Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7305-7306 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25750-25751 of 2007)

Pillayar P.K.V.K.N. Trust Thru Ramanathan …. Appellant

Versus

Karpaga N.N.U.S.  Rep. by Secretary & Ors. …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellant–a  religious  Trust  challenges  the  judgment  of  the  

Division Bench of the High Court whereby the High Court allowed the Writ  

Petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein.  The respondent No.1 claims  

to be the representative body of the residents of the area called Karpaga  

1

Nagar.  The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition issued the following  

direction:  

“We allow the writ petitions and direct that the plots covered in  LP/MR 1/75 cannot be used for any purpose other than the  public purposes mentioned in such LP/MR 1/75.”

The High Court, however, did not include two plots, namely, plot Nos. 276  

and 369, meaning thereby that those plots could be used for any other  

purpose.

3. Some factual background would be necessary before we approach  

the controversy.  The appellant is a Trust formed in the year 1924 to look  

after  religious  and  secular  activities  of  Pillayarpatti  Koil  situated  at  

Pillayarpatti  and  for  the  welfare  of  Nagarathar  community.   The  Trust  

acquired properties in Tallakulam village in Madurai District including lands  

in S. No. 92, 94, 120 to 126, 130 to 133, 176/1 and 178.  These properties  

were sub-divided into 910 plots and they are named as Karpaga Nagar.  

The Trust thereafter prepared a detailed layout plan for the entire extent of  

76.12 acres in all, in which the provision was made for 60 feet, 50 feet and  

40 feet roads.  The road area was to the extent of about 21 acres.  This  

layout plan was submitted to Tallakulam Town Panchayat which was the  

appropriate authority in the year 1972.  This layout plan was approved by  

Tallakulam Town Panchayat vide its order dated 19.5.1972 in P.R. No. 21  

of 1972 under Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1970.  

2

Pursuant  thereto,  majority  of  the plots  were  sold by the Trust  retaining  

about 40 plots for its use.  The said Tallakulam Town Panchayat along with  

other Town Panchayats merged with Madurai City Municipal Corporation  

on 30.1.1974 and, therefore, the laws applicable to Madurai Corporation  

were made applicable to Tallakulam.  The Madurai Corporation insisted to  

revalidate the plan.  The Trust again applied for revalidation of the original  

plan in 21/72.  Plan No.1/75 showed 40 plots as reserved for school.  The  

appellants herein claimed that as per the savings clause the Corporation  

was  bound  by  all  rights  and  liabilities  created  by  the  erstwhile  Town  

Panchayat before the date of merger.  

4. Thereafter,  in  the  year  1979-80,  the  Local  Planning  Authority  of  

Madurai  prepared a detailed development  plan which also included the  

lands covered by the appellant’s layout plan. This detailed development  

plan was approved as DTP (MR) 12/80.  In this plan the area relating to  

the 40 plots which were retained by the appellant Trust, was demarcated  

and shown as residential  area.  Finding that  they were  contrary  to plan  

No.1  of  75,  clarification  was  sought  and  it  is  claimed  that  the  Deputy  

Director,  Regional  Town  &  Country  Planning,  by  his  letter  ROC  No.  

4589/82 dated 30.8.1982 informed the Corporation of Madurai that plan  

No.1/75 may be treated as cancelled and plan No.12/80 alone would be  

valid.

3

5. Thereafter when the Trust proposed to make some constructions in  

plot No.342, Madurai Corporation granted its approval by order No. K.3/PR  

533/82.  However, when the fresh application was submitted for putting up  

construction in plot No. 276 and 369, the Corporation by its order dated  

16.12.1986,  rejected  the  application  on  the  ground  that  this  area  was  

reserved for public purpose of putting up school building.  Thereafter, the  

appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 1565 of 1987 for quashing the order of  

