Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs G.Ramkumar ... 1St on 12 September, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, C.Saravanan
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No. 2525, 2521, 2523, 2526, 2528, 2532 and 2542 of 2022
and
C.M.P.Nos.19852, 19808, 19839, 19860, 19884, 19877 and 19993 of 2022
The Commissioner,
Corporation of Coimbatore,
Big Bazaar Street,
Coimbatore – 641 001. ...Appellant in all the W.As
Vs.
1.G.Ramkumar ... 1st Respondent in W.A.2525/22
1.R.Narasimhan ... 1st Respondent in W.A.2521/22
1.K.A.Ramanathan ... 1st Respondent in W.A.2523/22
1.Pallavi @ Pallavi M.Majithia ... 1st Respondent in W.A.2526/22
1.D.S.Ravikumar ... 1st Respondent in W.A.2528/22
1.P.Selvabalaji ... 1st Respondent in W.A.2542/22
2.The Deputy Director,
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Office of the Regional Director,
Coimbatore Region,
Corporation Shopping Complex,
Dr. Nanjappa Road, ATT Colony,
Gopalapuram, Coimbatore – 641 018.
...2nd Respondent in all the W.As
PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
to allow the Writ Appeals and set aside the common order dated 09.12.2020
made in W.P.Nos.10607, 10621, 10738, 10725, 10617, 10736 and 11436 of
2020.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Magesh
For Respondents : Mr.C.Gauthama Raj,
Govt. Advocate for R2
Mr.R.N.Amarnath for R1
******
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The batch of present intra-Court Appeals have been instituted against the
common order of the writ Court dated 09.12.2020.
2. The Commissioner, Corporation of Coimbatore / 1st respondent in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
Writ Petitions have instituted the present appeals. The facts in brief have not
been controverted between the parties. The layout has been approved in the
year 1987 in the subject property at Coimbatore. Presently the subject property
is falling under the territorial jurisdiction of Coimbatore Corporation. The
layout has been named as “Maharani Avenue – IV” and the residential plots
were sold. The roads, children parks and certain common areas are not been
gifted by the promoter. Even it is not gifted, those roads, parks etc., vest with
the local Authorities under the provisions of the Act and as per the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Association of Vasanth
Apartents' Owners Vs. V.Gopinath reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 137.
3. The issue cropped up on account of the fact that the area earmarked for
development of community hall had been sold as residential plots in favour of
few persons by the promoter of the layout. Subsequently, the respondents have
purchased some portions of the property, which is earmarked for developing
community hall.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents would mainly contend that
based on the Circular issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning
dated 17.08.1987 necessary approval has been obtained from Veerakeralam
Town Panchayat. Based on the said letter of the Director of Town and Country
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
Planning, the Town Panchayat has granted approval for converting the
community hall space as housing plots. The conversion of community hall as
housing plots have been approved by the proceedings of the Executive Officer
Veerakeralam Town Panchayat on 02.09.1991.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Coimbatore Corporation raised
serious objections on the ground that the common spaces earmarked under the
original layout cannot be converted as housing plots and further cannot be sold
in favour of any other persons. The purpose for which the land is allotted under
the original layout is to be utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted and
any conversion or reclassification is impermissible under the provisions of the
Act and Rules. It is mainly contended that the Executive Officer of the
Veerakeralam Town Panchayat is not the competent Authority for conversion of
community hall spaces into housing plots. Therefore, the order passed by the
Executive Officer is nullity in the eye of law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents would further contend that the
Corporation has not initiated action against some other persons who had also
converted the common space as housing plots and constructed buildings
particularly in plot Nos.4 and 12. No action has been taken by the Corporation
against those persons who made constructions illegally and without obtaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
any planning permission from the competent Authorities.
7. It is needless to state that the buildings constructed without planning
permission are unauthorized construction. The Authorities competent are bound
to initiate action for removal of unauthorized constructions by following the
procedures as contemplated under the relevant provisions of Act and Rules. As
far as the approved layouts are concerned, the law is settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the common areas earmarked i.e., OSR, children parks,
roads, community halls, religious places, schools etc., cannot be altered nor be
re-classified and sold for some other purposes. Though certain common areas
falling under the salable area, it is to be sold only for the purpose for which it
has been earmarked in the approved layout and the purchaser has to utilize the
land for the purpose for which it was sold and the promoter is bound to impose
conditions while selling the land. This being the legal position, the action
initiated by the Corporation cannot be said to be perverse.
8. It is made clear that the common areas earmarked are to be utilized
only for the purpose for which it has been earmarked in the original layout and
the conversion of the community hall land as housing plots pursuant to the
directions of the Executive Officer, Veerakeralam Panchayat is null and void
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
and non est in law and issued without any Authority under law. Thus, the said
approval would not confer any right to any persons to utilize the land contrary
to the scheme of the original layout.
9. As far as the illegalities pointed out by the respondents are concerned,
the competent Authorities of the Corporation has to issue notice setting out the
facts and details to the illegal constructions or unauthorized constructions and
initiate appropriate action by following the procedures as contemplated under
the relevant statutes and Rules in force.
10. As far as the findings of the writ Court are concerned, it is in
consonance with the provisions of the Act as well as legal position settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
order of the writ Court. It is made clear that in the event of issuing any notice
by the Corporation against the unauthorized constructions, the persons
aggrieved are at liberty to raise all the grounds / defences before the Authority
in response to the notice, if any issued. However, it is made clear that the entire
area earmarked for community hall is to be used for construction of community
hall. Thus, it is unnecessary for the Corporation to fence the area at present.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ orders impugned are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
set aside and consequently the Writ Appeals are allowed with the above
observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
12.09.2025
dsa
Index :Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
To:
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Coimbatore,
Big Bazaar Street,
Coimbatore – 641 001.
2.The Deputy Director,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Office of the Regional Director,
Coimbatore Region,
Corporation Shopping Complex,
Dr. Nanjappa Road, ATT Colony,
Gopalapuram, Coimbatore – 641 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
W.A.Nos.2525 of 2022 etc., batch
------------------------------------------
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
dsa
W.A.No. 2525, 2521, 2523, 2526,
2528, 2532 and 2542 of 2022
12.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:54:47 pm )
