The court held that roads in a gated community regularized under G.O.s were deemed public and vested with the corporation; residents could not approbate and reprobate by accepting benefits yet denying public access. The writ appeal and petitions challenging the RTI classification were dismissed.
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.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 24.08.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022
and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022
Anna Enclave Residents Welfare Association Rep. by its Secretary and Authorized Signatory. Mr. K.S. Raja, No.2/168E East Coast Road, Injambakkam, Chennai 600 115.
... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
Zone 15 Shollinganallur Chennai 600 119. 4. The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Madras, Zone 15 Shollinganallur Chennai 600 119. 5. The Inspector of Police (J8), Neelankarai Police Station, East Coast Road, Chennai 600 115. 6. Radiance Reality Developers India Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, 1st Floor, 33ft Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ...Respondents / Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 09.11.2022 passed in W.P. No. 11801 of 2022.
For Appellant :: Mr. G. Vijay Anand For R1 and R5 :: Mrs. V. Yamuna Devi, Special Government Pleader For R2 to R4 :: Mr. A. S. Ragul Adhithya For M/s. P.T. Ramadevi, Standing Counsel For R6 :: Mr. N.L. Rajah, Senior Counsel For Mr. E. Jayasankar
2/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
W.P. No. 32845 of 2022
| Mrs. | Veena | ... Petitioner |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. |
|
| 2. | Corporation of Madras | |
| Rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon Building Chennai 600 003. |
||
| 3. | Zonal Officer | |
| Corporation of Madras, Zone 15 |
||
| Shollinganallur Chennai 600 119. |
||
| 4. | The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Madras, Zone 15 |
|
| Shollinganallur Chennai 600 119. |
||
| 5. | The Inspector of Police (J8), Neelankarai Police Station, East Coast Road, Chennai 600 115. |
|
| 6. | Radiance Reality Developers India Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, 1st Floor, 33ft Road, Guindy, |
|
| Chennai 600 032. | ...Respondents |
3/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of CERTIORIFIED MANADAMUS calling for the records of the 3rd Respondent in proceedings in Letter No.Z.O.XVC.No.B3/02547/2021, dated 07.08.2021 and QUASH the same, since the 3rd Respondent therein had erroneously classified the Petitioner's Private road within "Anna Enclave" Gated Unit as Public Road and direct the Respondents 1 to 6 herein not to interfere with the Petitioner's right over the property situated in "Anna Enclave" Gated community area situated at S.Nos .138/2 to 7, 139, 140, 141/1, 142/1,2, 144/1A,1B,2, 3PT, 6 to 10, 145, 147, 148/2, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154/1,2,4, 240/3, 241, 242/1,2 of Injambakkam Village, East Coast Road, Chennai - 600 115.
For Petitioner :: Mr. G. Vijay Anand For R1 and R5 :: Mrs. V. Yamuna Devi, Special Government Pleader For R2 to R4 :: Mr. A. S. Ragul Adhithya For M/s. P.T. Ramadevi, Standing Counsel For R6 :: Mr. N.L. Rajah, Senior Counsel For Mr. E. Jayasankar
W.P. No. 34521 of 2022
M/s. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Representative, Mr. K. Kannadasan, 1st Floor, Old No.100, New No.111, 33 Feet Road, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. ... Petitioner
Vs.
4/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ or order or direction or any other writ in the nature of a
5/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
'Mandamus', directing the Respondents 1 to 4, to act on the petitioner's representation dated 19.11.2021, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner :: Mr. N.L. Rajah, Senior Advocte For Mr. S. Ashok Kumar
For R1, R3 & R4 :: Mr. A. S. Ragul Adhithya For M/s. P.T. Ramadevi, Standing Counsel For R2 :: Mr. C. Manoharan For R5 :: Mrs. V. Yamuna Devi, Special Government Pleader For R6 :: Mr. G. Vijay Anand
The issue involved in this Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions are related to
classification of roads situated in the Gated Community under the name and style “Anna Enclave” at East Coast Road, Injambakkam, Chennai-600 115 as a public road or not. Hence all the matters have been taken up together with the consent of the parties and hereby common Order is passed.
as follows:
6/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
7/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
under Regularization of Unapproved and Layout Rules 2017 u/s. 113 R/w. section 122 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and also as per G.O.(Ms).No.78, notified by Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.05.2017 and G.O.(Ms). No.172, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 13.10.2017.
8/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
During the time of flood, the Corporation has taken care of the flood mitigation activities inside the area.
information submitted under the Right To Information Act, 2005 on the ground that classification of roads in Anna Enclave as a public roads is illegal.