rejection  and  for  a  direction  to  the  Madurai  Corporation  for  grant  of  

approval for putting up the construction.  In this, the plea was taken by the  

Corporation  that  the  detailed  development  plan  bearing  No.12/80  was  

sought to be modified and hence the plan could not be approved.  The  

High Court by its order dated 21.11.1991 allowed this petition and held that  

the  rejection  of  the  plan  was  illegal.   The  High  Court  restored  the  

applications  in  respect  of  plot  Nos.  276 and 369 and directed Madurai  

Corporation to pass orders expeditiously.  It was further stated that if the  

orders  were  not  passed  within  three  months  of  the  said  date,  the  

application for sanction of  construction would  be deemed to have been  

granted.   It  was,  however,  made  clear  by  the  High  Court  that  the  

applications could be rejected only if this area comprising of 40 plots was  

in  the  meantime  classified  as  ‘reserved for  the  public  purposes’  in  the  

detailed development plan.   

4

6. It seems nothing was done for inclusion of this area into the detailed  

development plan as per the procedure laid down under Section 25, 27, 29  

and 33 of the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 read with  

Rule 13,14 and 16 of the Preparation, Publication and Sanction of Detailed  

Development Plan Rules.  The appellant thereafter applied for approval of  

plan in respect of four other plots bearing No.326, 331, 336 and 340 of the  

layout  plan.   However,  by  its  order  dated  27.4.1993,  the  Corporation  

rejected the said application on the ground that the plots were forming part  

of the area reserved for construction of a school and hence the application  

for  construction  could  not  be  allowed.   Quoting  all  these  facts,  the  

appellant  made  a  representation  to  the  Director,  Town  and  Country  

Planning No.807 Annasalai, Madras dated 15.6.1993 and pointed out that  

the stance taken by the Corporation was not correct and that this new plan  

No. 9 of 92 would be completely illegal and against law.  The appellant  

reminded the concerned authority that the plans were approved in the year  

1972 itself  by Tallakulam Town Panchayat by its order dated 19.5.1972  

and the rights of the respective parties had been crystallized at that time  

itself  and it  would  not be just  to disturb it  after a lapse of 20 years by  

introducing  new  modifications  in  the  detailed  development  plan  and,  

therefore,  the  stand  taken  by  the  Corporation  that  the  said  area  was  

reserved for school purpose, was clearly in contravention of plan 12/80.  In  

that representation the Trust gave the whole history which has been stated  

5

above by us.  It  was pointed out that the whole area was reserved for  

residential purpose under the approved plan and on that strength, several  

plots were sold to several persons and they would also be affected if the  

modified plan No. 9/92 is approved as it is.  A prayer, therefore, was made  

that this petition to the proposed detailed plan No. 9 of 92 was liable to be  

considered in favour of the Trust on the basis of the detailed development  

plan No. 12 of 80, so that the Trust could utilize 40 plots for constructions.  

It seems that this representation was accepted by the State Government  

which  passed  G.O.Ms.  No.244  dated  23.9.1994.   In  this  order  it  was  

suggested  that  the  Government  accepted  the  recommendation  by  the  

Director, Town and Country Planning and the permission was accorded to  

de-reserve 2.5 acres of land earmarked for school in the approved layout  

LP/MR 1/75 in T.S. No.92/94 etc. and the same would be deemed to be  

residential area in Madurai Corporation subject to the condition that all the  

roads in the layout area should be handed over to the Madurai Corporation  

by Pillayarpatti Karpaga Vinayagar Koil Nagarthar Trust.  

7. It  appears  that  immediately  after  this  order  was  passed,  the  

appellant  Trust  pointed  out  that  it  had  already  surrendered  before  

Tallakulam  Panchayat  all  the  roads  in  the  Karpaga  Nagar  layout  by  

executing a gift deed dated 11.5.1972.  A copy of the aforesaid gift deed  

was also sent by the Trust.  It was thereafter informed by the Trustee on  

6

28.2.1995 that the aforementioned gift deed was also registered and the  

roads were handed over to the Madurai Corporation.

