A purchaser sought protection of possession over land bought as plot 16C, relying on a decree in favour of his vendors. The court found no plot 16C existed in the revised layout and the land was reserved for public purposes; the vendors had no title and the decree was not binding. Writ petition 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.P.No.20422 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
M.Jayaraman
.... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (T.P.) Corporation of Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.
.... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents their officers, employees, subordinates, agents or any other person claiming or acting under them from in any manner seeking to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the property situated at R.S.No.440/1-A, 441/1C and 441/6 situated at No.17/8, Velachery Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai and refrain from seeking to take over land without following the due process of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Harishankar
For Respondents : Mr.G.T.Subramanian Standing Counsel
ORDER
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction, restraining
the respondents in any manner seeking to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in survey No.R.S.No.440/1-A, 41/1C and 441/6 situated at No.17/8, Velachery Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai.
perused the materials available on record.
Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
rightly owners of the subject property. That apart, the Judgment became final and no appeal was filed by the respondents. The Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner's vendors had also filed writ petition before this Court seeking building planning permission for the subject land in W.P.No.4505 of 2005. This Court, by an order dated 16.02.2005, directed the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the vendors. Thereafter, the petitioner's vendor's power agent one P.T.Ramakrishnan also filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.455 of 2007, seeking a direction to the respondents for granting building planning permission. This Court, by an order dated 04.01.2007, directed the respondents to process the application and decide it on merits and in accordance with law. However, the neither the petitioner's vendors nor the petitioner's vendors power agent have been granted building planning permission.
that originally, the land comprised in survey Nos.440 to 444 and 123/2 at Velachery Village, was laid out as Jaganathapuram Layout by approval dated 12.12.1964 vide DTP No.110/1964. As per the approved layout, some of the area was earmarked as Open Space Reservation for public
Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
purposes. Subsequently, the original developer viz., the petitioner's vendors, submitted a revised layout plan and the same was considered and granted plan approval vide LPDM/DTP No.5/71 and accordingly reduced the reserved site to the extent of providing for two additional house sites and retaining the balance of the reservation R1 for community use such as reading room, library, children's play park, well and garden, as such a reservation is highly essential for the residents of the area.
Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
However, no building planning permission was granted for the subject land. In fact, the vendors appointed their power agent and once again approached this Court. Even then, no building planning permission was granted for the subject land. Subsequently, the petitioner's vendors sold the land to the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2007 vide document No.3159 of 2007. On the strength of the sale deed, the petitioner was granted patta.
Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
well and garden for the purpose of residents of the area.
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
in favour of the petitioner. They cleverly mentioned a plot number, which is not available as per the revised layout approval. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.5820 of 1994 are not binding.
21.10.2024
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Lpp To
1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (T.P.) Corporation of Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.
W.P.No.20422 of 2015
21.10.2024
Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Corporation could be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession of land earmarked for public purposes under a revised layout plan.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pradyumna Mukund Kokil Vs. State of Maharashtra & OrsDistinguished
2015(6) Scale
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Jayaraman
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
The Assistant Executive Engineer (T.P.) Corporation of Chennai
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
