Madras High Court
R.Saravanan vs The Chief Secretary on 26 September, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Petition (MD) No.9888 of 2019
R.Saravanan .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
6th Floor, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Dindigul District.
4.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Madurai Division, Madurai.
5.The Commissioner,
Dindigul Corporation,
Dindigul. .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to extend the
6 meter road through the petitioner's plot for the purpose of public pathway of
the MIG residence and to provide the same extent of land from the vacant
land, situated in front of the house of the petitioner after receiving the
consideration based on the Government value of that site and further, to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2019
modify the original plan of R.M.Colony, Dindigul, as mentioned in the
petitioner's representation, dated 06.04.2019, within a time frame that may be
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Palanichamy
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
For 5th Respondent : Mr.J.Lawrance
ORDER
The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct
the first respondent to extend the 6 meter road through his plot for the purpose
of public pathway of the MIG residence and to provide the same extent of land
from the vacant land, situated in front of his house after receiving the
consideration based on the Government value of that site and further, to
modify the original plan of R.M.Colony, Dindigul, as mentioned in the his
representation, dated 06.04.2019, within a time frame that may be stipulated
by this Court.
2.According to the petitioner, his son namely, R.Saravanan purchased
Plot No.H.68-L from Madurai Housing Unit on 17.11.2000. Thereafter, he
executed a general power deed, dated 28.06.2022, in favour of the petitioner
before the Vedasandur Sub-Registrar Office at Vedasandur. The property tax
has been regularly paid to the fourth respondent. The Madurai Housing Unit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2019
executed a sale deed, dated 26.02.2010, in favour of his son, and allotted a
small portion of the vacant site for Park. However, the said land was not used
for the said purpose. Immediately, the petitioner has approached the fourth
respondent and submitted a representation, dated 14.02.2015, but the same was
not considered. Therefore, again, the petitioner sent a representation to the
respondents 1 and 4, dated 19.02.2016. The fourth respondent, vide his
communication, dated 20.04.2016, rejected the petitioner's request. Hence, the
petitioner sent a representation dated 28.07.2016, to the fourth respondent
under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Thereafter, the fourth respondent
informed that the petitioner's representation was varied from the quoted
judgment. Again, the petitioner sent representations to the respondents on
various dates. However, no action has been taken on the petitioner's
representations. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of
filing the present Writ Petition.
3.The fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner
is not entitled to the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition. The
petitioner's request has already been rejected vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
3026/2016/F3, dated 24.10.2016. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge
the said proceedings. The land measuring an extent of 120 sq.ft. is concerned,
was earmarked for construction of a Park and the said land is under the control
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2019
of the fifth respondent. The said area namely, Rani Mangammal Colony Unit
II was developed as housing plots under various categories morefully, LIG,
MIG and HIG etc. by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Further, the Director of
Town and Country Planning also approved the scheme and gave approval vide
Plan Approval No.67/06. As per the said approval, certain extent of lands
were earmarked for public purposes morefully, construction of roads, pathway,
parks, drainage channels, small bridges, ground level water tanks and
overhead tanks etc. Further, vide Document No.257, dated 25.01.2010, the
Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board also executed a gift
deed in favour of the fifth respondent Corporation for public purposes. Insofar
as 120 sq.ft. of land mentioned by petitioner is concerned, the same is
earmarked for public purposes and the same cannot be assigned to anyone.
4.Further, as per G.O.(Ms)No.730, dated 14.04.1996, the immovable
property of the Corporation cannot be transferred to any person's name. In the
said circumstances, the question of possession of the said extent of land since
2000 by the petitioner does not arise and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
Writ Petition.
5.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
on either side, it is seen that the said 120 sq.ft. of land mentioned by petitioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2019
is shown as Park in the revenue records and only thereafter, layout was formed
and it was approved. Hence, the said land cannot be utilized for any other
purposes and the claim made by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has
got no right to ask for the said land. It is made clear that it is MIG type of
houses and the property, which has been earmarked for Park cannot be utilized
for any other purposes, which is made clear in catena of judgments of this
Court and there cannot be any violation of those judgments and the petitioner's
claim was rejected and this Court is not inclined to direct the Director of Town
and Country Planning not to approve the scheme and earmark the lands for
public purposes, such as, construction of roads, pathway, parks, drainage
channels, small bridges, ground level water tanks and over head tanks etc.
Further, vide Document No.257, dated 25.01.2010, the Managing Director of
Tamil Nadu Housing Board also executed a gift deed in favour of the fifth
respondent for development of the earmarked places for public purposes. This
being a housing colony, the Corporation cannot transfer the said land, which
has been earmarked for Park only and the same cannot be used for any other
purposes and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is
also made clear that the respondent Corporation to maintain the same as a
Park, by putting up proper fence and develop it as a Park, so that, the children
in the said area can utilize the same as a playing area.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2019
6.The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 26.09.2022
smn2
To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
6th Floor, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Collector,
Dindigul District.
4.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Madurai Division, Madurai.
5.The Commissioner,
Dindigul Corporation,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.9888 of 2019
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
smn2
Order made in
W.P.(MD) No.9888 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26.09.2022