8. It  seems  that  this  order  of  de-reservation  passed  by  the  State  

Government came to be challenged before the Madras High Court and by  

the impugned judgment, the Madras High Court set aside that order and  

directed that reserved area shown in the earlier plan LP/MR 1/75 cannot  

be used for any other purpose other than public purpose. The High Court,  

however, made an exception in case plots 276 and 369, perhaps because  

the earlier orders of the High Court were finalized in Writ Petition 1565 of  

1987 to which reference has already been made earlier.   

9. It  is  this  judgment  which  has  been  challenged  before  us  by  the  

appellant Trust.  Shri K. Ramamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing  

on behalf of the appellant Trust, pointed out the earlier history starting right  

from 1972 and pointed out that out of that total 76.12 acres owned by the  

Trust, the Trust had already parted with 21.62 acres of land which was  

reserved for public purpose by way of a gift deed dated 11.5.1972 which  

was later reiterated in favour of the Corporation also.  The learned Senior  

Counsel pointed out that it is only out of the remaining land that the Trust  

created as many as 832 plots out of which 40 plots were retained by the  

Trust.  He then pointed out that after the whole plan was approved by the  

Tallakulam  Town  Panchayat  on  the  basis  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  District  

7

Municipalities  Act,  1920 and Tamil  Nadu Panchayat  Act,  1958 as  also  

under TN Panchayat Building Rules, 1970 framed by the Government by  

virtue of Section 178 of the Madras Panchayat Act, 1958.  He then pointed  

out that the petitioners were the residents of the same plots and they had  

purchased the plots from the Trust and they were residing on the same  

plots.   He  also  pointed  out  that  on  the  merger  (by  taking  recourse  to  

Section 3 of Madras Corporation Act) of Tallakulam Panchayat in Madurai  

City Municipal Corporation on 30.1.1974, the matter went into the regime  

of the corporation.  It  was further pointed out that in the year 1975, the  

Trust applied for granting permission for layout which in fact was already  

granted  by  the  Town  Panchayat.   The  learned  Senior  Counsel  further  

pointed out that in the year 1979-80, detailed draft plan was prepared by  

Madurai Local Planning Authority under the Town & Country Planning Act,  

1971 wherein the plots retained by the temple were shown as residential  

area.  He also invited our attention to the communication dated 30.8.1982  

on the consent by the Deputy Director of Town Planning to Commissioner,  

Municipal Corporation, Madurai to the effect that the earlier lay out plan  

bearing No. 1 of 75 stood cancelled and the Commissioner was directed to  

proceed as per the approved scheme plan bearing No.12 of 80 wherein 40  

plots were earmarked as residential  area.  The learned Senior Counsel  

also invited our attention to the earlier Writ Petition No.1565 of 1987 dated  

21.11.1991.   The  learned  Senior  Counsel  invited  our  attention  to  the  

8

further  representations  made  by  the  Trust  to  the  Government  and  the  

ultimate order passed by the Government.  The learned Senior Counsel  

contended in this backdrop that it was absolutely incorrect on the part of  

the High Court to have revived the earlier plan of 1975.  Learned Senior  

Counsel also pointed out that there was no locus standi to the respondents  

(petitioners before the High Court) as in fact they had themselves granted  

permission in respect of plot No.342, which is one of the 40 plots reserved  

for the Trust.  It was further pointed that that for all these years nothing has  

happened  nor  has  the  area  been  acquired  by  the  government  and,  

therefore, in fact the whole area has become de-reserved as per Section  

38 of the Town Planning Act.   

10. As against this, Shri Dayan Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing on  

behalf of the original writ petitioners and the respondents herein contended  

that the very look of the impugned order dated 23.9.1994 would suggest  

that  it  has  been  passed  under  a  misnomer  and  is  a  result  of  

misunderstanding  the  High  Court’s  judgment  in  W.P.  No.1565/87.  

