[2011] 12 S.C.R. 627 6 2 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, A A Dismissing the appeal, the Court REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES HELD: 1. The Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and v. Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 was enacted to NALLAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. provide for the acquisition of the rights of Inamdars in (Civil Appeal No.3537 of 2002) minor Inams in the State of Tamil Nadu and the B B SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 introduction of Ryotwari settlement in such Inams. By virtue of Section 2(5), “Inam” means (i) a grant of the [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] melvaram in any inam land; or (ii) a grant of both the melvaram and the kudiwaram in any inam land which Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into grant has been made, confirmed or recognized by the Ryotwari) Act, 1963: C C Government. The expression “Malevarm” referred to in Section 2(5) means the share of the produce due to the Object of the Act – Discussed. landlord and the expression “Kudiwaram” means the ss.2(5), 8 – Lands in question notified as minor Inam cultivator’s share of the produce. Chapter III of the Act lands under the Act – The Inams held not only by the deals with “Grant of Ryotwari Pattas”. Section 8 deals appellant-Temple but also by other four temples and these D D with grant of Ryotwari Pattas. In terms of Section 8, any particulars reflected in the Inam settlement proceedings and person claiming to be entitled to Kudiwaram right has to title deeds issued to the grantees – Whether proceedings can prove the same by virtue of any grant in his favour or in be taken for issue of Ryotwari patta under the Act – Held: favour of his predecessors-in-interest and the Kudiwaram Once the lands are notified as minor Inam lands under the interest being a peculiar concept, depending upon the Act, the same is binding on the authorities constituted under E E status and grant only, could not be claimed to have been the Act and they cannot go beyond the Act and decide the acquired by mere possession or cultivation of lands for character of the lands, namely, whether the lands are minor any length of time. Such rights as an ordinary cultivating Inam lands or not – Proceedings can be taken for issue of tenant, have got to be asserted or sustained or Ryotwari patta under the Act. substantiated under the ordinary tenancy law. [Paras 6, F F 7] [633-H; 634-A-C-E-G] Words and phrases: Inam, Inam lands, Melvaram, Kudiwaram – Meaning of. 2. It was not in dispute that in respect of suit lands, the Inam grant was confirmed by the British Government The question which arose for consideration in the and title deed was also issued in favour of the appellant- instant appeal was whether the lands in question situated Temple by the Inam Commissioner. Inasmuch as the G G in Komarapatayam Agraharam hamlet were not minor lands were Minor Inam lands, they were notified and taken inam lands and, therefore, they were not liable to be over by the Tamil Nadu Government under 1963 Act, resumed and converted into Ryotwari lands after the therefore, patta proceedings were initiated under the said commencement of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition Act and the Assistant Settlement Officer granted Ryotwari and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. Patta in favour of the appellant-Temple at Komarapalyam 627 H H ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS 629 6 3 0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS. in respect of Survey Nos. 2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/3 and A A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by classified Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track Poramboke. [Para 8] [635-C-D] P. SATHASIVAM,J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.10.2000 passed by the High K.M. Sengoda Goundar & Ors. v. State of Madras & Anr. Court of Judicature at Madras in S.T.A. No. 12 of 1996 whereby (1973) 2 SCC 662; Sellappa Goundan & Ors. v. Bhaskaran the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed B B & Ors. (1960) 2 MLJ 363 –Distinguished. by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.07.1996 passed by the Minor Inams Abolition Tribunal 3. It is clear that these Inams were held not only by (Subordinate Judge), Salem (hereinafter referred to as “the the appellant-Temple but also by other four temples and Tribunal”) in M.I.A. No. 1 of 1993 in favour of the appellant- these particulars were reflected in the Inam settlement Temple herein. proceedings and title deeds were issued to those C C grantees. The extracts from the Fair