Law Permits Planning Authority To Come Out With Layout Plan For Area Wherein Certain Area May Be Reserved For Public Purposes: SC
The Supreme Court observed that under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972, the law permits a planning authority to come out with a Layout Plan or a Master Plan for an area in which certain area may be reserved for public purposes.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Madras High Court by which the Principal Sub-Court’s Judgment was set aside.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “The position under the Act is that law permits a planning authority to come out with a Layout Plan or a Master Plan for an area in which certain area may be reserved for public purposes. Given how our cities are fast expanding, the salutary purpose and objective behind Section 36 of the Act is obvious. Read with Section 2(36), ‘public purpose’ has been given a very wide connotation and could even include keeping the identified land as open spaces to act as lungs for the city in view of environmental considerations.”
The Bench added that the caveat is that though the planning authority can include private land, the way ahead to acquire the land, either by way of resort to land acquisition laws as modified by the Act or by way of agreement with the person(s) concerned [Section 37], but in accordance with the procedure as laid out in Chapter IV of the Act.
Senior Advocate R. Nedumaran represented the Appellants while AOR T. Harish Kumar represented the Respondents.
Factual Background -
For the creation of Nachimuthu Nagar, plots were formed in Mayiladuthurai Town by a person namely Nachimuthu Mudaliar and this was approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Town Planning and the Municipal Commissioner. The layout was approved in 1978 and later revised in 1981. In the Layout, a portion was earmarked for public purpose for the welfare of the residents of Nachimuthu Nagar. That earmarked site was the Suit land/property admeasuring 11200 square feet. It was the Appellants’ case that Mudaliar died in 2004 and the Suit property was sold by his legal heirs via Sale Deed in 2009 to the Appellants. Thereafter, vide an Exchange Deed, the Appellants were put in possession of the property.
The cause of action arose in 2013 when the Appellant No. 1 made clear his intention of constructing a building on the Suit property. The Respondents were the office bearers of Nachimuthu Nagar Resident Welfare Association (Society) and were the Original Plaintiffs in the Suit which was originally filed against the Appellant No. 1. The Trial Court decreed the Suit and granted permanent injunction against the Appellants. Being aggrieved, the Appellants filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was allowed. The Respondents’ Suit was dismissed and pursuantly, they preferred a Second Appeal before the High Court. This was allowed and challenging this, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “In the case at hand, although the Layout (originally 1978 and revised in 1981) shows that it has been earmarked for a public purpose. However, admittedly, nothing happened thereafter in terms of Section 37 of the Act, namely, neither was the land acquired under land acquisition laws nor any agreement was made with the person(s)/owners. Neither the State Government nor Respondent no.3 acted to takeover or gain ownership of the suit property.”
The Court said that, no steps were taken either by the planning authority or the State Government to acquire the land which as per the Act was required to be done within 3 years from publication.
“This apart, ultimately in the year 2005, the Layout itself was revised showing it as a mixed residential area. Be that as it may, on the core issue, we find that the original owner of the suit property, never lost right, title, interest and usage therein. The deeming provision under Section 38(b) of the Act would operate to release the suit property, as the 3-year period would have lapsed, latest in 1984, counted from the year of revision i.e., 1981, after the initial Layout in the year 1978”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court referred to the principle of “nemo dat quad non habet” i.e., no one can give what they do not possess and noted that any transfer of property would carry with it inherently the same restrictions which were existing/passed on to the vendor at the time of passing of the title to the concerned vendee.
“It is not, and has not ever been, the case of the private respondents that the appellants, who had originally bought the suit land and later transferred it have violated the conditions of the Layouts of the years 1978 and 1981 by constructing over it or using it other than for a ‘public purpose’. The only cause of action on which the suit was filed by the private respondents was that the appellants had started construction of the boundary wall”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Suit filed by the Respondents had absolutely no cause of action evincible from a reading of the Plaint and hence, the First Appellate Court rightly interfered and dismissed the Suit. It added that the reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, was erroneous, and cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Order, and restored the First Appellate Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Pradhan Babu and Others v. Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1047)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate R. Nedumaran, AOR Parijat Kishore, and Advocate Beno Bencigar.
Respondents: AOR T. Harish Kumar, Advocates Navneet Dugar, Subham Kothari, Bharathi Subramaniayan, V. Balachandran, and Siddharth Naidu.
