COMMISSIONER ARUPPUKOTTAI MUNCIPALITY Vs. K S KAMAKSHI CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/Municipality has preferred the present writ appeal as against the order dated 5.2.2008 in W.P. No. 27123 of 2003 passed by the learned single Judge.

(2.) THE Learned single Judge, while passing the order in W.P. No. 27123 of 2003 dated 5.2.2008, among other things, observed that the respondents had clearly stated in the affidavit, "even under the old Act VII of 1920, no steps were taken for the purpose of completing the acquisition within three years and the same has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent(appellant). Even assuming that the said scheme has been taken over under the Act 35 of 1972, even from the date of coming into effect of the Act within the period stipulated under Section 38, no steps have been taken by the respondents therein for acquiring the property for the purpose of "open space" stated to have been reserved under the North-East Extension Town Planning Scheme Part II, Aruppukottai sanctioned under G.O. Ms. No. 474 LA dated 2.3.1969" and resultantly allowed the writ petition.

(3.) THE Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Municipality submitted that the order of the learned single Judge was contrary to the established principles of law and further, land in question was ear marked for the purpose of public utilization and it was declared as "Open Space" vide G.O. Ms. No. 434 LA dated 2.3.1969 under Section 14(3) of Madras Town Planning Act VII of 1920 and as such the land was allotted to the Municipality. But, these material facts were not taken note of by the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition, which resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice.