K.S.Duraimurugan v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Its

O R D E R The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records of the fifth respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.6108/2010/E4 dated

11.10.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein either to stop usage of the 3129 sq.ft. of land in S.F.No.725/1 of Nallur Village, Tirupur Taluk, Tirupur District or pay compensation for the said land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 with interest.

¶2The case of the petitioners are that they are absolute owners of 56.29 cents in S.F.No.725/1 of Nallur Village by virtue of the registered Settlement Deeds dated 13.03.2003 and 22.03.2004. The second petitioner has become the absolute owner of the said property by virtue of the Settlement Deed dated

13.03.2003 bearing Doc.No.1137/2003 executed by her father Sri Muthusamy S/o Ramasamy Gounder. Further, on 22.03.2004, the second petitioner has settled half of the said property in favour of the first petitioner by virtue of the Settlement Deed dated 22.03.2004 bearing Doc.No.1245/2004. Page No.3 of 36

¶3The petitioners are the absolute owners of the said 56.29 cents in S.F.No.725/1 of Nallur Village and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption and all revenue records transferred in their favour. Further, the petitioners have constructed residential buildings and factory buildings in the portion of their property and left vacant space on the eastern side for future developments. Their property situated on the northern side of the East-West Road and they are enjoying the said 56.29 cents in S.F.No.725/1 of Nallur Village as the absolute owners and they were exercising all rights of ownership thereof.

¶4The petitioners have leased out the buildings to third parties and they are residing at Coimbatore. In the year 2008, in the last week of March 2008, they visited their property and shocked to note that a 30 feet road runs North-South branching off from the 60 feet East-West Road towards North was formed within their property on the eastern side. They immediately have taken steps and came to know that the Commissioner/fifth respondent has formed a road three months ago in their property without their knowledge and consent and made an access to the public, particularly to the residents at Page No.4 of 36 Gopal Nagar.

¶5The Commissioner/fifth respondent has no right or title in the said property in any manner whatsoever and the Commissioner/fifth respondent has formed a road by encroaching upon their valuable property to an extent of 3129 sq.ft. measuring 104.3 feet on Noth-South and 30 feet on East-West i.e., Schedule Property. The Commissioner/fifth respondent has no right or title to the said property i.e., 56.29 cents in S.F.No.725/1 of Nallur Village in any manner and no right to encroach the scheduled property and to form road. Therefore, the petitioners issued notice dated 24.03.2008 through their Advocate to the Commissioner/fifth respondent calling upon to desist from permitting the public from using the said road or to pay compensation to the suit schedule property. In the year 2008 itself, the market value of the suit property is Rs.28,69,000/- and the notice was served on the above authority and the Commissioner/fifth respondent had not chosen to reply for the same.

¶6Thereafter, the first petitioner had issued another notice on

19.04.2008 to the Commissioner/fifth respondent calling upon him to close the newly formed road in the suit schedule property and the said notice was Page No.5 of 36 also duly served on the fifth respondent and after service of notice on him, the fifth respondent/Commissioner did not take any action against the notice dated 19.04.2008. Hence, the petitioners filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10921 of 2008 before this Court seeking direction to consider the notice dated 24.03.2008 and 19.04.2008 respectively. Upon hearing the matter, this Court directed the Commissioner/fifth respondent to dispose the letter dated 19.04.2008, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But, the Commissioner/fifth respondent did not taken any action to dispose of the letter dated 19.04.2008. Thereafter, Contempt Petition No.1420 of 2012 in W.P.No.10921 of 2008 was filed against the Commissioner/fifth respondent before this Court. Then, the Commissioner/fifth

respondent

has

issued

an

order

in Na.Ka.No.6108/2010/E4 dated 11.10.2012 containing false and untenable allegations. It contains two parts, one has referred to the order of the seventh respondent i.e., The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai dated

05.09.1995, which itself says that the land has to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The second part has referred to the Settlement and Sale, which the respondents have no authority to speak. Aggrieved over the aforesaid order dated 11.10.2010 the petitioner have come forward with the Page No.6 of 36 present writ petition.

