PRADHAN BABU AND OTHERS versus NACHIMUTHU NAGAR KUDIYIRUPPOR NALA SANGAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 1673 · Decided: 28-08-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1673 : 2024 INSC 1047
Pradhan Babu and Others 
v. 
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 2023)
28 August 2024
[Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the suit land was under any sort of legal encumbrance 
so as to make it unfit for transfer of right, title and interest thereon 
in light of the Layout Plan notified by the Deputy Director, Town 
and Country Planning, Thanjavur region in the year 1978 and later 
revised in the year 1981.
Headnotes†
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 – ss.37 and 
38 – For a creation of a Nagar various plots were formed by 
one N – In a Layout plan, a portion of land was earmarked for 
public purpose for welfare of the residents – That earmarked 
site is the suit land/property – N died on 29.04.2004 – Appellants 
case that after the death of N, the suit property was sold by 
his legal heirs to appellants – The cause of action arose when 
appellant no.1 started construction of a building on the suit 
property – Respondents no.1 and 2/original plaintiffs are the 
office-bearers of the Resident Welfare Association, who filed 
suit and sought relief of permanent injunction, restraining 
the defendants from encroaching upon the suit property 
and putting up construction – Trial Court decreed suit – The 
First Appellate Court dismissed the suit – However, the High 
Court restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court – 
Correctness:
Held: 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 
* Author
1674
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Respondent no.3 acted to takeover or gain ownership of the suit 
property – 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, 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 – The original owner, thus, was competent in law to 
transfer the suit property to any other person on 20.04.2009 (date 
of the first Sale Deed) – Thus, the suit filed by the respondents 
had absolutely no cause of action evincible from a reading of the 
plaint – The First Appellate Court rightly interfered and dismissed 
the suit – The reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the 
High Court, is erroneous, and cannot be sustained. [Paras 22, 24]
Case Law Cited
Pillayar P.K.V.K.N. Trust v. Karpaga N.N.U.S. [2010] 11 SCR 1 : 
(2010) 9 SCC 344 – referred to.
List of Acts
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972; Constitution 
of India.
List of Keywords
Layout plan; Land earmarked for public purpose; Mixed residential 
area; Title; Interest in property; Suit; Permanent injunction; 
Construction on land; Power to acquire land under the Land 
Acquisition; Power to purchase or acquire lands specified in 
development plan.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in SA No. 794 of 2019
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 
1675
Pradhan Babu and Others v.  
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others
Appearances for Parties
R Nedumaran, Sr. Adv., Beno Bencigar, Parijat Kishore, Advs. for 
the Appellants.
T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Subham Kothari, Bharathi 
Subramaniayan, V Balachandran, Siddharth Naidu, M/S. Ksn & 
Co., Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.	
The present appeal arises from the Final Judgment and Order 
dated 24.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), 
passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras (hereinaf

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