Pollachi Municipal Employees Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1169150
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-05-2013
JudgeM.JAICHANDREN
AppellantPollachi Municipal Employees Association
RespondentState of Tamil Nadu
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated:5. 8.2013 coram the hon'ble mr.justice m.jaichandren writ petition no.4855 of 2012 pollachi municipal employees association, [ petitioner ]. revenue assistant municipal office, pollachi, represented by the president p.soundararajan vs 1 state of tamil nadu rep. by its secretary to government municipal administration and water supply department, secretariat, chennai-9. 2 director of municipal administration, chepauk, chennai-5. 3 the commissioner pollachi municipality pollachi. [ respondents ]. this writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in na.ka.no.9280/2011/g1 dated 19.08.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to allot the house sites to the members of the petitioner's association on l.p.r.no.201/82 and subsequent orders issued in g.o.ms.no.477 by housing and urban development dated 01.06.1990 in respect of the land in t.s.no.139/1, 142 & 143, sangampalayam village, pollachi taluk, within the time as stipulated by this honourable court. for petitioner : mr.r.n.amarnath for respondents : mr.r.ravichandran agp for r1 and r2 mr.v.jayaprakash narayanan for r3 order heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.2. this writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 19.8.2011, and consequently, direct the respondents to allot the house sites to the members of the petitioner association, in the land situated in t.s.nos.139/1, 142 and 143, sangampalayam village, pollachi taluk, as per the government order, in g.o.ms.no.477, housing and urban development department, dated 1.6.1990.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the members of the petitioner association are the employees of the third respondent municipality. during the year 1945-46, an extent of 11.22 acres of land, in t.s.nos.139/1, 142 and 143, sangampalayam village, pollachi taluk, had been used as a compost yard. subsequently, the said compost yard had been shifted to nallur village. therefore, the third respondent had proposed to develop the land, as house sites, for the purpose of allotment of the said sites to the employees working in the third respondent municipality.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the sites had been developed and the lay out had been approved in the year, 1981, based on the resolution passed by the third respondent municipality in resolution no.909, dated 8.1.1981. consequently, the state government had also approved the proposal of the municipality by issuing the government order, in g.o.ms.no.1056, dated 5.12.1981. thereafter, a government order had been issued, in g.o.ms.no.477, housing and urban development department, dated 1.6.1990, permitting the integrated development of small and medium towns by the municipality concerned, as per the guidelines issued by the state government. in such circumstances, the petitioner association had made several representations to the third respondent municipality and to the other authorities concerned to allot the house sites in the land in question, to the members of the petitioner association.5. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that this court, by its order, dated 7.6.2011, made in w.p.no.19849 of 2008, had directed the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application made by the petitioner association, for the allotment of house sites to its members. however, the third respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.8.2011, rejecting the request of the petitioner stating that the land in question is proposed to be used by the third respondent municipality for other purposes. in such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this court, under article 226 of the constitution of india.6. a counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner. it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner that the municipality had sent a proposal for the development of the land in question as house sites, for allotting the same to the employees of the third respondent municipality, is false, as there was no such proposal sent by the third respondent.7. it has also been stated that the land in t.s.nos.139/1, 142 and 143, sangampalayam village, pollachi taluk, is situated on the coimbatore to palani main road and therefore, the third respondent municipality has utilized the said land for commercial purposes, by constructing a commercial complex. such a proposal has been made for the purpose of earning more revenue for the third respondent municipality.8. it has also been pointed out that this court, in its order, dated 7.6.2011, made in w.p.no.19849 of 2008, has categorically denied the request of the petitioner by stating that there was no merit in the claim of the petitioner association for allotting the house sites in sangampalayam village. while so, it is not open to the petitioner to claim, as a matter of right, that the third respondent municipality has to allot the house sites to the members of the petitioner association in the land situated, in t.s.nos.139/1, 142 and 143, sangampalayam village, pollachi taluk.9. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner association that the third respondent should allot the house sites to the members of the petitioner association, in t.s.nos.139/1, 142 & 143, sangampalayam village, pollachi taluk, cannot be granted, as the third respondent municipality has no proposal to make such an allotment.10. in fact, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is noted that the third respondent municipality has proposed to use the land in question to build a commercial complex, to earn more revenue to the third respondent municipality. further, the petitioner association had not been in a position to show that it has the right to claim that the third respondent municipality should allot house sites in the land in question.11. even though the government has passed certain orders laying down the guidelines for the development of the house sites to the employees of the third respondent municipality, it cannot be said that it was the mandatory direction to the municipalities, including the third respondent municipality, that vacant lands in their possession should be developed as house sites and for being allotted to its employees.12. even otherwise, the petitioner is also not in a position to show that the proposal of the third respondent municipality, for utilizing the land in question, for building a commercial complex, is arbitrary or illegal. in such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. as such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed. no costs. connected m.p.no.1 of 2012 is closed. lan to:1. state of tamil nadu rep. by its secretary to government municipal administration and water supply department, secretariat, chennai-9. 2 director of municipal administration, chepauk, chennai-5. 3 the commissioner pollachi municipality pollachi
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:

