P.KALIAPPAN Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to direct the respondents herein to restore the possession of the Lands in S.F.No.345/1 measuring 27 cents each situated at Irugur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District, back to the petitioners forthwith for putting up a Community Hall in the said lands.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the lands comprised in S.F.No.345/1 ad-measuring to an extent of 27 cents each situated at Irugur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District by the registered sale deeds dtd. 11/9/1985 and 31/5/1993, vide Document Nos.2219/1985 and 2619/1993. From the date of their purchase, they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. In furtherance to the said sale deeds, all the revenue records were mutated and patta also issued in their favour. In fact, they also obtained electricity service connections. The petitioners purchased the said lands with intention to construct a community hall. The said lands form part of a layout approved by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, vide his letter No.10048/84 Ko.Pe.N1.Ma.5 dtd. 29/1/1985. In the said approval, 1.55 acres was earmarked for park, play field and open spaces, 0.54 acres was earmarked for community hall and 0.22 acres was earmarked for shops. The lands which were earmarked for park, play field and open spaces and road areas were handed over to the local authority by the developer as per the layout condition by execution of gift deed dtd. 11/9/1985. As per the approval of layout, there is no prohibition for the sale of the lands meant for community hall and shops by the developer. Therefore, the petitioners approached the second respondent with the application for permission to construct community hall. Before that, the petitioners constructed a small farm house and also obtained electricity service connection. At that juncture, the respondents forcibly dispossessed the petitioners and also demolished their small farm house and destroyed the Coconut trees, which were planted in the subject lands. Hence, both the Writ Petitions.

(3.) The second respondent filed counter stating that the original owner viz., R.Govindarajulu and six others have formed a layout in Survey Nos.341, 342, 343, 342/2 part, 344/1, 344/2, 345/1 and 351/1 situated at Irugur Town Panchayat ad-measuring to an extent of 20.80 acres. It was approved by the Senior Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore, vide Roc.No.10048/84 (CPN), dtd. 29/1/1985 and LPR.No.12/85 dtd. 29/1/1985. The approved layout plan was sanctioned on condition that the land owner shall execute gift deed for play ground, park, community hall, OHT and open area. While that being so, the petitioners knowing fully and wantonly purchased the lands which were reserved for community hall and other purposes with ulterior motive and it is highly illegal and irregular and also violative of layout conditions prescribed by the Senior Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore. Later, the petitioner in W.P.No.29911 of 2012 also sold the sites bearing Nos.118 and 123 in the approved layout plan to the third parties. Therefore, the very purchase is illegal and contrary to the conditions imposed while granting approval. The said land was already gifted by the land owner in favour of the second respondent by the gift deed. The law mandates that the lands reserved for public purpose in a layout plan or in a development plan or master plan approved by the local body cannot be used for any other purpose than the one specified therein by the layout promoter. The lands meant for community hall and other lands allocated for public purpose are well within 10% of the total extent of the land submitted for approval. Therefore, the lands allocated in the approved layout plan should not be altered in any manner and in any form and by any persons including the petitioners herein. However, the original land owners have not handed over the said lands which were earmarked as community hall, play ground and OHT to the second respondent. The petitioners never applied for any permission to construct community hall in the subject lands. Therefore, the second respondent had taken action for evicting the encroachments made by the petitioners in the subject lands reserved for public purpose of constructing community hall with the help of Revenue Officials and Police personnels. Thereafter, the coconut crops found in the subject lands have been leased out for a period of one year to the tune of Rs.15,500.00. However, the work order of constructing Compound Wall in the community hall was allotted to the contractor and therefore, prayed for dismissal of these Writ Petitions.