RAJA BASKARA KUMARA SHANMUGAM ALIAS N KUMARAN SETHUPATHY Vs. DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ANNA SALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is stated to be the owner of the lands at S. No. 313/1 which is co-related to T. S. No. 86 A/1 and 321/1a, 2b1, 314/2, Rajasuriyamadai Group, Ramanathapuram.

(2.) IN this present Writ Petition we are concerned only with the S. No. 313/1. According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to Shanmuga Rajehswara Sethupathy, the Raja of Ramnad. Under the Estate Abolition Act when the Government took steps to cancel the patta issued in respect of the lands the same was challenged by the original owner, the then Raja of Ramnad. This Court in W. P. No. 3920/1976 by order dated 31. 1. 1979 has set aside the order and restored the patta issued in respect of the said land. The said S. Ramanatha Sethupathi has applied for permission to divide the lands comprised in various Survey Numbers including the land in S. No. 313/1 as plots to the Municipal Commissioner, Ramnathapuram, the 2nd respondent. The Director of Town and Country Planning accorded sanctioned lay-out on 10. 12. 1974 and the second respondent Municipality has also passed a resolution on 10. 1. 1975 approving the lay-out subject to various conditions laid down by the Director of Town and Country Planning. According to the petitioner, the sanction was only a provisional sanction and as per the lay-out, places which were left for 30 feet street are to be metallized, drainage and other facilities have to be provided. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the lay-out the original owner has not gifted any portion of the properties which are ear-marked for public purposes for streets, etc. , and therefore, apart from the said conditional approval made by the Municipality, no further steps were taken and therefore, the approved plan was not given effect to. The petitioner's mother Smt. Mahalakshmi Nachiyar was allotted the land in question, namely, S. No. 313/1 along with some other plots also. She has also not acted as per the sanctioned plan and the plan was not given effect to. The petitioner being the legal heir of Smt. Mahalakshmi Nachiyar wanted to make improvement of the land and it was at that time the authorities have raised objections that the construction has to be done as per the approved lay-out of the year 1974. The petitioner's case is that, inasmuch as no further action was taken based on the approved lay-out, there is no presumption of existence of any road portion and therefore, the petitioner is free to put up the construction as he likes subject to any subsequent statutory restrictions and it is his case in respect of various other cases also the second respondent Municipality has given necessary sanction for putting up construction. It is in these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent Municipality stating that the petitioner has encroached upon the 30 feet street which has been ear-marked in the approved lay-out and that should be treated as unauthorised occupation and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any notice for the purpose of removal of such encroachment. It is the said order which is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including that, as per the sanctioned lay-out of 1974 nothing was done and therefore, there is no presumption of any street allotted for public purpose, that the second respondent has itself approved sanction of building plans in respect of various other properties in the same Survey Number as well as properties comprised in the lay-out without insisting for leaving place for allotment of public street, that under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act when once plan has been sanctioned if the plan is not given effect to within a period of three years the said plan lapses and thereafter, it is only for the party to make fresh application and in the present case, the petitioner is not interested in proceeding with the lay-out and he has not made any application and that even as per the District Municipalities Act, if any alteration is made, it is open to the authorities to remove such alteration or unauthorised construction only after giving notice.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the case of the second respondent Municipality that when once the plan was sanctioned in 1974 which contains various provisions for public purpose including street, etc. , it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to keep those provisions for public purpose and it is not open to him to use as he likes.