¶7Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per letter dated 05.09.1995, the Commissioner/fifth respondent has not followed any of the proceedings. This apart, the Commissioner/fifth respondent has no right to form road without following due process of law in a private property and not followed any procedure as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, which is against law and natural justice. If any land is needed to be acquired for public purpose, proper notification has to be published and notices are to be served to the land owners and the District Collector has to follow the procedure for Land Acquisition under the Land Acquisition Law. The petitioners are the absolute owners of the property and the Commissioner/fifth respondent has to assess the market value of the said property and to pay compensation to the petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment Bill), 2015.

¶8Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that Page No.7 of 36 the act of the respondents 4 to 6 converting the private property to that of the public road without resorting to the Land Acquisition procedure is not only against Article 300A of the Constitution of India but also against the human rights. The act of the respondents is discriminatory, vindictive and motivated. When others have not formed any road, he could not have expected from the petitioners.

¶9Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the act of the respondents is not only arbitrary and unreasonable and the same is in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and also against the procedures prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.T.Plantation (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs., State of Karnataka, reported in 2011 9 SCC 1, para 219 as follows: "One of the fundamental principles of the democratic society inherent in all the provisions of the Constitution is that any interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possession should be lawful. Let the message therefore be loud and clear, that the Rule of Law exists in this country even when we interpret a statue which has blessings of Article 300A" The Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt., Ltd., Vs., State of UP in 2011 9 SCC 354 at para 30 has held as follows:- Page No.8 of 36 "Liberty cannot long subsist without the support of the property". In view of the above judgments and the Land Acquisition Act, the act of the respondents is liable to be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional.

¶10To substantiate his contention, learned senior counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the various proceedings and the same reads as follows:

(i) Impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated

11.10.2012.

(ii) The proceedings of the Director of the Town and County Planing/seventh respondent vide Roc.No.27594/94-DP3, dated 05.09.1995.

(iii) The RTI reply given by the Public Information Officer, Assistant Commissioner (incharge), Tiruppur Municipal Corporation.

(iv) The RTI reply given by the Public Information Officer, Tiruppur Local Planning Authority.

(v) The order by Tahsildar, Tiruppur vide proceedings M.T.R.No.1820/2003, dated 05.12.2003.

(vi) A letter addressed by the Commissioner,/fifth respondent to the petitioners' advocate.

(vii) Order by Tahsildar, Tiruppur vide R.D.R.68/2013/A1, dated Page No.9 of 36

10.01.2013.

(viii) Order by Tahsildar, Tiruppur vide R.D.R.68A/2013/A1 dated

10.01.2013.

(ix) Certificate extract from the Town Survey Land Register

(TSLR) dated 15.05.2019

(x) Certificate extract from the Town Survey land Register (TSLR) dated 21.11.2023.

¶11Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Commissioner/fifth respondent is not the owner of the above said land of 3129 sq.ft in Sr.No.725/1, Nallur Village and the patta has also stands in the name of the petitioners and not in the name of the Commissioner/fifth respondent, which is evident from the documents mentioned above. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to pay compensation to the petitioners for an extent of 3129 sq.ft. land situated at Nallur Village. Hence, he prayed this Court to allow the writ petition by quashing the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner/fifth respondent. Page No.10 of 36

¶12The counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation/fifth respondent on December 2019. Learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that one Muthusami, who is the father of the second petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of Mrs.Umadevi on 14.02.1994 vide Doc.No.855 of 1994 regarding to the said property situated East and the North-South road and the same is mentioned in the "Description and the property". In the sale deed, Muthusamy has clearly admitted that an extent of 3129 sq.ft in S.F.No.725/1 as North-South road. Subsequently Muthusamy has executed a settlement deed in part of the said property in favour of the second petitioner on

13.03.2003 vide Doc.No.1137/2003 which regarding to the said property situated West of the land of Mrs.Umadevi. He further submitted that the North-South road to an extent of 3129 sq. ft is intentionally included by the petitioners in the settlement deed to grab the said road by unlawfully.

