LexTHIRUNANGAR PANCHAYAT versus MADURAI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JJS '. TillRUNAGAR PANCHAYAT v . . MADURAI· CO-OPERATIVE" HOUSE CONSTRUCTION · SOCIETY . March 31, 1966 . (K. SUBBA RAO AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] Madras Village Panchayats Act (10 of 1950). s. 5~Scope of. The respondent-Society formed a housing colony, laid out pub-. lie roads and set apart public common places for parks, play-grounds, schools, library, hospital and club for . the benefit of. the :members of the colony. The respondent passed a resolution for handing over the roads arid the other common places to the appellant-Panchayat, but later, passed another resolution· cancelling it. The appellant, thereupon, filed a suit for an injunction restraining· the respondent from obstructing the appellant in the exercise of its statutory. duties in relation to the roads and other common places. The High Court, on appeal, held that the streets and. the roads in the colony alone would vest in the zppellant under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950 and that.· an injunction could be granted only with res- pect to them, but not, with respect to the other amenities which the respondent had provided for the residents of the colony. . · In appeal to this Court, it· was ·contended· that th~ amenities excluded would also vest in the appellant under s .. 58 "of the Act, especially because they had been dedicated to the public. I . - . - •. HELD: The scope of the section must be confined to communal property and income of the Panchayat which, by custom, belong to the villagers in common, or, has been administered for their benefit as a matter of custom. Therefore, the section cannot be extended to amenities such as parks, play-grounds etc. provided by the respon- dent for the benefit of the members of the colony; and dedication is not a relevant_ circumstance in considering its scope and mean· ing. [121 E-F; 122 A-BJ. · • · · . · OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil. Appeal No .. 374 of 1965: .. ··· ... · •.. i · .. · · . . Appeal by special' leave from the j~dgment and de~ree dated August 9, 1963 of the Madras High Court in LP.A. No. 45 of 1962. . . - . A. V. Narayanaswami Iyer and S. Venkatakrishnan, for the appellant. A. K. Sen, N. Natesan and R. Ganpathy Iyer for the respond· ent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from B c D E G the judgment and decree of the Madras High Court dated August 9, E 1963 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 45 of 1962. ,t I . . • + THIRUNAGAR PANCHAYAT v. COOP. HOUSE SOCY. (Ramaswami, J.) 119 A The suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal was filed by the Tirunagar Panchayat, hereinafter called the 'Panchayat', against the Madurai Co-operative House Construction Society (hereinafter called the 'Society') in the District Munsif's Court of Tirumanga- lam. The Tirunagar Colony has been formed by the Society. The Colony consists of about 300 houses and its total population ex- B ceeds J ,500. At its inception the colony was within the jurisdiction of the Tirupparakundram Panchayat. On February 21, 1955 the Tirunagar colony was excluded from Tirupparankundram Pan- chayat and was declared as a separate village and was constituted as a separate Panchayat known as Tirunagar Panchayat. In the for- mation of the colony the Society has laid out and set apart and form- ed public roads, parks, play grounds and other public common C places. There was a change in the Board of Directctrs of the de- fendant-Society and as a consequence of this change the Society passed a resolution on July 23, 1956 cancelling its previous resolu- tion handing over the roads, streets and scavenging arrangements to the Panchayat. The Panchayat therefore filed a suit-0.S. 38 of 1957, in the District Munsif's Court of Tirumengalam for an in- junction restraining the Society and its servants from obstructing D and int~dedr:ig with its lawful exercise of statutory duties relating to the roads and streets in Tirumgar and cleaning of latrines, pub- lic and private, lighting the houses and roads and making arrange- ments for the civic needs of the village of Tirunagar. The Society contested the suit on the ground that the constitution of the Pan· chayat was illegal as the provisions of the Madras Village Pan- chayats Act (Madras Act 10 of 1950), hereinafter to be called the E 'Act', had not been complied with. The Society also contended that the public cannot use the roads or streets a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.