustee of the suit property, which was reserved for public purpose and consequently, she is not entitled to move the authorities and seek conversion of the land to the detriment of respondents 1 and 2 and other plot owners in the layout.
11/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
benefit of other plot owners in the layout. Therefore, the appellant as a trustee of the land reserved for public purpose is not expected to move the authorities seeking conversion of the classification to the detriment of other plot owners.
21.12.2022
NCC : Yes/ No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No cp
To
12/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
Kovilpatti.
13/14
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
CP
S.A(MD)No.407 of 2005
21.12.2022
14/14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court was vitiated by misapplication of law in failing to consider Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act regarding conversion of public
Whether the lower appellate court misapplied the ratio of PT. Chet Ram Vashist vs. MCD to the facts of this case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
PT. Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by Lrs Vs. Municipal Corporation of DelhiApplied¶56
PT. Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by Lrs Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1995(1) SCC 47 · Who else cites this
2002(5) CTC 729Distinguished¶44
1995(I) SCC 47Distinguished¶44
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S. Sridevi
Mariappan
Thanagamuthu Nachiar
The District Collector, Tuticorin District
S. Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. Sounthar
Parties & counsel