¶13Learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would submit that the title of the petitioners itself in dispute and they are not the owners of extent of 3129 sq. ft. in S.F.No.725/1, Nallur Village and the same is mentioned as road in Doc.No.855/1994. In the description of property, it is Page No.11 of 36 mentioned as North-South Road and the petitioners have suppressed the same and intentionally included 3129 sq.ft. in the settlement deed executed by Muthusamy in favour of the second petitioner vide Doc.No.1137/2003 dated

13.03.2003.

¶14Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to para 15 of the counter affidavit, and the same reads as follows: "The New scheme of computerized UDR" is under process and after completion of task; the said extent of 3129 sq.ft will be classified a "Public Road" in official records."

¶15He further submitted that an additional counter affidavit was also filed by the Commissioner, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation/fifth respondent in July 2024, wherein it is stated that if the land is acquired for formation of road under DTCP scheme development, then the respondents 6 & 7 have to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

¶16Learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Page No.12 of 36 same reads as follows:

(i) Civil Appeal No.2848/2021 in the case of Shubhas Jain Vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others dated 10.07.2021.

(ii) Civil Appeal No.11759 of 2018 in the case of Roshina.T Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T and others.

¶17Learned senior counsel would submit that even as per the sale deed dated 14.02.1994 vide document No.855 of 1994, the first petitioner's father in law has described in the schedule of the property that it comprises a North-South road in the east.

¶18He would further submitted that the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file a suit for declaration of title and since the road was laid by the Corporation and used by the public, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation as claimed in the writ petition and prays for dismissal of the same.

¶19A counter affidavit is filed by the Member Secretary, Tiruppur Page No.13 of 36 Local Planning Authority/sixth respondent. For better appreciation and understanding, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: "5. A portion in S.F.No.725/1 of Nallur Village is earmarked as F13-F13 40 Feet proposed scheme road in the above said detailed development plan and is to be formed by Local Planning Authority. As per the counter affidavit of the Tiruppur Corporation, the road was already a mud road and is used by public more than 30 years then this road is converted into thar road for Gopal Nagar area unapproved layouts were sold and mentioned this South to North approach road to Gopal Nagar."

¶20Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶21There is no dispute that originally the land to an extent of 56.29 cents in S.F.No.725/1 in Nallur Village belongs to the petitioners by virtue of registered settlement deeds dated 13.03.2003 and 22.03.2004. The second petitioner has become the absolute owner of the said property by virtue of settlement deed dated 13.03.2003 bearing Doc.No.1137 of 2003 executed by her father Mr.Muthusamy S/o Ramasamy Gounder. Further on 22.03.2004, the second petitioner has settled half of the said property in favour of the first Page No.14 of 36 petitioner by virtue of the settlement deed dated 22.03.2004 bearing Doc.No.1245/2004.

¶22The land in dispute is only to an extent of 3129 sq.ft and according to the petitioners, the same has been encroached by the Commissioner, Tirupur Municipal Corporation/fifth respondent by forming a road on the subject property for an extent of 3129 sq ft measuring 104.3 feet on North-South and 30 feet on East-West and the Commissioner/fifth respondent has no right of title in the said property in any manner.

¶23As per the impugned order dated 11.10.2012, it is stated that as per the partition deed Doc.No.753 of 1974, the property is allotted to the father of the second petitioner viz., Muthusamy S/o Ramasamy Gounder. Hence, there is no dispute in regard to the title of the property and the petitioners are the absolute owners of the property and in the same letter, it is also mentioned as follows: nkYk;. j';fs; kidaplj;jpy; mjhtJ "