According to the learned Counsel, the order gives an impression as if there  

is a direction contained in that judgment to de-reserve the concerned area  

of 40 plots.  According to the learned Counsel, such direction was never  

given by the High Court.  He further pointed out that in the absence of the  

amenities like school etc., the citizens would suffer.  He also pointed out  

9

that  no  basic  amenities  like  roads  etc.  were  provided  though  the  

Corporation was collecting road costs from the plot owners as and when  

they applied for permission for construction.

11. It is on these rival claims that we have to see as to whether the High  

Court  was  justified  in  allowing  the  petition  as  it  did.   The  High  Court  

formulated the following points:

(1) Whether the challenged order G.O.Ms.244 dated 23.9.94 was  vitiated by mala fides and in excess of the powers of the first  respondent in violation of principles of natural justice?

(2) Whether the modification issued under Section 27 of the Town  and Country Planning Act reserving disputed 40 plots for the  public purpose under detailed development plan had become  null and void in the absence of any final orders passed within  three years from the date of publication under Section 38 of  the Town and Planning Act?

(3) What  is  the  effect  of  the  approval  of  the  earlier  plan  P.R.  No.21 of 72?

12. It  also took notice of  the fact that when Madurai Corporation had  

demanded Rs.80,69,784/- under Section 250 (4) of Madurai City Municipal  

Corporation Act from the present appellant, the said demand notice was  

quashed as per order in W.P. No.8962 of 1988.  The High Court also made  

reference to the order passed in W.P. No.1565 of 1987 and found that in  

that judgment the High Court had not dealt with the development plan No.  

9 of 92.  The High Court then came to the conclusion that G.O.Ms. 244  

10

dated 23.3.1994 was illegal, vitiated by  mala fides and was in excess of  

powers of the Government.  

13. In our opinion, this deduction on the part of the High Court on the  

basis of the reading of the judgment in W.P. No.1565 of 1987 is wholly  

incorrect.  There is nothing to suggest that the G.O.Ms. 244 was hit  by  

mala fides or was in excess of the power of the Government.  This finding  

has no basis.  We also do not understand as to how the said order could  

be  faulted  as  being  in  violation  of  principles  of  natural  justice.   It  is  

absolutely true that a reference to the High Court judgment is made in the  

impugned order dated 23.9.1994.  However, that is not the only thing on  

which the Government has relied upon.  In fact, the judgment of the High  

Court  was  studied by the  Director  of  Town and Country  Planning  who  

recommended the case for de-reservation subject to the conditions that  

trustees  may  be  required  to  hand  over  all  the  roads  in  Madurai  

Corporation.  There is no reason for us to doubt the correctness of this  

recommendation  made by the Director,  Town & Country  Planning,  who  

was aware of the earlier position.  He was aware that this layout was part  

of 9/72 plan and it was duly approved by the Tallakulam Town Panchayat  

and it then continued to be so vide plan No.12/80 to the exclusion of the  

plan of 1975.

11

14. We  also  presume  that  the  Director  did  consult  the  earlier  

correspondence  on  the  subject  and,  therefore,  the  High  Court  was  

completely in error in deducing that the order was in excess of the power  

of  the  Government  or  was  hit  by  mala  fides or  was  in  violation  of  the  

principles of natural justice.  In our opinion, the deductions reached by the  

High  Court  in  paragraph  11.5  are  baseless.   In  the  latter  part  of  its  

judgment,  the High Court  has taken stock of  the whole  Act  right  up to  

Section 38.  We have nothing to say about it excepting that the reference  

to all the provisions of the Act was not at all necessary.  The High Court  

then referred to the argument made that admittedly 40 plots were private  

land and, therefore, even if it is presumed that it was included under the  

plan of 1992, yet since the land was not acquired either by agreement or  

by  acquisition,  they  would  be  deemed  to  have  been  released  from  

reservation.

15. The  High  Court  has  undoubtedly  posed  this  question  up  to  

paragraph 16 but has chosen not to answer it till last.  We, therefore, put  

the  same  question  to  the  Counsel  for  the  respondent  as  also  to  the  

Counsel for the Government and both the Counsel fairly conceded that the  

land is still not acquired.

