PILLAYAR P.K.V.K.N. TRUST THRU RAMANATHAN versus KARPAGA N.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 01-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 1 
PILLAYAR P.KV.K.N. TRUST THRU RAMANATHAN 
v. 
KARPAGA N.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7305-7306 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Urban Development - Town planning - Trust acquiring~ 
certain land - Dividing of the land into plots - Approval of 
layout plan for the land - Trust selling off the plots except forty C 
Plots - On revalidation of the plan, the forty plots shown as 
reserved for public purpose - A subsequent layout plan, which 
cancelled the previous plan, demarcated the forty plots as 
residential area - Denial to make construction on two of the 
forty plots by Municipal Corporation on the ground that the o 
plots were reserved for public purpose - Later in subsequent 
plan the forty plots shown as reserved for public purpose -
The same being questioned, the State de-reserved the area 
earmarked for public purpose - Order of de-reservation set-
aside by High Court - On appeal, held: Order of the High E 
Court is erroneous - Challenge to the order of de-reservation 
was not correct - Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 
1971 - s. 250(2) - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning 
Act, 1971 - ss. 37 and 38. 
Appellant-Trust acquired certain land to the extent of F 
76.12 acres. It divided the same into 910 plots and 
prepared a layout plan for the entire extent of the land. 
The plan contained provisions for roads which area was 
to the extent of 21 acres. This layout plan was approved 
by Town Panchayat in the year 1972 in P.R.No. 21172. The G 
Trust sold the plots, retaining 40 plots for its own use. 
After merger of the Town Panchayat with the City 
Municipal Corporation,. the original plan (21/72) was 
revalidated as Plan No. 1/75 wherein the 40 plots were 
1 
. 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 OJ 11 S.C.R. 
A 
shown as reserved for school. Thereafter in 1979-80, the 
local Planning Authority prepared a detailed development 
plan which also included the lands covered by the layout 
plan of the Trust and the same was approved as Plan No. 
12/80. In this plan the 40 plots were demarcated as 
B residential area. It was later informed to the Municipal 
Corporation that Plan No. 1/75 was to be treated as 
cancelled and Plan No. 12/80 alone would be valid. 
The Municipal Corporation granted approval to the 
C Trust for construction on one of the plots. But when the 
Trust sought approval for construction on other two of 
the plots, it was denied on the ground that the area was 
reserved for public purpose i.e. for school building. The 
denial of approval was held to be illegal by the High Court 
in a writ proceeding initiated by the Trust. The High Court 
D observed that the approval in respect of the area 
comprising of the 40 plots could be denied by Municipal 
Corporation only if the area would be classified as 
'reserved for public purposes' within a period of three 
months from the date of the judgment. No action was 
E taken, as per rules, to covert the area 'reserved for public 
purposes'. When the Trust applied for approval of 
construction on other plots, the same was again denied 
on the ground that the area was reserved for 
construction of the school. The representation of the 
F 
Trust, questioning the Plan No. 9/92, was accepted1Jy the 
State Government. The State, accordingly passed G.O. 
Ms. No. 244 dated 23.9.1994, whereby it granted 
permission to de-reserve 2.5 acres of land earmarked for 
the school in the plan No. 1/75 and held that the same 
G would be residential area subject to the condition that all 
the roads in the layout area were handed over to the 
Municipal Corporation. The Trust had pointed out that it 
had already surrendered all the roads to the Panchayat 
by executing a gift deed. 
H 
PILLAYAR P.K.V.K.N. TRUSTTHRU RAMANATHAN v. 
3 
KARPAGA N.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY 
The order of de-reservation passed by the State 
A 
Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 244 dated 23.9.1994 was 
challenged. The High Court took notice of the facts that 
in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant-Trustee, 
the High Court had not dealt with the development Plan 
No. 9/92, and thus the G.O. Ms. 244 dated 23.3.1994 was 
B 
illegal and vitiated by ma/afides and was in excess of 
powers of the Government; and that the Municipal 
Corporation had made a demand u/s. 250(4) of Madurai 
City Municipal Corporation Act from the appellant and the 
said demand was quashed by the High Court. Therefore, c 
the instant appea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.