f/r/vz;/725-1y; g[jpajhf rhiy mikf;f. Tphpt[ mgptpUj;jpj; jpl;lk; vz;/15y; vg;16?vg;16 vd;w 40 mo Page No.15 of 36 mfy rhiy cj;njrpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go jpl;lkhdJ o/o/rp/gp fojk; vz;/2759-94. ehs; 05/09/1995y; m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;L DDP/CN/DTCP No.60/95 vd vz;zplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkYk; ,j;jpl;lrhiyahdJ kidchpikahsh;fshy; mikf;fg;gl ntz;Lk; vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt thpt[ mgptpUj;jpj; jpl;lj;jpy; cj;njrpf;fg;gl;Ls;sthW kidaplj;jpy; j';fsJ brhe;j brytpy; rhiy nikj;J khefuhl;rpf;F jhdkhf tH';f ntz;Lk; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;oUg;gpDk;. bghJkf;fspd; eyd; fUjpa[k;. rhiy gad;ghl;od; Kf;fpaj;Jtj;jpid fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk;

khefuhl;rp

K:yk;

rhiy mikf;ffg;gl;Ls;sjhy;. jh';fs; nfhhpa[s;sthW rhiyia

milf;f

,ayhJ

vd bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/" It is pertinent to note from the above impugned order issued by the Commissioner/fifth respondent, the plot owners have to laid down road. Since they have not done, the Corporation has laid down the road and the same is used by the general public and cannot be closed as requested by the respondents herein.

¶24At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract the reply given by the Public Information Officer of the sixth respondent: Page No.16 of 36 In the above mentioned document, it is clearly mentioned that the road is in use, after the approval of the Tiruppur Development Plan No.15. As per the Development Plan No.15 of Tiruppur Local Planning area, it was decided to re-examine the entire project and steps have also been taken.

¶25It is also pertinent to extract the relevant paragraph of the proceedings of the Director of Town and Country Planing/7th respondent and the same reads as follows: " 3) The Member Secretary of Tiruppur Local Page No.17 of 36 Planning Authority is requested to initiate action for acquiring the lands for implementation of the Detailed Development Plan No.15 of Tiruppur Local Planning Area under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Area of this Detailed Development Plan is 205.00 acres."

¶26It is pertinent to extract the RTI reply given by the Public Information Officer, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation vide Na.Ka.No.E1/563/2013 dated 20.02.2013: Page No.18 of 36 From the above, it is crystal clear and evident that 30 feet thar road stands as joint patta No.556 in the names of 1. Muthusamy Gounder S/o Ramasamy Gounder 2. K.S.Duraimurugan S/o Subaiah Gounder and 3. D.Susila Devi. Page No.19 of 36

¶27It is also not in dispute that the patta stands in the name of the petitioners till date and the same is evident from the following records: Page No.20 of 36 CERTIFICATE EXTRACT FROM THE TOWN SURVEY LAND REGISTER Block Code and Name of Locality Number Sur. Field Sub Div. O.Sur No and Letter Adangal How the holding is utilised Remarks Block: BLOCK 5 - 1B1 A 725/IP-uhkrhkp ft[z;lh; kfd; Kj;Jrhkp ft[z;lh;. Rg;iga ft[z;lh;

kfd; JiuKUfd;. JiuKUfd; kidtp

RrPyhnjtp Rg;gpukzpak;

kfd; rj;jpaK:h;j;jp khzpf;fk; kfd; Mde;jd; mr;Rjd; kfd; fz;zd; tptrhak; TR DT: 05-09-2017 CERTIFICATE EXTRACT FROM THE TOWN SURVEY LAND REGISTER Block Code and Name of Locality Number Sur. Fiel d Su b Di v. O.Sur No and Letter Adangal How the holdin g is utilise d Remarks Block: BLOCK 118 – ey;Y}h; fpuhkk; W:O/B: 5/TS No.40/1 A, 2B, 40/1B1 Ap, 40/1B2. 42/1p, 2A1p Kj;Jrhkp

ft[z;lh;

kfd; uhkrhkpft[z;lu;. Rpd;rhkpft[z;lu; kfd; Kj;Jr;rhkpft[z;lh;. _ rutzh!;gpd;dp';kpy;!;

gpiuntl; ypkpbll; ,af;Feh; fpUcw;zrhkp kfd; b$af;Fkhh; fpUcw;zrhkp. Jiurhkp kidtp ckhnjtp. fe;jrhkp ft[z;lu; kfd; bguparhkp. Bguparhkp kidtp RFzh. Jiurhkp kidtp ckhnjtp. fUg;g[rhkpft[z;lu; kfd; tptrhak; TR DT: 05-09-2017 Page No.21 of 36 j';fuh$; fhaj;hp Xk; rutzd; Xk; rutzd;. rpd;drhkpft[z;lh; kfd; j';fuh$;. uhkrhkpft[z;h; kfd; Kj;Jrhkpft[z;lh;. <!;tuK:h;j;jpft[z;lh;

kfd; ghyRg;gpukzpak;.

