VILLUPURAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. M SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these second appeals Villupuram Municipality is the appellant who filed different suits against the respondents in each of the appeals herein. The relief sought for by the Municipality in the suits is for the declaration that the suit property is to be kept for the common use of the residents of the locality, for the purpose of construction of school and playground and also for consequential injunction restraining the respondents herein from putting up any construction. The first respondent is the erstwhile owner of the property who applied for the sanction of the lay out . The Deputy Director of Town Planning accorded sanction in his proceedings Ex.A1 dated 16.5.1984 in Roc.No.1976/1984. As per the said lay out sanction, the property under dispute should be kept for the construction of the school and play ground. Since the first respondent, contrary to the sanctioned lay out, had further divided the disputed property in to plots and sold the same to the second respondents in these second appeals and the attempt on the part of the purchasers to built up construction in the disputed property, the appellant filed the suits.

(2.) THE defence of the first respondent is that as per the sanctioned lay out there is no dispute that the suit property is earmarked for the construction of the school and play ground. But within the stipulated time as the local body did not take possession of the disputed property and utilised the same for the purpose for which the same was earmarked, the disputed property vests with the first respondent and as such the first respondent is entitled to use the land as he likes. When that be so, the alienation made by him is quite legal and the purchasers are entitled to use the land as they like. THE said written statement was adopted by the purchasers who are the other respondents in the respective appeals.

(3.) ON the contrary, Mr.Sivaji, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972) enables the owner of the land to file an application for the sanction of the lay out. When once the lay out is sanctioned, Section 50 of the said Act makes it clear that such permission is valid and shall remain in force for a period of three years from the date of permission. Hence the permission for the sanctioned layout can be valid only for three years from the date of sanction or from the date of order. Consequently the sanction had expired as early as 15.5.1987, three years subsequent to Ex.A1 and hence the suit is barred by limitation. Further after the lapse of three years, the owner of the land has got absolute right to deal with the same and the manner as he likes. Though the Courts below have proceeded on the wrong assumption that the respondents are entitled for compensation and the possession of the land has to be taken over by the statutory authorities, now in view of the above legal principles pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the second appeals are liable to be dismissed for the reasoning of the Courts below, if not, by sustaining the judgment of the Courts below for the above reasons.