9/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the case
of the Association and aggrieved over the same, the Association has filed this Writ Appeal. After dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the Association, one of the members of the Association in her individual capacity has filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 32845 of 2022, seeking the very same relief of quashing
the information given under Right To Information Act, 2005 dated 07.08.2021.
Association would submit that the roads in the Anna Enclave are the private
roads, which were laid for the purpose of easy access to the farm house sites, which was created as per the private agreement entered between the individuals. The right to hold the property enshrined under Article 300-A
10/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
could not be taken away by the Corporation by declaring the private road as a public road. Even though, the Corporation was permitted to maintain the street lights and collecting the garbage from the street, that alone is not sufficient to term the private road into a public road. The sixth respondent by influencing the Officials including the Police has demolished the compound walls of Anna Enclave and created an access to his property from the East Coast Road through the roads inside the Anna Enclave.
dismissed on technical ground that the writ petition filed by the Association https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
could not be maintainable and the same is not proper, against the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) vs. Union of India and Others [1981
(1) SCC 246 . He also relied on recent judgment of Apex Court in SLP (C) Dairy No.13202 of 2020, Sukh Datt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2023 (3) SCC 47] , to strengthen his arguments that dispossession of the private property without due process of law is violative of both Human rights and Constitutional rights under Article 300-A. He also relied on the Judgment
reported in I.L.R. Volume XX5, 1901 in Sundaram Iyyer vs. Municipal Council and contended that vesting of the street in favour of Municipal Council Authority does not transfer the rights of the owner in the site or the soil in which the street exists.
the year 2011, when the Chennai Corporation was expanded, the administration of the Injambakkam Panchayat Union was taken over by the Greater Chennai Corporation on 13.10.2011. In the year 2017, the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.78,
12/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.07.2017, which paved the way for regularizing the unapproved plots and layouts as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and an amendment was also issued as per G.O.No.112 of the Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 13.10.2017, whereby the unapproved layouts shall be regularized 'as is where is' basis and all the existing roads in the unapproved layouts shall be deemed to have been vested with the local Authority. As per the application submitted by one T. Suren Prabu, the entire layout has been taken for regularization and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has given, in-principle approval, for the layout framework with direction to the Greater Chennai Corporation to regularize each individual plots after collecting necessary charges with conditions. Hence, as per the regularization, the roads have to be treated as public roads and the residents of the layout are not entitled to claim the streets as a private street and not entitled to restrict the movement of the General Public.
13/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
treated as public and vested with the local Authority, hence, the roads in the Anna Enclave are not private road but are public road. The learned counsel also further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.18 of the Municipal Administration and Water supply Department, dated 04.02.2019, that if the Association want to make a new private road, then they have to approach the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation u/s. 216 of the Chennai Municipal Corporation Act and to convert the same as a private street and prays to dismiss the petition.
14/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
access the said road, hence, prays to dismiss this appeal and the Writ Petition filed seeking quashing of the information submitted by the Public Information Officer under RTI Act.
We have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the records.
15/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
142/1,2, 144/1A,1B,2, 3PT, 6 to 10, 145, 147, 148/2, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154/1,2,4, 240/3, 241, 242/1,2 at Injambakkam Village of the Greater Chennai Corporation.
“ The GCC has to ensure that the roads/ Open Space Reservation (OSR) lies within this in principle approved layout framework are be public and vested with them legally before regularization of individual plot in this layout framework as per the Government orders in the reference 1st and 2nd cited. And also roads shall be taken over suo-motu for maintenance under the appropriate provisions of the local bodies Acts and Rules made there under.”
framework, by the CMDA, one Saraswathy Bhai approached the Greater Chennai Corporation for regularizing of her building which is situated in plot no.46 of Anna Enclave and accordingly, the regularization Order were also
16/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
passed for regularization of the building. In the sale deed of the Writ petitioner namely Veena, it is specifically recited in description the property that she has purchased plot nos. 8A, 9A and 10 in the layout known as Anna Enclave, originally comprised in survey nos.142/1 and 152/1 and currently comprised in survey nos. 151/1E and 152/1F situated in Injambakkam village, Kanchipuram district (formally Saidapet Taluk, Chennai M.G.R. District) regularized by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, vide its permit no. RP/LO/157/2004 measuring a total extent of 18,500 sq.ft. was purchased as a subject property, this shows that this property was also regularized by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and it is an approved layout as claimed by them, even though the materials placed on record shows that CMDA, regularized the entire layout framework situated at Anna Enclave, only in the year 2018.