Inam Register, clearly 2. Brief facts: supported the stand of the respondents. Once the lands are notified as minor Inam lands under 1963 Act, the same (a) According to the appellant-Temple, in the year 1760, is binding on the authorities constituted under the Act. Krishna Raja Udayar, the Rajah of Mysore, granted the village Thereafter, they cannot go beyond the Act and decide the of Jagadapady or Nattapatti together with 12 hamlets, to certain D D character of the lands, namely, whether the lands are Brahmins. Komarapalayam was one of the 12 hamlets. The minor Inam lands or not. The impugned order passed by grant, however, was not by way of gift of either the land or any the High Court is upheld. In as much as the High Court portion of the assessment thereon. A number of Brahmins remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the case subscribed and collected a sum of Rs.50,000/- “Rajagopala on merits, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same Pagodas”. Four of them, who represented the others as well, E E as directed by the High Court. [Paras 11-13] [638-A-E] paid the amount into the treasury and obtained a grant of Jagadapady and 12 hamlets rent free from the ruler. When Case Law Reference: Tippu Sultan came to power, he resumed six of the 12 hamlets, allowing the successors of the original grantees to remain in (1973) 2 SCC 662 referred to Paras 2, 4 possession of the rest without any obligation to pay any rent (1960) 2 MLJ 363 relied on Para 4 F F on that portion of the village. On the assumption of sovereignty by the British, Captain Macleod confirmed the title on the CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. successors of the grantees in regard to the lands in their 3537 of 2002. possession. During the enquiry by the Inam Commission, it was From the Judgment & Order dated 09.10.2000 of High found that the inam was enjoyed in 110 vritties, however, only Court of Judicature at Madras in S.T.A. No. 12 of 1996. G G persons holding 90 vritties appeared and filed statements and there was no claim for about 20 vritties. The Inam R. Venkataramani, K. Ramamoorthy, R. Sundravardhan, L. Commissioner confirmed the inam on 26.01.1863 subject to Dakshinamurhty, Alto K. Joseph, R. Nedumaran, A.T.M. an assessment of Rs. 566-11-3 in addition to the quit rent of Sampath, T.S. Shanthi, P. Siva Kumar, Ram Pal Roy, R.N. Rs. 299-12-0 and Title Deed No. 1164 was issued in the name Keshwani for the appearing parties. H H of the appellant-Temple. ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS 631 6 3 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] (b) When the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and A A Acquisition Act for Municipal Shandy and compensation amount Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act No. 26 of 1963) was was deposited in the Court by the Land Acquisition Officer by enacted, the aggrieved parties challenged the validity of the his award being L.A. No. 2 of 1983 dated 01.07.1983. Notification issued by the State Government by filing a writ (f) Remand Enquiry was taken up by the Assistant petition before the High Court on the ground that Settlement Officer, Dharapuram in S.R. No.4/90 and by order Komarapalayam hamlet is not an inam and, therefore the B B dated 16.10.1992, the patta was granted in favour of the Notification has no application to that hamlet. They also Temple in respect of all the lands except Survey No. 3/1A in challenged the validity of the aforesaid Act. The High Court, by favour of the respondents. The other lands in Survey Nos. 3/ order dated 24.06.1966, upheld the validity of the Act. On 1B and 3/3 were registered in the name of the Municipality. appeal, this Court, by judgment dated 17.08.1973, confirmed the decision of the High Court in K.M. Sengoda Goundar & C C (g) Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Settlement Ors. vs. State of Madras & Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 662. Officer granting patta in respect of Survey No. 3/1A in favour of the respondents, the appellant-Temple preferred an appeal (c) However, suo motu proceedings were taken by the before the Tribunal in M.I.A. No.1 of 1993. The Tribunal, by Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem under the Tamil Nadu Minor order dated 15.07.1996, allowed the appeal and set aside the Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act D D order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram. No. 30 of 1963) (in short “Act No. 30 of 1963”), on the ground that the lands in question situated in Komarapalayam (h) Against the said order of the Tribunal, respondent Nos. Agraharam hamlet are minor inam lands and, therefore, they 1-4 preferred an appeal being S.T.A. No. 12 of 1996 before are liable to be resumed and converted into Ryotwari lands after the High Court of Madras. The Division Bench of the High Court, the commencement of Act No. 30 of 1963. The Assistant by impugned judgment dated 09.10.2000, allowed the appeal Settlement Officer, by order dated 20.04.1981, granted E E and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded Ryotwari Patta in favour of the appellant-Temple for Survey Nos. the matter to the Tribunal to decide the case on merits. 