L.MURUGANANTHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for direction to respondents 1 to 5 to obtain gift deed as per the Town Planning Regulation and Rules framed under Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 from the seventh respondent in respect of 40 feet width north-south road with the length of 240 meters leading from Pollachi Road at Dharapuram Town to the entire width of the seventh respondent's School at Dharapuram in Tiruppur District till it touches the north end of the undivided land of the petitioner and the eighth respondent comprised in TS.No.21/1B1 of Ward 7 Block 7 of Dharapuram Town, Tiruppur District as per the approved building plan.

(2.) The seventh respondent obtained building plan approval for its school violating the provisions and rules under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The petitioner owns 2.25 acres out of undivided land to an extent of 4.5 acres comprised in TS.No.21/1B1 of Ward 7, Block 7 of Dharapuram Town (old SF.No.372/2A of Chitravuthanpalayam Village along with the right of 40 feet width east west road and also entitled to easement rights in 40 feet width north south road from Pollachi road. The eighth respondent who is the son of the seventh respondent, filed suit against the petitioner for partition in the subject property along with rights in the said road. In the said suit, the petitioner agreed for preliminary decree as all purchasers of the subject land in the 40 feet road with north south road from Pollachi road has their easement rights. While being so, the seventh respondent obtained building plan approval for construction of school in the year 2005, 2011, 2017 showing 40 feet width north to south road from Pollachi road as main principal access for connectivity to the subject land. As per the building plan, the seventh respondent constructed school with the extent of 1.5 acres in the subject property. However, the seventh respondent obtained building plan approval without gifting the said road for public purpose with collusion of the authorities. Therefore, the seventh respondent claiming absolute ownership of the said road and blocked the said road in the north end of the property.

(3.) The seventh respondent filed counter and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent submitted that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring 2.25 acres out of 4.5 acres comprised in TS.No.21/1B1 and the remaining land belongs to the eighth respondent. The petitioner is not entitled for easementary right in the 40 feet north south road (from Pollachi road). Even in the document and other parent documents, there is no mentioning about the easementary right in 40 feet road. The petitioner has access to his land by existing 40 feet road and no necessity for the petitioner to claim any easementary right in the disputed road. In fact, the said 40 feet road stands in the name of various persons and no relief can be asked as against seventh respondent. Even in the suit for specific performance, there is no mentioning about the disputed 40 feet road. The seventh respondent already approached the District Revenue Officer for transfer of patta in his name in respect of the land situated adjacent to the subject road in which petitioner objected as if the said road is a public road and the same was rejected while transferring the patta. As against the said order, the petitioner also preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the appellate authority. In fact, in the partition suit filed by the eighth respondent, the petitioner did not even whisper about the said road and as such he is estopped from raising the issue before this Court.