16. Section 38 of The Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971  

runs as under:-

12

38. Release of land:- If  within three years from the date of the  publication  of  the  notice  in  the  Tamil  Nadu  Government  Gazette under section2 6 or section 27- (a) no declaration as  provided  in  sub-section  (2)  of  section  37  is  published  in  respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any  purpose  specified  in  a  regional  plan,  master  plan,  detailed  development plan or new town development plan covered by  such notice; or

(b) such land is not acquired by agreement,  

such  land  shall  be  deemed  to  be  released  from  such  reservation, allotment or designation.

In  view of  the  admitted  position  that  the  land is  not  acquired by  

agreement till  the date of the judgment of the High Court,  the deeming  

clause would certainly come into force and, therefore, the concerned land  

would certainly be deemed to have been released.  The High Court has  

also referred to the reported decision in  Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors. Vs.   

State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2005 (11) SCC 222], where this Court has  

clearly held that the owner of the special land cannot be prohibited from  

using it since it is the private property and Government cannot deprive the  

persons from using their private property and, therefore, the acquisition of  

the property is a must before any such person is restrained from using the  

land.   The High Court  has again extensively  referred to the earlier  two  

decisions of this Court in Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa &  

Ors. [1991 (4) SCC 54]  and Balakrishna H. Sawant & Ors. Vs. Sangli   

Miraj & Kupwad City Municipal Corporation & Ors. [2005 (3) SCC 61].  

However, we do not find any answer in these judgments.  The respondents  

13

had  specifically  raised  these  questions  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  

concerned property has not so far been acquired.  Therefore, it is clear that  

Section 38 will  come in the way  of  the Government,  and the appellant  

Trust  could  not  have  been  stopped  from  using  the  property  on  the  

spacious ground that the said property was reserved for construction of  

school way back in the year 1975 and thereafter in 1992.

17. However, the High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis of  

Section 250 of The Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971.  Section  

250 runs as under:-

“250. Owners Obligation To Make a Street When Disposing of  Lands as Building Sites:

(1) If  the  owner  of  any  land  utilizes,  sells,  leases  or  otherwise  disposes  of  such  land  or  any  portion  or  portions  of  the  same as  sites  for  the  construction  of  buildings,  he shall  save in  such cases as the site  or  sites may abut on an existing public or private street,  layout and make a street or streets giving access to the  site or sites and connecting with an existing public or  private street.

(2) In regard to the laying out or making of any such street  or  streets,  the  provisions  of  Section  251  shall  apply,  subject  to the conditions that  the owner  shall  remit  a  sum not exceeding 50 per cent of the estimated cost of  lay-out  improvements  in  the  land  and  that  the  owner  shall also reserve not exceeding 10 per cent of the lay- out  for  the  common  purpose  in  addition  to  the  area  provided  for  laying  out  streets.   If  any  owner  contravenes any of the conditions specified above, he  shall be liable for prosecution.

14

(3) If in any case, the provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (2)  have not been complied with, the Commissioner may,  by  notice,  require  the  defaulting  owner  to  layout  and  make  a  street  or  streets  on  such  land  and  in  such  manner and within such time as may be specified in the  notice.

(4) If such street or streets are not laid out and made in the  manner and within the time specified in the notice, the  Commissioner  may  lay-out  and  make  the  street  or  streets, and the expenses incurred shall be recovered  from the defaulting owner.

(5) The  Commissioner  may  in  his  discretion,  issue  the  notice  referred  to  in  sub-Section  (3)  or  recover  the  expenses referred to in sub-Section (4) to or from the  owners of any buildings or lands abutting on the street  or  streets  concerned  but  any  such  owner  shall  be  entitled to recover all reasonable expenses incurred by  him or all expenses paid by him, as the case may be,  from the defaulting owner referred to in sub-Section (3).”

