Madras High Court
V.Soumya Narayanan vs The Commissioner on 30 March, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.7464 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :30.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(MD)No.7464 of 2016
and W.M.P(MD).Nos.6272 and 10259 of 2016
V.Soumya Narayanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent, his
men, agents or servants from laying road in the property in question
belonged to the petitioner to an extent of 30X100=3000 Sq.Ft in
T.S.No.17/A4 in Ward No.M, Block No.36, Vadavur Revenue Village,
Thennur Village, Ram Nagar, Tiruchirappalli City.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Devaraj
For Respondents :Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram
for M/s.R.B Associates
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7464 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to restrain the respondent from laying a road
in the property admeasuring 3000 sq.ft in T.S.No.17/4A in Ward No.M,
Block No.36, Vadavur Revenue Village, Thennur Village, Ram Nagar,
Tiruchirappalli City.
2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Mr.M.R.Ramesh,
Junior Engineer of the respondent Corporation is present.
3. The petitioner asserts that the above mentioned property was
part of a larger extent of 1.66 acres, which was owned originally by
R.Ramarayar, as per the Settlement Register of the year 1930. The petitioner
states that he is the grand son of V.R.Gopala Rao and that V.R.Gopala Rao is
the grand son of Ramarayar.
4. According to the petitioner, his grand father created a lay out in
respect of the above mentioned extent of 1.66 acres by plotting the said
lands. However, it is stated that he retained the extent of 3000 sq.ft.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7464 of 2016
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this extent of
3000 sq.ft was informally reserved as a road because previously it was the
access to 7th Cross Thillai Nagar. He further submits that the petitioner was
constrained to approach this Court because the respondent Corporation is
preventing the petitioner from putting the property to use. According to
learned counsel, if the respondent wants to acquire the property, appropriate
proceedings should be instituted. Even for purposes of reserving the land
under a detailed development plan, learned counsel submits that Section 38
of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, should be
adhered to.
6. In response to these submissions, learned Standing Counsel for
the Corporation submits that the petitioner's ancestors decided to form a
lay out. In connection therewith, they submitted a plan. In the said plan, this
plot was shown as a road. The said plan provided for 13 plots in the overall
extent. The said plan was approved by the local authority at the relevant
point of time under D.T.P/T.P.No.52/67. Once the relevant plot was shown
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7464 of 2016
as a road in the plan submitted for approval and such plan was duly
approved, learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot assert title over
the said plot. He further submits that the owners of the plots in the relevant
lay out have stated that the said plot is intended for public purposes and that
the petitioner is not entitled to any rights in respect of such land. Learned
Standing Counsel further submits that Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town
and Country Planning Act, 1971, is not applicable to lands reserved for
public purpose under an approved lay out plan. He also places reliance on
the judgment of this Court in S.A.Nos.510 and 518 of 2019 dated
26.04.2019.
7. From the approved lay out plan placed on record by the learned
Standing Counsel, it is evident that the plot which currently bears
T.S.No.17/4A has been depicted as a road in such plan. Since the approved
plan depicts this property as a road, the petitioner is not entitled to
discretionary relief to prevent the respondent from laying a road on such
plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that he has been in
possession of the said land for several decades and is also entitled to assert
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7464 of 2016
title by way of adverse possession. Those aspects should be dealt with by a
jurisdictional civil court and not in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
8. In the facts and circumstances set out above, I am not inclined
to exercise jurisdiction by issuing a Mandamus as prayed for by the
petitioner. W.P(MD).No.7464 of 2016 is disposed of on the above terms.
Consequently, connected W.M.P(MD).Nos.6272 and 10259 of 2016 are
closed.
30.03.2023
NCC :No
Internet :Yes
Index :No
ssb
To
The Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Tiruchirapalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.7464 of 2016
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
ssb
W.P.(MD)No.7464 of 2016
30.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
