High Court · 2025

W.P.No.35252 of 2019IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYANW.P.No.35252 of 2019and WMP.No.36052 of 2019Sumathi ... PetitionerVs1. The Member Secretary The Puducherry Town Planning Authority Jawahar Nagar, Boomianpet, Puducherry.2. M/s.Sree Manakula Vinayaga Chemicals Rep.by its Proprietrix Mrs.Uma Saravanan @ Uma 3. The Tahsildar Bahoor Taluk, Puducherry Puducherry State. .... Respondents(R3 impleaded vide order dated 01.02.2023 made in WMP.No.2500 of 2023 in W.P.No.35252 of 2019 NSKJ)1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35252 of 2019Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records made impugned order No.2242/PPA/ representation/2017/7124 dated 29.10.2019 on the file of first respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently cancel the planning permission granted in favour of second respondent herein made in PPA/676/605/Z(BCP)/2015 dated 20.05.2015 on the file of the first respondent.For Petitioner: Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar Addl. Government Pleader (P) for R1 Mr.N.Snathi Priya Raj for R2 O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records made impugned order No.2242/PPA/ representation/2017/7124 dated 29.10.2019 on the file of first respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently cancel the planning permission granted in favour of second respondent herein made in PPA/676/605/Z(BCP)/2015 dated 20.05.2015 on the file of the first respondent.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35252 of 20192. The writ petition came up for hearing on 21.01.2025 on which date this Court had observed as follows:-“ The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus calling records relating to order No.2242/PPA/representation/2017/7124 dated 29.10.2019 on the file of the 1st respondent, Member Secretary, Puducherry Town Planning Authority at Puducherry and quash the same and cancel the planning permission granted in favour of the 2nd respondent by an order dated 20.05.2015.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner is a owner of the land measuring 00.80.20 hectares in Survey No.90/4B (Old Survey No.334/2, Paimash No.11) in No.72, Kirumampakkam village. It had been stated that after devolution of title of the property, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the land after resurvey was granted Survey No.90/4B. The planning permission was granted on 20.05.2015 in favour of the 2nd respondent. 3. Questioning that particular aspect, the petitioner had been approaching this Court even earlier by filing W.P.No.28880 of 2017. The 2nd respondent was also a party to 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35252 of 2019the said writ petition. In an order dated 24.11.2017, a learned Single Judge of this Court had directed that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent must produce necessary copies of documents to establish their claims over the said land which would enable the 1st respondent to file a report before this Court. Thereafter, the matter again came up before the Court on 02.08.2019 wherein the learned Single Judge had stated that hearing of the appeal had been fixed and that notice would be issued to the parties. The learned Single Judge had therefore directed that the writ petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent must participate in the appeal before the 1st respondent and more particularly directed that the 1st respondent to consider all contentions and pass order on merits in accordance with law. This would ensure that the procedure as enunciated is be followed. The procedure would include granting an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The matter was also taken up before the Division Bench by filing writ petition in W.P.No.28880 of 2017 and the Division Bench had also passed an order on 22.08.2019.4. Even before proceeding further, it is only appropriate that necessary clarification is issued by the Registry as to how W.P.No.28880 of 2017 was listed before the learned Single Judge on 24.11.2017 and also listed before the Division Bench on 22.08.2019 and both the learned Single Judge and the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35252 of 2019Division Bench had passed orders. 5. For putting up a clarification note by the Registry to explain the aforementioned directions issued, list the matter on 24.01.2025”. 3. Registry put up a clarification stating that W.P.No.28880 of 2017 had been initially listed before the single Judge and the learned single Judge had thereafter referred the matter before the Division Bench and it is under those circumstances the Division Bench had an occasion to examine the issues and pass final orders on 22.08.2019. 4. The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the impugned order is that the petitioner was not granted opportunity of being heard. It had been stated that an obligation had been placed on the first respondent to grant an opportunity to the petitioner and also to the 2nd respondent and thereafter to pass necessary orders. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the first respondent had only examined the representation given by the petitioner herein and thereafter on the basis of available records had passed impugned order. There is no 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35252 of 2019indication that the petitioner was either issued with notice of hearing or was heard or even granted permission to file written submissions. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent however objected to grant of any relief to the petitioner by stating that the petitioner had categorised the 2nd respondent as a land grabber and in this connection the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent pointed out the string of the encumbrance certificates produced as documents before this Court even prior to 1989 and subsequent to 1989 when according to the learned counsel the title of the 2nd respondent had been recognised. 6. This Court can never enter into any discussion about the grant or otherwise of the title or about declaration of title. The Court can only examine whether an order impugned had been passed after following due procedure as enunciated by law. Due procedure would require the authority passing orders to issue notice to all parties concerned and give them an opportunity of being heard and thereafter on the basis of the representations made and on the basis of the records, pass orders. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35252 of 2019Opportunity of being heard is sacrosanct because the records would be interpreted in a particular manner by the official and in a separate manner by the parties concerned and in order to enunciate their views of the available records, it is only appropriate that notice is issued and the parties concerned are heard before passing of such order. 7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no such opportunity had been granted to the petitioner herein. Let me make it very clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion about the rival claims between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The issue have to be examined and determined elsewhere and not in this forum. Examining the impugned order on a narrow spectacle whether opportunity had been granted to the petitioner or not and holding that opportunity had not been granted, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to follow due procedure as enunciated in law namely to issue notice to the petitioner and also to the 2nd respondent given them sufficient opportunity and then pass appropriate orders. The entire exercise shall be completed by the third respondent within a period of six 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35252 of 2019months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 24.01.2025dpqIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking order / Non speaking orderTo1. The Member Secretary The Puducherry Town Planning Authority Jawahar Nagar, Boomianpet, Puducherry.2. The Tahsildar Bahoor Taluk, Puducherry Puducherry State. C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.dpq8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.35252 of 2019W.P.No.35252 of 2019and WMP.No.36052 of 201924.01.20259/9