Disposed

P.Vijayakalyani v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Jun 2024WP/30905/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging regulations that required land owners to execute gift deeds for road expansion. The court held that local authorities lack the power to insist on gift deeds and must follow statutory land acquisition procedures instead.

What did the court decide?

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

P.Vijayakalyani Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017 and 32072 of 2019 and

¶8

W.M.P.No.5023 of 2017

¶9

[W.P.No.30905 of 2015]

P.Vijayakalyani

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶14

The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶15

Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003. ... Respondents

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/10

¶17

Prayer :-

¶18

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶19

Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the Regulation 26(22) of Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area as unconstitutional and void ab initio.

¶20

For Petitioner : M/s.Richardson Wilson For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal, Govt.Advocate(for R1); Mrs.P.Veena Suresh (for R2); Mr.G.T.Subramanian (for R3).

¶21

[W.P.No.34926 of 2016] V.Velayudham ... Petitioner Vs.

¶22

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶23

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶24

Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon Building, Chennai-3.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10

¶26

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶27

The Assistant Engineer, Town Planning Approval Section, Regional Office South, Greater Chennai Corporation, 115, Dr. Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai-20. ... Respondents

¶28

Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, pertaining to Regulation 26(22) of Development Regulations for Chennai Metropolitan Area passed by the 2nd respondent and approved by the 1st respondent as ultra vires the Constitution of India.

¶29

For Petitioner : M/s.P.V.Sudakar For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal, Govt.Advocate(for R1); Mrs.P.Veena Suresh (for R2); Mr.G.T.Subramanian (for R3).

¶30

[W.P.No.4782 of 2017]

¶31

M/s.Doveton Protestant Schools Association, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Mr.M.A.Azeez, No.1, Ritherdon Road, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. ... Petitioner Vs.

¶32

The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department,

¶33

3/10

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10

¶35

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶36

Fort St. George, Chennai-9

¶37

Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai.

¶38

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶39

The Sub Registrar, office of the Sub Registrar, Periamet, Chennai-3.

¶40

... Respondents

¶41

Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare Rule 26(22) of the Development regulations of the 3rd respondent (Approved by the Government of Tami Nadu G.O.Ms. No.198, Housing and Urban Development dated 2.9.2008 and notified in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette extraordinary No.266 part II Section 2 dated 2.9.2008) as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to declare the Registration of Gift Deed Registered on 16.3.2016 as Document No.P38, on the file of the 4th respondent executed in favour of the 2nd respondent as invalid.

¶42

For Petitioner : M/s.J.Ashok

¶43

For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal, Govt. Advocate (for R1& R4);

¶44

Mrs.P.Veena Suresh (for R3);

¶45

Mr.G.T.Subramanian (for R2).

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10

¶47

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶48

[W.P.No.32072 of 2019]

K.Rajesh Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-3

¶53

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Town Planning Section- Kodambakkam, Zone X, Ward 134, Greater Chennai Corporation, No. 64, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶54

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No 1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶55

... Respondents

¶56

Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Application No. PPA/WDCN10/05632/2019 dated 26.8.2019 for construction of new building and quash the letter W.D.C.No. PPA/WDCN10/05632/2019 dated 4.9.2019 of the second respondent sent to the petitioner and consequently direct the respondent to consider the Petitioner's Application No. PPA/WDCN10/05632/2019 dated 26.8.2019 for construction of new building without insisting Gift Deed for road widening.

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10

¶58

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶59

For Petitioners : M/s.C.Senapathi

¶60

For Respondents : Mr.G.T.Subramanian (for R1& R2);

¶61

Mrs.P.Veena Suresh (for R3);

¶62

COMMON ORDER

¶63

(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶64

The right to property is a constitutional right of a citizen under Article

¶65

300(A) of the Constitution of India. Such right can be taken away by the authority of law. Therefore, the property right of a citizen cannot be infringed without following the procedures as contemplated under law.

¶66

In the present case, the writ petitioners have mainly contended that

¶67

their property rights are sought to be infringed by the authorities without following the due process since the authorities have pressurized and insisted the land owners to gift the land for road expansion projects in the subject locality.

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10

¶69

¶70

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶71

The local authorities are not empowered to insist the land owners to

¶72

execute a gift deed in violation of the provisions under law. If at all, the lands are required for formation of road or expansion of existing road, street, etc., land acquisition proceedings are to be instituted by following the due process and by settling compensation as contemplated under the land acquisition laws. Therefore, the authorities competent, in the event of taking a policy decision, to form street, road or expansion of road, is at liberty to initiate appropriate land acquisition proceedings by following due process of law. Contrarily, they cannot personally insist the land owners or any person to gift their land for road projects or any public projects.

¶73

It is made clear that the local authorities shall not personally

¶74

emphasize or insist the land owners to gift the land in violation of law. If at all in the layout, roads are already earmarked and encroachments are identified, those encroachments can be removed by following the due process in the interest of public.

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10

¶76

¶77

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶78

Thus, the apprehension of the writ petitioners are clarified and all

¶79

the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶80

(S.M.S.J.,) (C.K.J.,) 05.06.2024

¶81

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No (sha) To

¶82

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶83

The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶84

Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.

¶85

The Assistant Engineer, Town Planning Approval Section, Regional Office South,

¶86

8/10

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10

¶88

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶89

Greater Chennai Corporation, 115, Dr. Muthulakshmi Salai, Adyar, Chennai-20.

¶90

Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai.

¶91

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶92

The Sub Registrar, office of the Sub Registrar, Periamet, Chennai-3.

¶93

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Town Planning Section- Kodambakkam, Zone X, Ward 134, Greater Chennai Corporation, No. 64, NSK Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024.

¶94

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No 1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶95

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10

¶96

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017, 32072 of 2019

¶97

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶98

(sha)

¶99

W.P.Nos.30905 of 2015, 34926 of 2016, 4782 of 2017 & 32072 of 2019

¶100

05.06.2024

¶101

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10

P.Vijayakalyani v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vijayakalyani v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ethirajan Vs The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry

T.Sivakumar Vs The Bar Council of Tamilnadu

R S Bharathi Vs Nanganallur Cooperative Housing Societies

D.Saravanane, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

The Secretary to Government Vs G.Anbumani

The Special Deputy Collector Vs Kanchana