Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2784 (MAD)

P. Thirumoorthy v. Member Secretary, Coimbatore

2022-08-17

C.SARAVANAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner's house site situated in Plot No.30, S.F.No.237/1&2, West Side Part, Kurichi Village, (now Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation South Zone Limit), Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District to the extent of 2703 ¾ Sq.Feet by receipt of regularization fee by entertaining the petitioner application for regularization. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of Mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner's house site situated in Plot No.30, S.F.No.237/1&2, West Side Part, Kurichi Village, (now Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation South Zone Limit), Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District to the extent of 2088 Sq.Feet by receipt of regularization fee by entertaining the petitioner application for regularization.) Common Order 1. The Petitioner in W.P.No.9231 of 2021 (P.Thirumoorthy) has filed this Writ Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's house site situated in Plot No.30, S.F.No.237/1&2, West Side Part, Kurichi Village, (now Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation South Zone Limit), Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District to the extent of 2703 ¾ Sq.Feet by receipt of regularization fee by entertaining the petitioner application for regularization. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.9233 of 2021 (T.Nagalakshmi) has filed this Writ Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's house site situated in Plot No.30, S.F.No.237/1&2, West Side Part, Kurichi Village, (now Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation South Zone Limit), Coimbatore Taluk, Coimbatore District to the extent of 2088 Sq.Feet by receipt of regularization fee by entertaining the petitioner's application for regularization. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had purchased a plot/land from the land promoter/vendor believing that he had the rights to sell the land. The petitioner in W.P.No.9231 of 2021 had purchased the respective property on 20.12.1993 and the Petitioner in W.P.No.9233 of 2021 had purchased the respective property on 17.11.1994. As steps have been taken to remove the petitioners from the purchased property, the petitioners were constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.1362 of 1995 against the Executive Officer, Kurichi Town Panchayat who claim that the house sites are playground. 4. As steps have been taken to remove the petitioners from the purchased property, the petitioners were constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.1362 of 1995 against the Executive Officer, Kurichi Town Panchayat who claim that the house sites are playground. 4. By a Judgement and Decree dated 06.04.2005, the learned II-nd Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore has observed that the land promoter/vendor has not executed any Gift Deed in favour of Panchayat and he has also sold many plots. In turn the Panchayat has dug a bore-well and the public has constructed a temple on the disputed land. 5. In the light of the Judgment and Degree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1362 of 1995 dated 06.04.2015, the petitioner was directed to file an application before the first respondent for regularization of the un-approved plot which was sold to the first petitioner by the land promoter/vendor way back in 20.12.1993 and to the second petitioner in 17.11.1994. 6. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in a peremptory manner. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed with consequential relief to the petitioners. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 8. The petitioners have purchased the lands which was reserved for public purpose as per the L.P.A.No.67 of 1981. The use of the aforesaid land was subsequently altered in the year 1983 for use as children's play space in L.P/R(CN)No.32/1983. The petitioners claim rights over the land based on the Decree obtained by the petitioners in O.S.No.1362 of 1995. 9. The question that arises for considering is, whether the petitioners are entitled for any regularisation? The answer will be “No”, as the petitioners have purchased the land knowing fully well that the land was earmarked for public purpose. The petitioner ought to have been careful and vigilant in not investing in land which was intended for public purpose as per the approved layout. Further the purchases have taken place in the year 1993 and 1994. Merely because the land has not been gifted, would mean that the land meant for public purpose can be sold by the promoter of the layout. Further, under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, development can be only in accordance with the development plan. 9. Merely because the land has not been gifted, would mean that the land meant for public purpose can be sold by the promoter of the layout. Further, under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, development can be only in accordance with the development plan. 9. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to recover the amount from the promoter of the land who had illegally sold the land after obtaining the layout approval by declaring that the land in question was intended for public purposes. 10. Therefore, there is no merits in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.