Relying on this Section and, more particularly, sub-Sections (1) and  

(2), the High Court was of the view that before the usurp of the land within  

the Municipal Corporation for a layout, 10% of such land was bound to be  

reserved  for  common  purposes.   The  High  Court  firstly  came  to  the  

conclusion that the Trust itself sought the approval of the layout plan from  

the  Corporation  after  Tallakulam  Town  Panchayat  merged  with  the  

Madurai Corporation.  The High Court made a reference to the earlier plan  

being  P.R.  No.  21/1972  approved  by  the  Tallakulam Town Panchayat,  

wherein the aforementioned 40 plots were not shown as reserved for the  

public purpose.  It refuted the submission made by the appellant Trust to  

15

the effect that such plan which has crystallized the rights of the Trust in  

respect of  its  property,  was bound to be honoured after the Tallakulam  

Town Panchayat became a part of the Madurai Corporation by its merger.  

The High Court observed in para 19 of its judgment:-

“19. ………  To the extent any alienation or construction had been  made by virtue or Tallakulam Town Panchayat P.R. 21/1972,  such acts are of course required to be protected.”

18. In  our  opinion,  the  reference  to  Section  250  (2)  was  completely  

uncalled for in this controversy.  This was a Writ Petition for challenging  

the G.O.Ms. 244 dated 23.9.1994.  In fact, in the three questions which the  

High Court had posed, Section 250 did not find place.  Section 250 speaks  

about the obligation on the part of owner to make a street while disposing  

of the lands as building sites.  Sub-Section (2) on which a heavy reliance  

was placed by the High Court, speaks about the owner’s liability to reserve  

10% of the lay-out for the common purpose in addition to the area provided  

for laying out streets.  It is nobody’s case that the area of these 40 plots, in  

all, comes to 10% of the total area besides the area which was reserved  

for  the  streets.   The  High  Court  completely  ignored  the  fact  that  the  

appellant trust had already parted with more than 21 acres of its land while  

getting the approval from the Tallakulam Town Panchayat for this layout.  

There is clear correspondence on the record to the effect that the appellant  

Trust had not only parted with 21 acres, but had also effected a gift deed in  

16

respect of that land.  It is nobody’s case and indeed the High Court has  

also not found that these 40 plots would be the aforementioned 10% of the  

total lay out area.  There is absolutely no basis for the High Court to invite  

the applicability of the Section 250(2) by making reference to 10% of the  

area.  Therefore, the factual background, on which the provision is tried to  

be made applicable, itself, is not established and the finding to that effect is  

incorrect.

19. In this behalf  it  is to be seen that earlier also this question under  

Section 250 had cropped up in between the Madurai Corporation and the  

Trust.  The Madurai Corporation had sought the payment of 50% of the  

sum of Rs. 80,69,784/- being the total cost for laying roads in the area.  

The  Trust  had  approached  the  High  Court  by  way  of  a  Writ  Petition  

whereby the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court held that the  

roads shown in the lay out  plan had already been handed over  to  the  

Tallakulam Town Panchayat  and ultimately  it  was  found that  the roads  

were laid and it is only thereafter that Tallakulum Panchayat got merged  

with  the  Madurai  Corporation  and  as  such  there  was  no  question  of  

invoking Section 250 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act.    This  

decision was also affirmed in appeal filed before the Madras High Court.  

The High Court  just  had quoted this  issue by saying  that  the question  

regarding the land to be kept apart for the common use had not fallen for  

17

consideration in that appeal.  We do not think that is the position.   We  

have already shown that this question could not have come via Section  

250 which was only inapplicable to the factual situation.

20. The  High  Court  has  also  erroneously  gone  and  compared  the  

provisions of  Section 37 and 38 of  the Tamil  Nadu Town and Country  

Planning Act and Section 250 of the Madurai Corporation Act.  There is no  

question of any such comparison.  There was no necessity to consider as  

to  whether  Section  250  of  the  Madurai  Corporation  Act  repealed  the  

provisions of Tamil  Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 for the  

simple reason that such question could never have fallen for consideration.  

