ARUPPUKKOTTAI NADARS URAVINMURAI PODHU ABIVIRUTHI TRUST, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR. M. SUDHAHAR Vs. THE COMMISSIONER ARUPPUKKOTTAI MUNICIPALITY ARUPPUKKOTTAI AND THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions namely W.P.No.359 of 1996 and W.P.No.360 of 1996. The first writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling upon the quashing of the order passed by the first respondent, Commissioner, Aruppukkottai Municipality dated 7.11.1995. By that order, the permission to construct over T.S.Nos.28,29,42 and 43 was rejected on the ground that those lands were part of the scheme and in the scheme a road was said to be passing from those lands.

(2.) The second Writ Petition No. 360 of 1996 is well connected with the first writ petition inasmuch as the relief asked for is quashing of the order Vide Na.Ka.No.46451/94, DP 1(1) dated 16.8.1995, passed by the second respondent, Director of Town and Country Planning. By that order, concerned officer had refused to delete these above mentioned lands from the scheme. It therefore follows that the petitioner, who wanted to develop the lands and construct something over them, required the permission of Aruppukkottai Municipality. However, since these lands were the part of the scheme under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the Municipality refused the permission to construct and, therefore, the petitioner approached the Town Planning authorities to get these lands deleted from the scheme, so that the hurdle of the scheme was removed from his way for making constructions on those lands. Following factual background will help us understand the controversy.

(3.) It is an admitted position that the petitioner holds pattas in respect of the lands in question. Though in 1961 the Municipality opposed to grant pattas, the petitioner was granted the pattas in the year 1962 and those pattas were granted by the settlement officer under Act 26 of 1948. Thereafter, in 1971, the Director, Town and Country Planning sanctioned a plan by way of a scheme, wherein T.S.Nos.28,29,42 and 43 were shown to be required for public roads. However, it is an admitted position that in pursuance of the scheme this land was never acquired either by the Municipality or by the Government. The petitioner applied for permission to construct, which application was granted. The petitioner also received a letter dated 15.11.1994 to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/ - towards plan variation fee. However, subsequently this permission came to be revoked by order dated 16.8.1995 Vide Na.Ka.No.46451/94, DP 1(1). The petitioner, therefore, again filed an application for permission to put up construction. On the other side, the petitioner also applied for deletion of the lands from the scheme. So, while the application before the Municipal Council was pending, the second respondent i.e., the Director, Town and Country Planning rejected the application for deletion of these lands from the scheme. Consequently, the application for construction made to the Municipality was also rejected vide order dated 7.11.1995. That was rejected on two grounds, firstly that the constructions were not in keeping with the building rules as the petitioner had not left open space as per Rule 14(1) and secondly that the lands were included in the scheme. It is against all this that the present two writ petitions came to be filed as stated above.