to claim that they were not aware about the Government Orders issued, which contains various clauses relating to effect of regularization and the
17/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
consequences of non regularization.
paragraph no. 8 is stated as follows:
“Plots regularized under these rules shall be deemed to be regularized for residential usage irrespective of the land use zone in the development plans concerned.”
the following rule shall be substituted, namely:
“8. Effect of regularisation:
(1)Plots under earlier regularization schemes implemented by the Government shall be deemed to be regularized for residential usage irrespective of the land use zone in the development plans concerned. Further, the unapproved layout or sub-divisions formed,-
(i) prior to 05.08.1975 in Chennai Metropolitan Area; or
(ii) prior to 29.11.l972 in rural areas and prior to 01.01.1980 in urban areas outside the Chennai Metropolitan Area, shall be deemed to have been approved. The roads and Open Space Reservation area, if any, in such layout shall be deemed to have been vested with the concerned
18/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
local authority,”;
Shall be eligible for regularization under this scheme.”;
Consequences of non-regularisation:- Where no
regularization is ordered under these rules for an unapproved plot or layout; then-
In order to give effect to the consequences indicated
19/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
above, the Departments concerned shall make necessary amendments in their respective Acts.”
of regularization is that the road and open spaces in the reservation area, if any in the layout shall be deemed to have been vested with the concerned Local Authority.
(1) SCC 47] , has considered the rights of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to impose condition that the open space for parks , schools to be transferred to the favour of Corporation with free of cost and after considering various provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, observed in paragraph no.
6 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
20/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
plan. But the question is, does it entitle the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred to the authority free of cost. That is not made out from any provision in the Act or on any principle of law. The Corporation by virtue of the land specified as open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to manage it in the interest of the society in general. But the right to manage as a local body is not the same thing as to claim transfer of the property to itself. The effect of transfer of the property is that the transferor ceases to be owner of it and the ownership stands transferred to the person in whose favour it is transferred. The resolution of the Committee to transfer land in the colony for park and school was an order for transfer without there being any sanction for the same in law.”
park, school etc., in a layout land is normally for the public purpose and such reservation is to be used by the public in general. The Corporation by virtue of the land specified as an open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to manage it in the interest of the public in general but the right to manage as a local body is not the same as to claim transfer of property to itself. Further, it has held that the Corporation is not entitled to demand transfer of land in its favour with free of cost.
Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple, [1996 (2) LW 35] , in paragraph no.13 has observed that the Municipality therein as no right to pass
21/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
obstruction
obstruction even though, there is vesting of public road in it. This Court has
also followed the decision reported in 1981-II M.L.J. 336=94 L.W.697
Govinda Asari Vs. Kanchipuram Municipal (Represented by its
Commissioner) and it was held thus:
"The right of the owner of the roadside property to have access to the road is a totally different right from the public right of passing and re-passing along the highway and the right has been recognised in a number of decisions.
An owner of land which runs right up to a public highway is entitled to access to that highway from his land and that is so whether he is the presumptive owner of the soil of the highway or not.
The mere vesting of a public street in the municipal council does not confer any power on the municipal council to treat it as a private property of the municipality, and the power to close any public street temporarily or permanently, does not imply a power to cause obstruction to the use of the public street by the owners adjacent to the same.
The owners of houses abutting on a public street have right of access to and from the public street, and if anything is done by the municipality to interfere with the rights of such owners, the owners have an actionable claim.
The vesting of the public street in the municipality in the instant case is only for the purpose of maintaining it properly as a public street. It is not entitled to put up any structure along the public street to prevent the owner of properties abutting the same from having access to and from the public street."
22/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
shows that, even though, the corporation has no authority to demand to transfer of land in favour of it or to treat it as private properties of Corporation, the roads shall be vested in favour of municipal corporation is for the purpose of enabling it to maintain as a public street. Hence, vesting of property shall not mean that the roads are to be treated as private, and it only mean that, Municipal Corporation shall treat the roads as public roads and owners of houses abutting the street shall have access to and from the public roads. The corporation shall be the custodian of the road and manage it in the intent of public in general.
23/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
regularization accepting the conditions imposed therein and their buildings have also been approved by the Greater Chennai Corporation. Thereafter, the streets and street lights in the roads were also placed under the maintenance of the Corporation. In the year 2022, the Corporation has also laid road by incurring a huge cost of Rs.62,12,000/- . Once the road were placed under the hands of the Corporation for maintenance, the General public are entitled to use the same as held by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and the residents or the Association of Anna Enclave is not entitled to prevent any person from using or entering the roads lain in their Enclave. After availing all the benefits granted under the regularization schemes issued by the Government, now, they want to deny the consequential benefits granted to the General public as well as other residents, who are entitled to get the same based on the very same Government Orders issued for regularization. The consequence of non-regularization is that, the residents are not entitled to get any electricity, water supply, drainage or sewage connection and no building approval will be given by the concerned Authorities. Based on the approval granted by the concerned Authority, all the benefits have been availed by the residents and they may not be interested to lose all those benefits received by them.
