Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by V. Yasodaa challenging a final show cause notice dated 17.04.2023 issued by the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over the encroached portion of public purpose land. The petitioner claimed to be a purchaser of a plot and argued that the notice was based on a judgment in Second Appeal Nos. 510 and 518 of 2019, which did not include her land in the suit schedule property. The Corporation contended that as per the approved layout of 1971, only 86 residential plots were approved, and Plots A and B were reserved for public purposes. The petitioner was in occupation of Plot No. 87(A), which was part of the public purpose area. The court noted that the purchase of public purpose land is null and void, and that civil rights cannot be decided in writ proceedings under Article 226. It further observed that similarly placed persons had already been evicted after litigation up to the Supreme Court. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner is an encroacher and the notice was valid.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Encroachment on Public Purpose Land - Purchase of public purpose land is null and void - The petitioner purchased Plot No. 87(A) which was reserved for public purpose in the approved layout of 1971. The court held that such purchase is null and void and the petitioner is an encroacher. (Paras 4-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Civil Rights - High Court under Article 226 cannot decide civil rights - The court declined to adjudicate the petitioner's claim of title, noting that civil rights between parties must be decided by a civil court, not in writ proceedings. (Para 5) C) Property Law - Approved Layout - Public Purpose Land - Land reserved for public purpose vests with the Corporation - The layout approved in 1971 reserved Plots A and B for public purposes. The Corporation is entitled to evict encroachers from such land. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who purchased a plot reserved for public purpose in an approved layout, can challenge the eviction notice issued by the Corporation on the ground that his land was not included in the suit schedule property in earlier civil proceedings.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Public purpose land vests with the Corporation
- purchase of public purpose land is null and void
- civil rights not decided in writ proceedings
- encroachment on public purpose land is illegal