5. 8.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4855 of 2012 POLLACHI MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, [ PETITIONER ]. REVENUE ASSISTANT MUNICIPAL OFFICE, POLLACHI, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT P.SOUNDARARAJAN Vs 1 STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9. 2 DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-5. 3 THE COMMISSIONER POLLACHI MUNICIPALITY POLLACHI. [ RESPONDENTS ]. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.9280/2011/G1 dated 19.08.2011 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to allot the house sites to the members of the Petitioner's association on L.P.R.No.201/82 and subsequent orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.477 by Housing and Urban Development dated 01.06.1990 in respect of the land in T.S.No.139/1, 142 & 143, Sangampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk, within the time as stipulated by this Honourable Court. For petitioner : Mr.R.N.Amarnath For respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran AGP for R1 and R2 Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan for R3 ORDER

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the third Respondent, dated 19.8.2011, and consequently, direct the respondents to allot the house sites to the members of the Petitioner association, in the land situated in T.S.Nos.139/1, 142 and 143, Sangampalayam village, Pollachi Taluk, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.477, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 1.6.1990.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the members of the petitioner association are the employees of the third respondent municipality. During the year 1945-46, an extent of 11.22 acres of land, in T.S.Nos.139/1, 142 and 143, Sangampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk, had been used as a compost yard. Subsequently, the said compost yard had been shifted to Nallur village. Therefore, the third respondent had proposed to develop the land, as house sites, for the purpose of allotment of the said sites to the employees working in the third respondent municipality.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the sites had been developed and the lay out had been approved in the year, 1981, based on the resolution passed by the third respondent municipality in resolution No.909, dated 8.1.1981. Consequently, the state Government had also approved the proposal of the municipality by issuing the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.1056, dated 5.12.1981. Thereafter, a Government Order had been issued, in G.O.Ms.No.477, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 1.6.1990, permitting the integrated development of small and medium towns by the municipality concerned, as per the guidelines issued by the state Government. In such circumstances, the petitioner association had made several representations to the third respondent municipality and to the other authorities concerned to allot the house sites in the land in question, to the members of the petitioner association.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that this Court, by its order, dated 7.6.2011, made in W.P.No.19849 of 2008, had directed the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application made by the petitioner association, for the allotment of house sites to its members. However, the third respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 19.8.2011, rejecting the request of the petitioner stating that the land in question is proposed to be used by the third respondent municipality for other purposes. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the claim of the petitioner that the municipality had sent a proposal for the development of the land in question as house sites, for allotting the same to the employees of the third respondent municipality, is false, as there was no such proposal sent by the third respondent.

7. It has also been stated that the land in T.S.Nos.139/1, 142 and 143, Sangampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk, is situated on the Coimbatore to Palani main road and therefore, the third respondent municipality has utilized the said land for commercial purposes, by constructing a commercial complex. Such a proposal has been made for the purpose of earning more revenue for the third respondent municipality.

8. It has also been pointed out that this Court, in its order, dated 7.6.2011, made in W.P.No.19849 of 2008, has categorically denied the request of the petitioner by stating that there was no merit in the claim of the petitioner association for allotting the house sites in Sangampalayam village. While so, it is not open to the petitioner to claim, as a matter of right, that the third respondent municipality has to allot the house sites to the members of the petitioner association in the land situated, in T.S.Nos.139/1, 142 and 143, Sangampalayam Village, Pollachi Taluk.

9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner association that the third respondent should allot the house sites to the members of the petitioner association, in T.S.Nos.139/1, 142 & 143, Sangampalayam village, Pollachi Taluk, cannot be granted, as the third respondent municipality has no proposal to make such an allotment.

10. In fact, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is noted that the third respondent municipality has proposed to use the land in question to build a commercial complex, to earn more revenue to the third respondent municipality. Further, the petitioner association had not been in a position to show that it has the right to claim that the third respondent municipality should allot house sites in the land in question.

11. Even though the Government has passed certain orders laying down the guidelines for the development of the house sites to the employees of the third respondent municipality, it cannot be said that it was the mandatory direction to the municipalities, including the third respondent municipality, that vacant lands in their possession should be developed as house sites and for being allotted to its employees.

12. Even otherwise, the petitioner is also not in a position to show that the proposal of the third respondent municipality, for utilizing the land in question, for building a commercial complex, is arbitrary or illegal. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed. lan To:

1. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9. 2 DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-5. 3 THE COMMISSIONER POLLACHI MUNICIPALITY POLLACHI