Rg;igaft[z;lh; kfd; JiuKUfd;. JiuKUfd; kidtp RrPyhnjtp. Rg;gpukzpak; kfd; rj;jpaK:h;j;jp. khzpf;fk; kfd; Mde;jd;. mR;Rjd; kfd; fz;zd;. Xk; rutzd; kidtp fhaj;hp Xk; rutzd;. ghyRg;gpukzpak; kfd; a[tuh$;gpug[. ehr;rpKj;Jft[z;lh; kfd; re;jpud;. <!;tud; kidtp g{kjp rz;Kfehjd; kidtp a[t$ddp. eluh$; kfd; a[tuh$;. Rg;igad; kfd; rf;jpnty;.

rpd;duh$;

kfd; bre;jpy;Fkhh;/ The above mentioned four documents have been issued by the authorities, after the 1994 sale deed i.e., from 10.01.2013 to 21.11.2023. From the same, it is crystal clear and evident that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the property and not the Corporation and as on date, the land stands in the name of the petitioners. Hence, it is reiterated that there is no dispute over the title of the property and the petitioners are the owners of the property, even as per the impugned order of the Commissioner/fifth respondent dated 11.10.2012.

¶28At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention paragraph 15 of the Page No.22 of 36 counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner/fifth respondent and the same reads as follows: "The New scheme of computerized UDR" is under process and after completion of task; the said extent of 3129 sq.ft will be classified a "Public Road" in official records." Even as per the above statement in the counter affidavit, the road is yet to be classified as public road in the official record and the counter is filed way back in the year 2019 and even in the town plan survey dated

25.11.2023, the land still stands in the name of the petitioners and not in the name of the Commissioner/fifth respondent. Since the above said road is not declared as public road till date, no doubt, the road is a private road. From this, it can be understood that property where the 30 feet road was laid is a private property and not the property vested with the Corporation.

¶29It is also pertinent to extract paragraph (e) of the additional counter filed by the fifth respondent in July 2024 and the same reads as follows: "e. This place Sf.No.:725/1 New Development Scheme No.15, F13-F13 40ft Road forecasted to form 40 feet road Director of Town and Country Planning vide letter No.27594/1994 dated 05.09.1995 and as per scheme it should Page No.23 of 36 be formed by Local Planning authority. If land acquired for formation road under DTCP scheme road Developments then Town and Country Planning herein 6th and 7th respondent has to pay compensation." It is clear from the above submission that if the land is acquired by the Local Planing Authority, the respondents 6 & 7 have to pay the compensation and in this regard, already there was a proceedings of the Director of Town and Country Planing/seventh respondent addressed to the the Member Secretary, Tiruppur Local Planing Authority/sixth respondent to initiate action for acquiring the land for implementation of Development Plan No.15 of Tiruppur local plan area under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶30It is also pertinent to extract Article 300A of the constitution of India and the same reads as follows: 300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."

¶31It is also pertinent to extract paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the sixth respondent and the same reads as follows: Page No.24 of 36 "5. A portion in S.F.No.725/1 of Nallur Village is earmarked as F13-F13 40 Feet proposed scheme road in the above said detailed development plan and is to be formed by Local Planning Authority. As per the counter affidavit of the Tiruppur Corporation, the road was already a mud road and is used by public more than 30 years then this road is converted into thar road for Gopal Nagar area unapproved layouts were sold and mentioned this South to North approach road to Gopal Nagar."

¶6The relevant portion of the section 67 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is extracted as follows:

67.Utilisation of Funds.(1) Every planning authority shall utilise the moneys from the Fund Account for meeting.

