Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a plot (No. 25) in Thirumoolar Colony Scheme area, Chennai, which was originally earmarked for 'public convenience' under a layout approved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotted this plot to the appellant, Mrs. Ramani, who paid the requisite amounts and obtained a No Objection Certificate for water and drainage connections. However, before obtaining building plan approval from the Chennai Municipal Corporation, she commenced construction. Meanwhile, a civil suit (OS No. 326/1996) was filed by residents to restrain the Board from allotting the plot to individuals, as it was required for public purpose. The CMDA did not approve the allotment proposal, and the Slum Clearance Board cancelled the allotment on 03.06.1996. Despite the cancellation, the appellant continued unauthorized construction. The residents filed a writ petition (WP No. 11868/1996) seeking removal of illegal construction, while the appellant challenged the cancellation in WP No. 10441/1996. The learned Single Judge allowed the appellant's petition, setting aside the cancellation on the ground that the Board lacked jurisdiction. The residents (Thirumoolar Colony) appealed to the Division Bench, which set aside the Single Judge's order, holding that the plot was reserved for public convenience and could not be allotted to an individual, and that the construction was unauthorized. The appellant then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Division Bench's judgment. The Court held that the residents had locus standi as aggrieved persons, relying on Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa. It found that the plot was earmarked for public convenience under the sanctioned scheme and could not be allotted to an individual. The appellant's construction was illegal and unauthorized, and she could not claim equity as she proceeded despite litigation and without sanctioned plan. The Court affirmed that the Division Bench correctly interfered as full facts were not placed before the Single Judge.
Headnote
A) Locus Standi - Residents of Locality - Aggrieved Person - Residents of a locality are intimately, vitally, and adversely affected by any action of the development authority that deprives them of facilities reserved for public enjoyment and health protection - They have locus standi to challenge illegal allotment of land earmarked for public convenience - Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa relied upon (Paras 6, 10). B) Land Use - Public Convenience - Allotment to Individual - A plot reserved for public convenience under a sanctioned town planning scheme cannot be allotted to an individual - Such allotment is illegal and contrary to the statutory scheme - Cancellation of allotment by Slum Clearance Board was justified (Paras 5, 7). C) Unauthorized Construction - No Equity - A person who puts up construction without obtaining sanctioned building plan and despite pending litigation cannot claim any equity - The construction is illegal and liable to be removed (Para 5). D) Appeal - Locus Standi - Slum Clearance Board Not Challenging - The fact that the Slum Clearance Board did not challenge the Single Judge's order does not bar residents from filing an appeal as they are aggrieved persons affected by the allotment (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the Single Judge's order that had quashed the cancellation of allotment of a plot earmarked for public convenience, and whether the writ appellant (resident association) had locus standi to file the appeal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Division Bench's judgment and order dated 06.09.2006 in WA No. 1785/1999 and the order dated 22.12.2014 in Review Petition No. 145/2006. The Court held that the plot was reserved for public convenience and could not be allotted to an individual; the construction was unauthorized; and the residents had locus standi.
Law Points
- Locus standi of residents to challenge allotment of land earmarked for public convenience
- Cancellation of allotment of land reserved for public purpose
- Unauthorized construction without sanctioned building plan
- No equity in favor of illegal construction
- Development authority's action depriving public of reserved facilities is challengeable by affected residents
