T.N. RUGMANI AND ANOTHER versus C. ACHUTHA MENON AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 20-12-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
T.N. RUGMANI AND ANOTHER 
v. 
C. ACHUTHA MENON AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 20, 1990 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Town Planning Act/Town Planning-Sections 8, 10, 15/Rules 
32(a) and 33(a) (b)-Trichur Urban Development Authority-Sanction 
for construction of building-Validity of. 
Municipal Council of Trichur framed certain schemes, including 
the West Road Scheme in 1976 and thus intended to acquire the lands in 
question hut since the scheme was not published for two years, as 
required by law, it lapsed, with the result the lands sought to be 
acquired stood released from acquisition. In 1981 the State Government 
constituted TUDA under Town Planning Act but even this body did not 
D 
take any step till June 1983. The owners of the land were thus free to use 
their lands subject to any restriction, for instance sanction of maps etc. 
by Municipal Council. Even though the lands in question did not form 
part of any plan/scheme. The owners thereof were subjected to a great 
deal of harassment whenever anyone of them approached these 
E 
G 
H 
authorities, M.C. and TUDA for permission to construct or to approve 
the map. This led these owners to approach the State Government 
against unreasonable attitude of these local authorities and the Govern-
ment after as certaining from the Town Planner that no scheme was 
pending directed the authorities concerned to sanction plan and permit 
construction. Such an order in respect of survey Nos. 887 and 888, 
owned by Unnikrishnan was passed in 1982. In March 1983, TUDA, 
took a decision to notify that West Road Development Scheme of 1976 
but the Government stayed it. Thereupon Unnikrishnan M.B. Menon 
filed an application before the Municipal Corporation for permission to 
build on the disputed land, a shop building. It was sanctioued by the 
Municipal Council subject to its approval by the TUDA which in turn 
informed that the application would be considered after notification of 
the scheme. The State Government when informed however took the 
view that it" would be unfair to deny the petitioners th~rmission 
applied for as it was the fault of the authority not to have taken prompt 
action to get the necessary records and notify the scheme and conse-
quently, the State Government directed the authority to accord its 
approval to the plans submitted by the petitioners. Some negotiations 
between the TUDA and the petitioners thereafter proceeded regarding 
638 
-
-
--
T.N. RUGMANI v. C.A. MENON 
639 
providing set-backs etc. but the TUDA did not pass any order permit-
ting construction. Thereupon Unnikrishnan through EPG filed a writ 
petition (No. 5287 of 1988) before the High Court complaining against 
the flagrant disregard of provisions of law by the Urban Development 
Authority and the Municipal Council. Trichur and praying for a man-
damus directing these authorities to accord permission to the petitioner 
B 
to raise construction in compliance with the permission granted by the 
State Government. By an interim .irder dated 5.7.1983, the High Court 
directed the TUDA to permit the petitioner to construct a building in 
accordance with the permission granted by the Trichur Municipality. On 
29th July, the TUDA passed the order permitting the P"titioner to 
construct subject. to decision of writ petition. After grant of interim 
order, UK, the owner, handed over possession of the land to SN and 
executed the sale deed in favour of his wife in October 1983. It appears C 
the appellants attempted to raise further construction by adding 
another storey for which they had no permission. 
In order to cuanenge their said action, a writ petition was f"Iled by 
Shri Achuta Menon, Ex-Chief Minister of the State-respondent under D 
the public interest litigation alleging that the Government was not dis-
charging its obligation of fuliilling non-official vacancies on the board 
of TUDA. The petition further alleged connivance between the Govern-
ment and the petitioner-UK in securing permission regarding construc-
tion attributing the same to the influence that UK was wielding with the 
Government. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by UK 
E 
holding the same to be not maintainable for lack of bona-fide and 
allowed the writ petition f"Iled by the respondent and gave certain direc-
tions to the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action in rela-
tion to the construction, raised in pursuance of interim order granted 
by the High Court. The Division Bench ha

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