(a) The expenditure incurred in the administration of this Act;

(b) The cost of acquisition of land for purposes of development;

(c) The expenditure for any development of works contemplated in any development plan;

(d) The expenditure for such other purposes as may be required by the planning authority;

(e) The expenditure for such other purposes as the Government may direct". As per the above said provisions, if petitioners herein submits the proposal with necessary particulars through the 5th respondent, then the same can submitted to the Government through Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chennai for necessary orders." Page No.25 of 36 According to the above statement, if the petitioners submits the proposal with necessary particulars through the fifth respondent, the same can be submitted to the Government through the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai/seventh respondent for necessary orders.

¶32To substantiate his claim, learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same reads as follows:

(i) Civil Appeal No.2848/2021 in the case of Shubhas Jain Vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others dated 10.07.2021. For better appreciation and understanding, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: "26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputeed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable."

The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the present case on hand for the reason that there is no disputed questions of facts and there is no conflicting technical reports.

(ii) Civil Appeal No.11759 of 2018 in the case of Roshina.T Vs. Abdul Page No.26 of 36 Azeez K.T and others. For better appreciation and understanding, the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: "15. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigation.

¶16In our view, the writ petition to claim such relief was not, therefore, legally permissible. It, therefore, deserved dismissal in limine on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit by respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) in the Civil Court.

¶17We cannot, therefore, concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court when it unnecessarily wen into all the question of fact arising in the case on the basis of factual pleadings in detail and recorded a factual finding that it was the respondent No.1 who was in Page No.27 of 36 possession of the flat and, therefore, he be restored with his possession of the flat by the appellant." The aforesaid judgment is not applicable for the reason that there is no dispute regarding the title of the property and the same is evident from the records of the authorities viz., the Commissioner/fifth respondent.

¶33In para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner/Tiruppur Municipal Corporation, it is stated that the second petitioner has to prove that she is the absolute owner of the property. In this regard, already there was a settlement deed document executed in favour of the second petitioner by Muthusamy vide sale deed Doc.No.1137 of 2003 dated 13.03.2003.

¶34The contention of the fifth respondent in para 7 of the above counter that the disputed property is a public road cannot be countenanced because, in para 15 of the same counter, it is stated as follows: "The New Scheme of computerized UDR is under process and after completion of task; the said extent of 3129 sq.ft. will be classified as "Public Road" in official records". Page No.28 of 36

¶35In the subsequent counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent Corporation on 29.07.2024, it is stated in para 5 (e) as follows: "e. This place Sf.No.725/1 New Development Scheme No:15, F13-F13 40 ft Road forecasted to form 40 feet road Director of Town and Country planning vide letter No:27594/1994 dated 05/09/1995 and as per scheme it should be formed by Local Planning authority. If land acquired for formation road under DTCP scheme road developments then Town and Country planning herein 6th and 7th respondents has to pay compensation". Hence, it is clear and evident that the road is not a public road and it is a private road only.

¶36In the written statement filed by the sixth respondent, the Member Secretary, Tiruppur Local Planning Authority, Tiruppur dated

31.07.2024, it is stated that as per Section 67 of the Town & Planing Act, 1971 that if the petitioners herein submits the proposal with necessary particulars through the 5th respondent then the same can be submitted to the Government through the 7th respondent the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai – 600 002.

¶37Hence from the above it is clear that the 5th and the 6th Page No.29 of 36 respondent have no dispute over the title of the property vested with the petitioners. This apart, nowhere in the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the respondents are disputing the title of the property. Therefore, the learned senior counsel's first contention that they are disputing the title of the petitioners over the said property is unsustainable.

¶38The second contention that the petitioners have to file a suit for declaration of title is also unsustainable.

¶39It has to be noted that even in the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent on 31.07.2024 it is not mentioned that the said road to an extent of 3129 sq.ft. has been classified as "Public Road" in the official records. As per the counter affidavit of the 5th and the 6th respondent there is a mud road and the same has been used by the general public for 30 years does not mean it is a corporation road and does not confer the ownership or title on 5th respondent/Tirupur corporation.

