Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2908 (MAD)

Joseph Arockiaraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2015-08-28

R.SUBBIAH

body2015
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3, 5 to 7 exercise their lawful power and duty and restrain respondent No.4 from acting illegally in allotting plots in S.No.152, Agasthiarpatti Colony, Sivanthipuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition, are as follows:- 2.1. The case of the petitioner is that he was an employee of the Madura Coats, Vikramasingapuram. The fourth respondent Society was constituted as early as in the year 1938 for the enefits and welfare of its employees of the Madura Coats Limited and it is bound by the Rules and Regulations of the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner is one of the Members of the Society. While so, the fourth respondent had purchased a property on 05.05.1940 in S.No.152, to an extent of 89 acre 11 cents, Agasthirapatti Colony, Sivanthipuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent Society obtained an approval for plotting the said lay out in the year 1990 from the fifth respondent. But they have obtained an approval for a portion of the land and not for the entire extent of land, namely, 89 acres 11 cents, thereby, the balance land was kept vacant. According to the petitioner, the official respondents plotted out nearly 706 plots and right now, remaining 140 plots are available for sale. An approval was also obtained from the competent authority as early as on 07.09.1990. As per Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971, the permission is valid for a period of three years. Now, on the basis of the approval granted in the year 1990, the fourth respondent Society is attempting to plot out and to sell the same on commercial basis. The said action is contrary to law. Hence, he has come forward with this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 3. Pending Writ Petition, this Court has granted an order of interim stay on 28.06.2015 restraining the fourth respondent from conducting any drawing of lots or sale of house of the fourth respondent Society. 4. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the fourth respondent has obtained approval for a lay out from the fifth respondent as early as in the year 1990. 4. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the fourth respondent has obtained approval for a lay out from the fifth respondent as early as in the year 1990. But the averment of the petitioner that the Society had not renewed the approval is not correct. After the resolution was passed by the fourth respondent, it made an application to the Town Planning Authority through the seventh respondent for approval of the house plots in S.No.327, Old S.No.152 to an extent of 89 acre 11 cents and the same was approved by the Town Planning Authority for the total 846 plots vide approval number 688/1990 with a direction that the fourth respondent Society should gift the land in favour of the Local Authority for the maintenance of the road with necessary fees. Pursuant to the approval, it has formed a lay out and plotted out 846 plots in between the years 1990-1993 itself. 4.1. While the situation stood thus, out of 846 plots, 706 plots were already sold, since the remaining 140 plots are unsold, the Society on 26.10.2013, through the General Body Meeting decided to allot the remaining 140 plots to the members as per the rules and regulations of the Society, in which, the petitioner was also present. After the fourth respondent obtained guideline value from the authorities and sent the same to the Price Fixing Committee headed by the second respondent as per the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4893/2014/E4 dated 19.05.2015. The Committee fixed the value of the plots and the sale price. Thereafter, the fourth respondent published in the newspaper about the Special Meeting to be held on 06.06.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. in the Union Samuthaya Nalakkudam, Adiyakarunkulam to approve the price fixing. On the said date, the General Body approved the sale price and on that day, announced that those who are willing to participate in the allotment have to register their name from 08.06.2015 to 15.06.2015 and subsequently, on the request of labour's union, it was extended upto 20.06.2015. Therefore, there is no illegality as claimed by the petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. Therefore, there is no illegality as claimed by the petitioner and prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fourth respondent Society has purchased the land in question way back in the year 1940 and had obtained an approval for layout from the fifth respondent in the year 1990 and formed 846 plots. But they had formed only 706 plots and the same were sold long ago. Now, the fourth respondent Society is trying to plot out the balance land and sell the remaining plots on commercial basis without obtaining approval from the fifth respondent. In this regard, the petitioner draws the attention of this Court with regard to Sections 49 and 50 of the Town and Country Planning Act and submitted that every permission for development granted under Section 49 shall remain in force for a period of three years from the date of such permission. Having been granted approval in the year 1990, naturally, it got expired in the year 1993. Now, after the lapse of more than 20 years, the fourth respondent is trying to plot out the balance land and sell the plots without any approval. Unless the actual permission granted to the authorities are renewed, the respondent has no right to form a fresh plot and sell the same. 5.1. In support of his contention, he placed the following judgments:- (1)AIR 1999 SCC 1281, Babu Verghese Vs. Bar Council of Kerala. (2) 2013 Writ L.R.257, The Kennel Club of India Vs. The Union of India and others. 