Madras High Court
The President vs / on 2 January, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.(MD)No.1232 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.(MD)No.1232 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015
The President,
Sankarapuram Panchayat,
Sakkottai Panchayat Union,
Karaikudi Taluk,
Sivagangai District. ...Appellant
/Vs./
1.S.Antonysamy
2.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Member Secretary / Assistant Director,
Town and Country Planning,
District Collector Office Campus,
Sivagangai – 630 561.
4.The Commissioner / Block Development Officer,
Sakkottai Panchayat Union,
Sivagangai. ...Respondents
(R3 & R4 are suo motu impleaded as per the order of this Court dated
12.09.2023.)
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1232 of 2015
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 23.06.2015 made in W.P.(MD)No.14603 of 2013
on the file of this Court and thereby allow this appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu (R1)
Mr.A.K.Manikkam (R2 to R4)
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
first respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader.
2. The appellant herein is the second respondent in
WP(MD)No.14603 of 2013, who was the President of Sankarapuram
Panchayat at that point of time. The first respondent herein, Antonysamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had purchased a piece of land in a layout for residential purpose and
when he sought for building permission, it was denied by the President of
the Panchayat, who is the appellant herein on the ground that as per the
original approved layout in the year 1983, the portion in dispute was
allotted for establishing post office. Hence, Antonysamy, the first
respondent herein filed a writ of cerfiorarified mandamus to quash the
impugned order passed by the President of Panchayat dated 04.02.2023
and sought for building permission for constructing a house at S.No.
9/6A, 2A, 1B1, Re.S.No.9/62 at Sekkalalikottai village, Sankarapuram
Panchayat.
3. The learned Single Judge, on considering the facts and
records allowed the writ petition on 23.06.2015 holding that the gift deed
alleged to have been executed by the promoters in favour of the
Panchayat is an unregistered deed and after the deed of gift dated
19.04.1983, there was reconsideration of the approval in respect of the
piece of land earmarked for post office. The Commissioner of Panchayat
Union had issued proceedings dated 02.04.1991 subdividing 22 cents of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
land falling within S.Nos.9/1A, 2A, 3A and 4A. Subsequent to
subdivision, Antonysamy, writ petitioner had purchased a piece of land
and therefore, there cannot be impediment for him to construct the
building. Hence, the impugned order passed by the President of
Sankarapuram Panchayat was quashed and the writ petitioner was
permitted to resubmit the building plan for approval along with required
fee. On such application being submitted, the same was directed to be
considered by the respondent within a period of four weeks. Being
aggrieved by the order, the present writ appeal is filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / second
respondent in writ petition, namely, the President, Sankarapuram
Panchayat submitted that the writ petition was disposed of without
affording opportunity to the appellant. The proceedings of the
Commissioner dated 02.04.1991 is contrary to law. Once a piece of land
is gifted for public purpose under a layout plan approval, the said piece
of land cannot be altered or utilized for any other purpose and the
Commissioner of Panchayat has no authority to subdivide the piece of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
land. Therefore, the reference to the proceedings dated 02.04.1991
passed by the Commissioner is erroneous and unsustainable.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / writ
petitioner submitted that the first respondent / writ petitioner is a
bonafide purchaser of the piece of land, which has been permitted to be
alienated, since the said piece of land though earmarked for the purpose
of establishing post office, neither gifted to Postal Department nor
claimed by the Postal Department. The piece of land which was
earmarked for post office as per the original layout plan approval in the
year 1983 has not been needed by the Postal Department and therefore,
the proceedings dated 02.04.1991 was issued by the Commissioner of
Panchayat permitting the title holder to subdivide it into residential plots
and accordingly, after subdivision, the first respondent / writ petitioner
has purchased the property and there is no violation of any layout plan
approval.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. This Court, after hearing the submissions to ascertain
whether there was a revised layout plan approval, after the proceedings
of the Commissioner of Panchayat dated 02.04.1991, suo motu
impleaded the Member Secretary / Assistant Director, Town and Country
Planning, District Collector Office Campus, Sivagangai, and The
Commissioner / Block Development Officer, Sakkottai Panchayat Union,
Sivagangai, vide order dated 12.09.2023.
7. The core issue involved in this writ appeal is that whether
the sale of piece of land in favour of the first respondent / writ petitioner
is permissible under law, since it forms part of the land earmarked for
post office as per the original layout plan approval dated 06.04.1983.
8. The records on perusal reveal that on 06.04.1983, layout
plan was approved subject to certain conditions and one such condition is
to gift the portion earmarked for public purpose which includes park,
primary health centre, post office and roads. After seven years of the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
approval, since the Postal Department has not shown any interest in
establishing post office in the portion earmarked and the gift deed though
executed in favour of the Commissioner of Panchayat Union, but not
registered, a request has been made by the promoters to subdivide 22
cents of land earmarked for post office.
9. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Panchayat has
reconsidered his earlier layout plan approval, and permitted for
subdivision of 22 cents of land into four residential plots. Thereafter, the
first respondent / writ petitioner in the year 2002 had purchased plot
number 1A measuring 702 sq. fts. and got the sale deed registered on
27.05.2002 and sought for building permission. The elected President of
the Panchayat at that point of time had refused to grant building
approval, which has given a cause of action for filing writ petition by
Anthonysamy, the first respondent herein.
10. After a lapse of more than 12 years, when the writ appeal
came up for final hearing, the President, who contested the writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is nomore in the office and interestingly, his wife is the present elected
President and she entered into the shoes of the erstwhile President and
wants to contest the appeal. The right of the Panchayat President in this
matter is very limited locus, more so when the Commissioner of
Panchayat, who has granted layout plan approval in the year 1983 had
reconsidered and permitted for subdivision of 22 cents of land originally
earmarked for post office.
11. The elected President of the Panchayat questions the
validity of the proceedings passed by the Commissioner of Panchayat in
Mu.Mu.No.1500/91 dated 02.04.1991. The order impugned by the first
respondent in the writ petition does not take note of the subsequent
proceedings of the Commissioner passed eight years after the original
layout approval. Suppressing that proceedings, the impugned order has
been passed and that has been pointed out by the learned Single Judge. If
at all the President has any grievance about the proceedings of the
Commissioner of Panchayat dated 02.04.1991, he / she should have
questioned it at that point of time and cannot wait for the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
herein to purchase the land and try to put a spoke in his attempt to
construct building after purchasing the land for valuable consideration.
12. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the
learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly appreciated the facts and
quashed the impugned proceedings issued by the erstwhile President of
the Panchayat vide order dated 04.02.2013. The scope on considering
the facts of the case does not find any error in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and therefore, uphold the said order.
13. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed as devoid of
merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[G.J.J.,] & [C.K.J.,]
02.01.2024
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TO:-
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The Member Secretary / Assistant Director,
Town and Country Planning,
District Collector Office Campus,
Sivagangai – 630 561.
3.The Commissioner / Block Development Officer,
Sakkottai Panchayat Union,
Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
sm
Judgment made in
Dated:
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