2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/3 and classified Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track Poramboke. (i) Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant-Temple has preferred this appeal by way of special (d) Against the said classification, the appellant-Temple F F leave petition before this Court. filed M.I.A. No. 27 of 1981 before the Tribunal and the other claimants – respondents herein filed M.I.A. Nos. 29-31 and 35 3. Heard, Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel of 1981. By order dated 21.10.1982, the Tribunal allowed all for the appellant-Temple and Mr. K. Ramamoorthy and Mr. R. the appeals and remanded the matter to the Assistant Sundaravardhan, learned senior counsel for the respondents. Settlement Officer for fresh disposal. G G Submissions: (e) Against the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant- Temple filed S.T.A. Nos. 34-37 of 1983 before the High Court. 4. Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel for the The High Court, vide order dated 17.08.1988, dismissed the appellant-Temple, after taking us through the order of the original appeals. In the meanwhile, portion of Survey Nos. 3/1 and 3/3 authority-Assistant Settlement Officer, the Tribunal and the was acquired by the State Government under the Land H H impugned order of the High Court submitted that the High Court ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS 633 6 3 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] has committed a grave error in not following the judgment of A A present appeal, we are concerned only with the Tamil Nadu Act this Court in K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra) wherein, this No. 30 of 1963. The Act was enacted to provide for the Court, while dealing with the same Act, i.e., Act No. 30 of 1963 acquisition of the rights of Inamdars in minor Inams in the State has categorically held that the entire Komarapalayam village in of Tamil Nadu and the introduction of Ryotwari settlement in which properties in question are situated is not an Inam village such Inams. Relevant provisions of the said Act as mentioned as the original grant was made in consideration of payment of B B in Section 2 are as under:- money by the grantees and, therefore, the grant was not an Inam “(5) “inam” means— grant. He also submitted that the High Court is not correct in law in reversing the order of the Tribunal holding that the Act (i) a grant of the melvaram in any inam land; or No. 30 of 1963 is not applicable to the properties in question. On the other hand, Mr. K. Ramamoorthy and Mr. R. C C (ii) a grant of both the melvaram and the kudiwaram Sundaravardhan, learned senior counsel for the respondents in any inam land which grant has been made, submitted that the Tribunal, by order dated 15.07.1996 confirmed or recognized by the Government. erroneously held that the lands are outside the purview of the provisions of Act 30 of 1963 and, therefore, lands cannot be (6) “inamdar” in respect of any inam means the person subjected to the grant of Ryotwari Patta under the provisions who held the inam immediately before the appointed day; D D of the said Act. On this sole ground, the order of the Assistant (7) “inam land” means any land comprised in a minor Settlement Officer was set aside by the Tribunal. They further inam;” submitted that the decisions in K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra) and Sellappa Goundan & Ors. vs. Bhaskaran & Ors., (1960) 7. The expression “Malevarm” referred to in Section 2(5) 2 MLJ 363, relied on by the appellant, are related only to the means the share of the produce due to the landlord and the E E village of Komarapalayam Agraharam and not to the minor expression “Kudiwaram” means the cultivator’s share of the Inam grants existing in the said village. They further highlighted produce. Chapter III of the Act deals with “Grant of Ryotwari that these two decisions have nothing to do with the minor inam Pattas”. Section 8 deals with grant of Ryotwari Pattas. In terms grants that were in existence in Komarapalayam Agraharam of Section 8, any person claiming to be entitled to Kudiwaram and notified under the Act No. 30 of 1963. They also submitted right has to prove the same by virtue of any grant in his favour that the impugned order of the High Court is in order and the F F or in favour of his predecessors-in-interest and the Kudiwaram matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal to decide the issue interest being a peculiar concept, depending upon the status on merits as directed by the High Court. and grant only, could not be claimed to have been acquired by mere possession or cultivation of lands for any length of time. