Madras High Court
A.Suriya vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 7 June, 2022
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
A.Suriya .. Petitioner-in
Person
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.Union of India,
Through, The Secretary,
Ministry of Education
(Formerly HRD Ministry)
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
3.The Secretary,
Auroville Foundation,
Auroville Foundation Bhavan,
Administrative Area - Town Hall,
Aurovillee, Villupuram-605 101
Tamil Nadu, India. .. Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a writ of declaration for declaring the foundation's self-
made Appendix-IV Clauses 1-5 of the Auroville Universal Township
Master Plan Perspective 2025 (Gazette of India notified on 16.8.2010,
Gazette of India published on 28.8.2010) as ultra vires and also their
entire illegal land exchange deeds and purchase deeds done since
28.8.2010 (Gazette of India publication date) by using these appendix
IV Clauses 1-5 of the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan
Perspective 2025 as Void ab initio" (m7 land and my family land
purchased, exchanged by the foundation survey numbers annexed) for
Section 46 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act), Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu
Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, 2018 (TTCP Act), Appendix-IV
clause 6 (para 1) of the said Auroville Master Plan and G.O. dated
20.1.2003 and may kindly exclude the land title dispute exchange
deed dated 24.9.2013 document No.5000 of 2013 registered at Vanur
S.R.O.
For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Suriya
Petitioner-in-Person
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by
Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
for respondent No.1
____________
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
: Mr.R.Rabu Manohar
SCGC
for respondent No.2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ petition has been filed to challenge certain clauses of
the Auroville Universal Township Master Plan Perspective, 2025,
notified on 16.8.2010 and published in gazette on 28.8.2010. A
challenge is also made to the land exchange deeds and purchase
deeds executed since 28.8.2010.
2. The writ petition to challenge the notification dated
16.8.2010, published in the gazette on 28.8.2010, is after lapse of
almost 12 years without giving any justification for the delay and
otherwise the jurisdiction of this court is being misused by the
petitioner, as the present writ petition is the third in succession.
The first writ petition, being W.P.No.17181 of 2020, was filed by the
petitioner's father for the same relief. The said writ petition was
withdrawn, as per the statement of fact given in paragraph 27 of
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
the affidavit to the writ petition. The petitioner himself filed a writ
petition, being W.P.No.18220 of 2021, which was withdrawn on
20.1.2022 with liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law
against the infraction of his personal interest. It seems to be
without bringing to the notice of the court that, for the same relief,
earlier the petitioner's father preferred a writ petition and withdrew
it unconditionally, without liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
3. Yet, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, after the
dismissal of the writ petition filed by him seeking the same relief.
The second writ petition itself was not maintainable and even if
liberty was given, it cannot go against the order passed by the court
in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner's father for the same
relief, as stated in paragraph 27 of the affidavit which is quoted
hereunder:
“27. I state that, my father had approached this
Hon'ble High Court earlier for the same relief via the
W.P.No.17181 of 2020 and my father had withdrawn
it due to his health issues and we had applied for
counter affidavit certified copy in the same
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
W.P.No.17181 of 2020 to get it annexed in the
present petition and the certified counter affidavit
copy was not issued till date by the CD – copy
section (S.R.No.3174 of 2022 or 3176 of 2022) and I
am filing the counter affidavit that was received by
my father via registered post from the Auroville
Foundation's Advocate. I had also filed a PIL and
was withdrawn as per the order of this Hon'ble High
Court in the W.P.No.18220 of 2021 on 24.1.2022
and gave me liberty to file a petition in accordance
with law while hearing the W.P.No.597 of 2022 dated
20.1.2022. No other petition was filed by me or my
family members for the above-mentioned Auroville
Foundation's illegal land exchange/purchase. I am
also affected by the Auroville Foundation's
aforementioned illegal, self-serving coercive land
purchase/exchange methods and illegalities done by
the Auroville Foundation Authorities since 28.8.2010,
as I am also one among the Auroville Master Plan
affected private landowner. My father is suffering
from cataract and aged 60 and my other family
members are not fluent in reading or writing in
English....”
4. The reference of the fact aforesaid has been given to show
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
misuse of the jurisdiction of this court and while arguing the writ
petition, the petitioner, appearing in person, did not refer to the
earlier litigation. However, while the court was going through the
pleadings, it was noticed that earlier the petitioner's father
preferred a writ petition and he is still alive. The writ petition
aforesaid was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
Yet, the petitioner filed another writ petition, which was withdrawn
with limited liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law
against the infraction of his personal interest. However, instead of
pursuing the remedy under civil law in reference to the land
belonging to the petitioner, the third writ petition has been filed
seeking the same relief as prayed for in the earlier writ petitions. It
is even without justifying the delay, because even the first writ
petition preferred by the petitioner's father was after lapse of 10
years from the date of the gazette notification. In the meanwhile,
the petitioner's father exchanged the land with the third respondent
without raising any objection to the Master Plan and the notification
under challenge. Thus, even the petitioner's father had accepted
the Master Plan and, therefore, exchanged the land with the third
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
respondent. The petitioner had taken the land in exchange out of
the plan area and now remains one more part of the land for which
the petitioner is asking for compensation or reasonable
consideration from the third respondent, who have expressed their
inability to purchase the land in the absence of required funds and,
thus, they cannot be forced to purchase the land from the
petitioner.