24/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
framework of the Anna Enclave, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has categorically imposed conditions to the Greater Chennai Corporation to make the road, open spaces reserved lands within the layout framework are to be 'Public' and 'vested' with them legally before regularization of individual plots. It also directs that the roads shall be taken over Suo-moto for maintenance under the appropriate provisions of the Local Bodies Act and Rules made there under.
25/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
Metropolitan Development Authority, they have estopped from claiming that the roads are only private roads. Hence, the contention of the Association and the residents of the Anna Enclave that the roads shall only to be treated as private and they are entitled to restrict the movement of the neighbors and general public by constructing a compound wall, is hereby rejected.
26/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
converted into a public road and they are already vested with the Corporation, hence, naturally the Information Officer cannot give different answer.
sixth respondent has also colluded with them for his own benefit and demolished the compound wall. This Court is not inclined to appreciate the
27/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
said contention as discussed in the earlier paragraph that the General Public, who are using the adjacent road i.e, Government Poramboke road entitled to access the public roads in the layout of the Anna Enclave and residents of Anna Enclave have no right to prevent them by constructing a compound wall. The removal of wall is perfectly proper, and no one is having the right to prevent the general public from using the public road. Since the contesting respondents have denied the allegation of forcible demolition of the compound wall, this Court is not inclined to delve into the disputed facts of the case, to decide the persons, who have demolished the compound wall.
since, we have dealt with the case on merits of claim of Association and individual resident has also challenged the impugned information separately, we are not inclined to consider the ground of maintainability of Writ petition of the Association herein and the issue as to whether the Association can maintained a Writ Petition or not is left open, as we have decided the issue on merits.
28/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
writ petitioners – Association and the residents of the Anna Enclave are not
entitled for any relief in their writ appeal or in the writ petition.
no Order since, the compound wall, which had restricted the movement of general public through the roads in the layout of Anna Enclave has already been removed, the general public are accessing the roads. Accordingly, no further Order directing the Authorities to provide access the roads of the Anna Enclave needs to be passed herein. The Corporation is directed to maintain the roads and open spaces and continue to provide access to the general public.
(S.V.N.J.) (K.R.S.J.) 07.11.2023
stn Index: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
29/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
To
30/31
W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J. AND K. RAJASEKAR, J.
stn
Pre-delivery Common Judgment made in W.A. No. 2534 of 2022 and W.P. Nos. 32845 and 34521 of 2022
07.11.2023
31/31
3 issues framed by the court
Whether roads in a gated community regularized under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and government orders can be classified as public roads vested with the local authority.
Whether the residents association can challenge an RTI reply stating the roads are public without challenging the underlying regularization order.
Whether the removal of a compound wall blocking access to such roads is proper.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) vs. Union of India and OthersReferred¶11
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) vs. Union of India and Others [1981 (1) SCC 246] · Who else cites this
Sukh Datt Ratra vs. State of Himachal PradeshRelied on¶27
SLP (C) Dairy No.13202 of 2020, Sukh Datt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2023 (3) SCC 47] · Who else cites this
Sundaram Iyyer vs. Municipal CouncilReferred¶11
I.L.R. Volume XX5, 1901 in Sundaram Iyyer vs. Municipal Council · Who else cites this
Chetra Vashist vs Delhi MunicipalReferred¶23
Chetra Vashist vs Delhi Municipal [1995 (1) SCC 47] · Who else cites this
The Commissioner of Panruti Municipal vs. Kannika Parameswari Amman TempleReferred¶25
The Commissioner of Panruti Municipal vs. Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple, [1996 (2) LW 35]
Govinda Asari Vs. Kanchipuram MunicipalFollowed¶25
1981-II M.L.J. 336=94 L.W.697 Govinda Asari Vs. Kanchipuram Municipal (Represented by its Commissioner)
8 provisions across 6 enactments
Anna Enclave Residents Welfare Association
State of Tamil Nadu
Corporation of Madras
Zonal Officer Corporation of Madras, Zone 15 Shollinganallur
The Executive Engineer, Corporation of Madras, Zone 15 Shollinganallur
The Inspector of Police (J8), Neelankarai Police Station
S. Vaidyanathan
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