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and Such rights as an ordinary cultivating tenant, have got to be perused the relevant materials. G G asserted or sustained or substantiated under the ordinary 6. Though Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel has tenancy law. Inasmuch as further details are not required, there highlighted certain provisions from the Madras Estates Land is no need to delve into other provisions of the Act. Act, 1908 and the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and 8. From the materials placed, it is seen that the following Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, for the disposal of the H H lands were granted as “Devadayam Inam” in favour of the ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS 635 6 3 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] appellant-Temple in Komarapalayam village, Salem District, A A 10. It is further seen that pursuant to the remand order by Tamil Nadu: the Tribunal, fresh enquiry was taken up by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dharapuram in SR No. 4 of 1990 and by “S.No. Extent order dated 16.10.1992, the patta was granted in favour of the 2/1 0-51-0 appellant-Temple in respect of Survey Nos. 2/1, 2/2, 3/1B and 2/2 1-41-5 3/1 3-92-5 B B 3/3, classifying Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track and also granted patta in respect of Survey No. 3/1A to an extent of 2-39-0 3/3 1-08-0 hectares in favour of the respondents herein. The other lands 3/2 0-12-0” in Survey Nos. 3/1B and 3/3 were registered in the name of It is also not in dispute that the Inam grant was confirmed by Municipality. It is brought to our notice by the learned senior the British Government and title deed was also issued in favour counsel for the respondents that up to this stage, the appellant- C C of the appellant-Temple by the Inam Commissioner. Inasmuch Temple never questioned about the character of the lands as as the lands were Minor Inam lands, they were notified and minor Inam lands. However, the Temple filed an appeal before taken over by the Tamil Nadu Government under Act 30 of 1963, the Tribunal against the grant of Ryotwari Patta in favour of the therefore, patta proceedings were initiated under the said Act respondents herein in respect of land in Survey No. 3/1A. It was and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruchengodu, by order highlighted that only in this appeal, for the first time, a contention D D dated 20.04.1981 granted Ryotwari Patta in favour of the was raised that the lands notified and taken over by the State appellant-Temple at Komarapalyam in respect of Survey Nos. Government are not minor Inam lands and no proceedings can 2/1, 2/2, 3/1 and 3/3 and classified Survey No. 3/2 as Cart track be taken for issue of patta under this Act. In support of the Poramboke. above claim, they also relied on Sellappa Goundan and Others (supra) and K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra). It was the 9. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assistant E E stand of the appellant-Temple before the Tribunal that since the Settlement Officer, the Temple filed an appeal to the Tribunal village Komarapalayam Agraharam is not an Inam estate as being M.I.A. No. 27 of 1981 against the classification of Survey defined under the Act No. 26 of 1948 as decided in Sellappa No. 3/2 as Cart track and the respondents and other claimants Goundan (supra) and not an Inam within the meaning of Section filed M.I.A. Nos. 29-31 and 35 of 1981 in respect of the first 2(4) or part of an Inam village within Section 2(11) of the Act four items mentioned above. By order dated 21.10.1982, the F F No. 26 of 1963, the lands notified under Act No. 30 of 1963 Tribunal allowed all the appeals and remanded the matter to cannot be notified as minor Inam lands and they cannot fall the Assistant Settlement Officer for fresh disposal. Against the within the ambit of the said Act. While accepting the contention order of the Tribunal, the appellant-Temple filed S.T.A. Nos. 34- of the appellant-Temple, the Court held that the lands are outside 37 of 1983 before the High Court. By order dated 17.08.1988, the purview of the Act No. 30 of 1963 and, therefore, cannot the High Court dismissed those appeals and confirmed the G G be subjected to grant of Ryotwari Patta. Only on this ground, order of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the portion of Survey the order of Assistant Settlement Officer was set aside. When Nos. 3/1 and 3/3 was acquired by the Government under the this was challenged by way of Special Tribunal Appeal (STA) Land Acquisition Act for Municipal Shandy and compensation to the High Court, by impugned order dated 09.10.2000, the amount was deposited in the Court by the Land Acquisition High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Officer by his award being L.A. No. 2 of 1983 dated H H Tribunal. 