6. By way of reply, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the year 1990 itself, the fourth respondent had plotted the entire land to an extent of 89 acre 11 cents for the purpose of allotting plots to its employees. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that in the year 1990 alone, 706 plots were formed and now the fourth respondent Society is trying to plot out the balance land without getting approval. In fact, pursuant to the approval granted in the year 1990, only a portion of the land was plotted out numbering to 706 plots and that the fourth respondent is now making an attempt to plot out the balance land without getting any fresh approval are unfounded allegations. In fact, pursuant to the approval granted in the year 1990, only a portion of the land was plotted out numbering to 706 plots and that the fourth respondent is now making an attempt to plot out the balance land without getting any fresh approval are unfounded allegations. Pursuant to the approval granted in the year 1990, the plots were sold out to nearly 706 persons and now the respondents are taking steps to sell the remaining 140 plots. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that pursuant to the approval granted to the fourth respondent in the year 1990, 40 feet main road and 30 feet cross-roads, street lights and water tanks have been provided at the relevant point of time itself. The road was also gifted to the local body. Therefore, the question of forming fresh lay out, as alleged by the petitioner, for the remaining plot will not at all arise. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a judgment reported in (2002) 3 MLJ 375 , Villupuram Municipality Vs. Subramanian. To sum up, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 7. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it is true that as per Section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Country and Planning Act the conditions imposed has to be complied with for forming a lay out. In the instant case, since the conditions are complied within the prescribed period stipulated in the Act therein, the question of lapse does not arise. 8. However, it is the counter submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment relied upon by the respondents with regard to the conditions imposed therein will apply only for the sanction of lay out with regard to the public purpose alone and it cannot be made applicable to the present case is misconceived. As per the said judgment, if it is for the public purpose, they need not get approval once again from the competent authority and if it is other than public purpose, after a period of three years, certainly, once again, the fourth respondent Society has to get approval for the balance land. 7. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. 7. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is seen that the fourth respondent had plotted out about 846 plots in S.No.152, in Agasthiarpatti Colony, Sivanthipuram Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, for construction of the houses for the employees of the fourth respondent herein. The said lands had been granted approval way back on 07.09.1990 itself. Thereafter, the plots were allotted to the employees of the fourth respondent. Out of the 846 plots, it is stated that the remaining 140 plots were unsold and the Society through the General Body Meeting decided to allot the remaining 140 plots to the members as per the rules and regulations prevailing from time to time. Now, according to the petitioner, the fourth respondent Society should get a fresh approval for the remaining plots. 9. In my considered opinion, as long as the approval already granted to the land in question are intact, for selling out the remaining plots in the subsequent years, there may not be any necessity to get a new approval for the reason that such permission flows from the earlier approval granted by the authorities concerned. In the case on hand, the entire lands in question were plotted out as per the Act and the same was sold to nearly 706 persons and the respondents are now going to sell the remaining lands alone, for which, once again, no approval is required. 10. From the above, it is crystal clear that the fourth respondent Society is bound to comply with the restrictions and conditions already imposed by the fifth respondent in the year 1990 at the time of forming the lay out initially. This Court cannot direct the fourth respondent Society once again to revisit the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971, on the premises that the permission is valid only for a period of three years. Further, though it is the specific case of the petitioner that only 706 plots were alone approved by the fifth respondent and for the balance land, the fourth respondent Society has not obtained any approval is concerned, he has not placed any tangible materials before this Court to show that in the year 1990, only 706 plots were formed and balance land remained vacant. The question as to whether only 706 plots were formed out or the entire lands were plotted out at the relevant point of time are all disputed questions of fact, which can be decided only in a civil court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on some of the judgments in this regard in support of his contention that in the matter of this nature, Writ is maintinable, this Court is of the view that each case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of the materials placed before this Court. It is settled law that a disputed question cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement and the dictum laid down on this subject enunciated as above, this Court finds that there is no reason to stall the action of the fourth respondent in selling out the remaining plots available with them. 12. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the action of the fourth respondent in selling the remaining 140 plots at this stage and this Writ Petition lacks merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.