M R GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER COPORATION TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other order or orders or appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records connected with proceedings No. 1551/85, dated 7. 4. 1985 of the 2nd respondent in Survey no. 2191/i No. 4a, Nelson Road, Sarthy Nagar, Srirangam, Trichy District and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent not to acquire the petitioner's land to an extent of 6,700 sq. ft.

(2.) THE petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he purchased a plot of land measuring to an extent of 6,700 sq. ft. in the year 1983 for a consideration of Rs. 16,400. THE petitioner along with four persons approached the authorities for approval of the lay out to the then Srirangam Municipality in the same S. No. 2191/1 and the same was sanctioned on 12. 7. 1984, subject to certain conditions. Some of the important conditions were that the petitioner should maintain a playground, park and shopping area among other conditions given in the sanctioned lay out. In the year 1984 the area covered by the srirangam Municipality was brought within the jurisdiction of Tiruchirapalli corporation. It is further stated that on 11. 12. 1994 the first respondent without due notice to the petitioner demolished a part of the superstructure constructed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) 4. 1985 challenged and the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India only in the year 1994 i. e. 26. 12. 1994 and as such the writ petition has to be dismissed for laches and the delay in preferring the writ petition has not been explained by the petitioner. He further submitted that the prayer of the writ petitioner cannot be granted as it will amount to questioning the layout plan sanctioned in 1985, wherein the petitioner and three other have given undertaking to comply with the conditions of the layout and among the other conditions with regard to the playground, the petitioner is bound to comply with the same. 7. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/ Sarathy Nagar Welfare Association submitted that to safeguard the interests of the persons who have purchased the plot, the petitioner is bound by the conditions of the layout and if any change is made contrary to the said conditions it will affect the enjoyment of the other persons who have purchased the plots and constructed dwelling units on the same.