We  have  already  shown  that  Section  250  was  not  applicable  to  the  

controversy at all.  It operates into an entirely different field and the factual  

basis for inviting that Section was also not available in the circumstances  

of the case.

21. It cannot be contemplated that once the land, even if it was reserved  

for public purpose like construction of school in the plan of 1992 and got  

released because it was not acquired for more than three years in terms of  

Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, could be then  

taken away from the owner on the spacious plea under Section 250 of the  

Madurai Corporation Act.

18

22. Besides all this, it is clear that on 19.5.1972, the Tallakulam Town  

Panchayat had approved the plan submitted by the temple for 76.12 acres  

thereby 910 plots were shown in the plan and 40 plots were retained and  

the balance plots appear to have been sold.  However, in the year 1972,  

when the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 came into force,  

as  Act  No.25  of  1972,  the  whole  area  became  part  of  the  Madurai  

Corporation w.e.f. 30.1.74.  It was then liable to be seen that after the plan  

of  1975  was  prepared,  that  plan  was  specifically  referred  in  the  

communication  dated  18.6.82  whereby  the  Commissioner,  Madurai  

Corporation sought clarifications from the Deputy Director, Regional Town  

and Country Planning about the effect of DDP on the layout in LP 1/75 and  

on 30.8.82, the Deputy Director, Regional Town & Country Planning had  

specifically  conveyed  that  the  approved  layout  plan  1  of  75  required  

modifications and it should be treated cancelled and that the Corporation  

may act as per the approved plan No.12/80.  This specific position was  

completely ignored by the High Court.  The High Court merely went on to  

record its comments on the judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P.  

No.1565/87.

23. We have nothing to say about those comments.  However, the fact  

of the matter is that the respondent herein and the original Writ Petitioner  

was  a party  to  that  Writ  Petition and to  the judgment  whereby specific  

19

permission  was  granted  for  the  construction  in  plot  Nos.  276  and  269  

which was part of the aforementioned 40 plots.

24. Further an application was filed as WMP 3338/92 for extension of  

time to take appropriate decision in terms of the direction of the High Court  

which had given three months’ time.  It is specifically pointed out that the  

application  for  sanction  could  be  rejected  only  in  case  the  detailed  

development  for  this  area,  the  two  plots  came under  the  classification  

‘reserved for public purpose’.  Even giving three months’ time, such step  

could not be taken and indeed it could not have been taken in view of the  

earlier factual scenario, more particularly, because of the decision dated  

30.8.82 whereby the approved plan 12/80 was preferred to plan No.1/75.  

Though we need not go into the further question as to whether the decision  

in W.P.No.1565/87 would be res judicata as even otherwise it is clear that  

the State Government had taken a right stance in passing the order dated  

23.9.94 vide G.O.Ms. 244.  

25. The High Court  in the last,  has given the direction that  the plots  

covered in LP/MR 1/75 cannot be used for any purpose other than public  

purpose mentioned therein with the exception of  the plot  Nos. 276 and  

369.  In our opinion, this was a completely incorrect direction particularly  

because way back in 1982, plan No.1/75 was treated as cancelled and  

there was no revival of that plan.   

20

26. Last but not the least, respondent No.1 herein, Karpaga Nagar Nala  

Urimai Sangam represented by Shri A. Shamugavel had filed an Original  

Suit No.1106/86 in the Court of Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai  

Town in his capacity as a resident of Karpaga Nagar Colony wherein he  

had sought for an injunction restraining the Trust from selling or using the  

property for any purpose than the purpose for which it was reserved in LP  

MR 1/75.

27. For all  these reasons, we cannot affirm the judgment of  the High  

Court.   It  is  set  aside  and  the  Writ  Petition  filed  by  the  respondent  is  

directed to be dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

    ……………………………..J.      [V.S. Sirpurkar]

   ……………………………..J.     [Cyriac Joseph]

September 1, 2010; New Delhi.

21