TMT MANGAYARKARASI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A draft proposal for Bibikulam Scheme in T. S. No. 2480 was formulated during the year 1968, but before finalisation of the same, the Town Planning Officer, Madurai Corporation has approved the lay out plan to the petitioner. As per the Scheme, 40 feet width road was earmarked in between the petitioners' land and the 5th respondent's land. The Scheme was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning on 31. 12. 1986 and thereafter it was notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 11. 1. 1989.

(2.) IT appears that the 5th respondent, the owner of the land opposite to the petitioners' land filed a representation to the authorities for reconsideration of the Scheme by reducing the width of the road from 40 feet to 20 feet on the ground that the total width of his land is only 56 feet and if the road is formed with 30 feet, he will be left with only 26 feet and the said land will be rendered useless. The representation of the 5th respondent was considered and by the impugned orders, the variation of the earlier Scheme was made whereby the width of the road in between the petitioners' land and the 5th respondent's land was reduced to 20 feet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) MR. V. RENGARAJAN, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that variation as made is not contemplated under Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Even assuming that the Scheme could be varied, it could be varied only for the public purpose and not for protecting the interest of an individual and finally, the learned counsel would submit that in any case, if the length of the road is more than 200 feet, the width of the road cannot be reduced below 40' by exercising the power under Section 33 of the Act as virtually the length of the road is more than 200 feet. In this context, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in BANGALORE MEDICAL TRUST VS B. S. MUDDAPPA ( A. I. R. 1991 Supreme Court 1902) and the judgment of this Court reported in ELIMALAI AND 11 OTHERS VS CORPORATION OF MADRAS AND OTHERS (2002 (3) Law Weekly 180)