¶40Even as per the RTI reply by the fifth respondent, Page No.30 of 36 Commissioner, Tiruppur Corporation dated 31.12.2012, the road is not in the name of the Corporation.

¶41In the counter filed in the December 2019 and in July 2024 i.e., after 12 years of the above RTI reply also, the road is not in the name of the Corporation and the same is evident in Town Survey Land Register

(TSLR) dated 21.11.2023 and till now, the patta stands in the name of the petitioners and not in the name of the Corporation. The subject matter road to an extent of 3129 sq.ft. is already used by the fifth respondent/Corporation. Hence, there is no necessity to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings.

¶42Hence this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled for compensation along with interest and the order passed by the fifth respondent in Na.Ka.No.6108/2010E4, dated 11.10.2012 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. This Court is inclined to issue the following directions: Page No.31 of 36

(i) The petitioners are directed to submit to the fifth respondent/Corporation the documents relating to the market value of the property, copy of the patta or Town Survey Land Register and other documents, if any, for payment of compensation by the respondents.

(ii) On receipt of the above documents, the value of the land shall be determined as per the market value of the property by the Commissioner, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation/fifth respondent and he is directed to forward the proposal to the sixth respondent/The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Tiruppur.

(iii) Thereafter, the sixth respondent/the Member Secretary of the Tiruppur Local Planing Authority is directed to send a proposal to the Director of Town and Country Planing, Chennai/7th respondent for necessary orders in regard to payment of compensation as claimed by the petitioners under the provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with 9% interest as per Section 80 of the said Act from the date of Page No.32 of 36 laying the road by the Commissioner, Tiruppur City Municipal Corporation/fifth respondent, i.e., in the year 2008.

(iv) On receipt of the proposal from the Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Tiruppur/sixth respondent, The Director of Town and Country Planing/seventh respondent is directed to forward the same to the Government for necessary orders in regard to payment of compensation as claimed by the petitioners.

(v) Thereafter, the compensation may be paid/settled under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioners by the concerned respondents and after the payment of compensation as directed in this order, the road will vest with the fifth respondent Corporation.

(vi) The entire above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of five months (5) from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Page No.33 of 36

¶43Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

21.10.2024 vm Index : Speaking Order : : To:

1.The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. Page No.34 of 36

3.Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Urban Administrative Complex, 75, Santhome High Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai – 600 028.

4.The District Collector, Collectrate, Palladam Road, Tirupur – 641 604.

5.The Commissioner, Tirupur City Municipal Corporation, Tirupur.

6.The Member Secretary, Tirupur Local Planning Authority, No.544, PalladamMin Road, Tirupur – 641 604.

7.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai – 600 002. J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J. vm Page No.35 of 36

21.10.2024 Page No.36 of 36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 02.08.2024 Pronounced on 21.10.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD Writ Petition No.27506 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.26990 of 2019 & 651 of 2024 1.K.S.Duraimurugan 2.D.Susiladevi ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 3.Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Urban Administrative Complex, 75, Santhome High Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai – 600 028. 4.The District Collector, Collectrate, Palladam Road, Tirupur – 641 604. 5.The Commissioner, Tirupur City Municipal Corporation, Page No.1 of 36 Tirupur. 6.The Member Secretary, Tirupur Local Planning Authority, No.544, PalladamMin Road, Tirupur – 641 604. 7.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai – 600 002. … Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the fifth respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.6108/2010/E4 dated 11.10.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein either to stop usage of the 3129 sq.ft. of land in S.F.No.725/1 of Nallur Village, Tirupur Taluk, Tirupur District or pay compensation for the said land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 with interest. (Prayer amended as per order dated 30.07.2024 in WMP.No.23435 of 2024 in W.P.No.27506 of 2019 by JSNPJ) For Petitioners : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palanimuthu For Respondents 1 to 4, 6 & 7 : M/s.R.L.Karthika, Government Advocate For Respondent 5 : Mr.Silambannan, Senior Counsel for M/s.P.Shanthi Page No.2 of 36