5. The Master Plan cannot otherwise be subjected to challenge
unless it is carved out in violation of the constitutional or statutory
provisions. It is for the reason that Master Plan is drawn for proper
development of the area and, therefore, a part may be kept for the
development of the area for the purpose for which Master Plan is
drawn. In the instant case, it is not a Master Plan drawn for the
entire city, but while drawing the Master Plan for the city, certain
areas are earmarked for green belt/ecological zone/eco-sensitive
zone. If any land belonging to the private person lies within the
area earmarked as green belt or ecology zone, challenge cannot be
made to allow them to use the land for any other purpose than
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
given in the Master Plan. Rather, the Master Plan has to be drawn
to protect the environmental balance, ecology and biodiversity.
6. The issue aforesaid was dealt with by the Larger Bench of
the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gulab Kothari v. State of
Rajasthan, 2019 (2) WLN 331 (Raj.), and the relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:
“54. In view of the discussion above, we
modify/clarify the directions issued by Division Bench
of this court vide order dated 12.1.17 to the extent
indicated below and issue further directions:
(a) The directions issued by this court vide directions
No. (ii) & (iii) directing preparation of Zonal
Development Plan for each zone simultaneously with
the preparation of Master Development Plan or
immediately thereafter, are reiterated and the
modification of the said directions as prayed for, is
declined.
(b) The prayer for modification of directions Nos. (v),
(vi) & (vii) is declined, however, it is clarified that
the Green Zone delineated in the Master
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
Development Plan-2011 of Jaipur Region has to be
protected and the diversion of the area earmarked as
Ecological Zone/Green Zone to other use as
contained in Jaipur Master Development Plan-2025,
which runs contrary to the directions issued by this
court, shall not be made operative. Further, the
diversion of the land use delineated in the
Master Development Plan-2011 for Ecological
Zone/Green Area proposed to be diverted for
other use under Master Development Plan-
2025 is directed to be restored as Ecological
Zone/Green Area and no activities other than
those which are permitted in the Ecological
Zone/Green Area shall be open to be permitted
therein by the State Authorities/ Development
Authorities.
(c) The prayer for permitting the construction of
multi-storey buildings in existing residential colonies,
which are developed with infrastructure facilities
keeping in view the number of family units to be
settled in the houses to be constructed in such
colonies is declined and the directions as contained
in direction no. (xvi) of order dated 12.1.17, are
reiterated.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
(d) The prayer for modification of directions no. (xx)
& (xxi) so as to permit compounding of unauthorised
constructions violating the building line and the set
back norms laid down under the Building Byelaws or
otherwise by the concerned local authority, in terms
of Rules of 1966, is declined. It is clarified that only
the deviations from the building plan duly
sanctioned, which in no manner otherwise violate the
norms laid down under the Building Byelaws
regulating the constructions in the local area could
be permitted to be compounded and not the
deviations which affect the rights of other inhabitants
settled in the local area, such as, height of the
building, projections, set backs, absence of parking
area etc.
(e) The respondents are further directed not to
permit conversion of land use/regularisation of
unauthorised colony or individual unauthorised
constructions until and unless the Zonal
Development Plan and Sector Plans for the local area
concerned governed by Master Development Plan are
prepared, finalized and notified in accordance with
law. Further, the conversion of the land use or
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
regularisation of unauthorised development
shall not be permitted unless the unauthorised
development undertaken fulfills the norms laid
down for requisite infrastructure facilities and
amenities and conforms to the Master
Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan/
Sector Plans/Schemes duly notified.”
[emphasis supplied]
7. In view of the facts of this case and as the present writ
petition would not be maintainable in the light of the dismissal of
the earlier two writ petitions without liberty to file fresh writ
petition, on the aforesaid ground alone, the present writ petition is
liable to be dismissed. However, touching upon other aspects also,
we do not find that the relief prayed by the petitioner can be
granted, when the petitioner has not justified the delay of more
than 12 years to challenge the gazette notification dated 28.8.2010.
8. The writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed. It is however
made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not affect
the petitioner in any manner to use the land for the purpose
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
permissible under law and as per the Master Plan. At the same
time, there would not be any hindrance for exchange or purchase of
the land by the third respondent, if it is negotiated and agreed on
the terms by the petitioner and the third respondent.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
W.M.P.Nos.11832 and 11837 of 2022 are closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
07.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Education
(Formerly HRD Ministry)
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
N.MALA,J.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
(sasi)
W.P.No.12378 of 2022
07.06.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
