A. Rangasamy and Others vs The Executive Officer Thudiyalur Town Panchayat

P. Jyothimani, J.—The writ petition is filed challenging the orderof the Respondent dated 10.09.2007, by which the Respondent has refused to grant approval for the construction ofhousing sites on the ground that the said space has beenear-marked for children play park and therefore, it cannotbe used for any other purpose.

It is the admitted case of the Petitionersthat they are the promoters of the land in Survey No. 50/2Part in Thudiyalur village, Coimbatore District to theextent of 71 1/4 cents and they have purchased 40 cents ofvacant land along with water tank and service connection,which is stated to be standing in the name of Petitioners. As stated by the Petitioners in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition, the said 40 cents wereoriginally ear-marked for children play park in the year1987 and inasmuch as it was subsequently not utilised for the said purpose, they purchased it for the purpose ofplotting out. The Petitioners claim the right only on theground that some other persons had approached the ConsumerCourt and also the Civil court relating to the purchase of40 cents ear-marked for children play park but they failed and therefore the Petitioners are entitled for regularisation of the said place for the purpose of construction. The Petitioners also relied upon G.O. Ms. No. 56 dated 30.04.2007, wherein the Government regularised the unapproved layout by way of paying Re.1/-per sq.ft. and the said Government Order was periodicallyextended the time for getting benefit and finally on30.04.2007, the time was extended upto 31.12.2007. It ison that basis the present writ petition has been filedchallenging the impugned order.

In the counter affidavit filed by theRespondent, the Respondent has clearly stated that thefirst Petitioner was one of the promoters of the lay out inthe year 1987 and one of the executors of the agreementdated 28.04.1987 in favour of the Respondent. He alongwith his wife, the second Petitioner and third Petitionerhad purchased an extent of 5940 sq.ft. by sale deed dated01.06.2007 from one P. Balakrishnan, who was also one of thepromoter of the approved layout as well as the executor ofthe agreement in favour of the Respondent. It is furtherstated that one other promoter of the said layout is thefourth Petitioner and he is also one of the executors ofthe agreement referred to above along with the 5th and 6th Petitioners, who is the son of first Petitioner, and theypurchased an extent of 11842 sq.ft. by sale deed dated01.06.2007 from P. Balakrishnan. Therefore, according tothe Respondent, the Petitioners, being the promoters, in their commercial avocation with an intention of convertingthe place ear-marked for children play park and publicutility for their commercial purpose, have played fraud onthe Respondent.

The reliance placed by the Petitioners, on theGovernment Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 56 dated 30.04.2007 isactually mis-quoted by them in their affidavit. Areference to the said Government Order shows that, inrespect of the approval of lay out which was unapprovedtill the date of granting of approval by the Government,viz., 31.12.2006, the Government took a decision that forgranting such approval if there is delay, such delay canbe condoned by extending the period of approval upto31.12.2007. The said Government Order has no applicationto the facts of the present case at all. The GovernmentOrder, which has been heavily relied upon by thePetitioners has not stated anything about the conversion ofany place ear-marked in the approved lay out for publicpurpose to private use, and therefore, the said Government Order is not of any use to the Petitioners.

On the other hand, it is admitted and as it isseen in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the said 40 cents of lands, stated to have beenpurchased by the Petitioners under various sale deeds, tilldate remain as a place ear-marked for children play park. While so, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with theorder of the Respondent. As a matter of right thePetitioners cannot claim the place ear-marked for publicpurpose as their private property simply because they havesubsequently purchased it for valuable consideration. Insuch view of the matter, I do not see any reason tointerfere with the impugned order of the Respondent. Theaction of the Petitioners is a total abuse of process oflaw. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed withcosts of Rs. 25,000/-, payable by the Petitioners to theState Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.