01.07.1983. ARULMIGHU LAKSHMI NARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS 637 6 3 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. NALLAMMAL (D) THR. LRS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 11. Inasmuch as the learned senior counsel for the A A the extracts from the Fair Inam Register relating to them.” appellant heavily relied on the above referred two decisions stating that the lands are not minor Inam lands, we perused the It is clear that these Inams were held not only by the appellant- factual details, issues raised and ultimate conclusion in both the Temple but also by other four temples and these particulars decisions. In the first decision, namely, Sellappa Goundan were reflected in the Inam settlement proceedings and title (supra), the question was whether the village Komarapalayam B B deeds were issued to those grantees. Exs. A2-A6 mentioned Agraharam was an Inam estate coming within the purview of therein, which are extracts from the Fair Inam Register, clearly Act No. 26 of 1948. In Komarapalayam Agraharam, there were support the stand of the respondents. a number of minor Inam lands granted in favour of various 12. Once the lands are notified as minor Inam lands under temples including the appellant-Temple which has been clearly Act No. 30 of 1963, the same is binding on the authorities set out in the Inam Register. The decision in that case relates C C constituted under the Act. Thereafter, they cannot go beyond only to the village Komarapalayam Agraharam and not to the the Act and decide the character of the lands, namely, whether minor Inam grants existing in the said village. Even, in the the lands are minor Inam lands or not. With these factual details, decision of this Court, namely, K.M. Sengoda Goundar (supra), we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, the question for consideration was whether the Komarapalayam particularly, in para 5 of its order. Agraharam village is an existing Inam estate or a part of village D D Inam estate within the meaning of Act No. 26 of 1963. On going 13. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to through the entire decision and factual details, we agree with accept the stand taken by the appellant-Temple and we fully the submission of the learned senior counsel for the agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. In view respondents and conclude that these two decisions have of the same, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of nothing to do with the minor Inam grants that were in existence any merit. Inasmuch as the High Court, by impugned order E E in Komarapalayam Agraharam and notified under the Act No. dated 09.10.2000, remanded the matter to the Tribunal to 30 of 1963. In Sellappa Goundan (supra), there was a decide the case on merit, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of reference to the Inam Register Extract which shows that there the same as directed by the High Court within a period of six were certain Inam lands in the Komarapalayam Agraharam months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after village. After extracting Column Nos. 11, 12 and 21 of the Inam affording opportunity to all the parties concerned. The appeal F F Register Extract describing the history of the grant, the Court is dismissed with the above direction. However, there shall be has concluded as under: no order as to costs. “The Inam Register Extract shows that there were certain D.G. Appeal dismissed. minor inams in the Komarapalayam village. Those inams were held by (1) Sri Damodaraswami temple (2) Sri G Kailasanathawami temple, (3) Sri Badrakali temple, (4) Sri Lakshminarayanaswami temple and (5) Sri Angaliamman temple. The minor inams were also confirmed at the inam settlement proceedings, and separate title-deeds were issued to the respective grantees. Exhibits A-2 to A-6 are H [2011] 12 S.C.R. 639 6 4 0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. MACHAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO AND ANOTHER A A by ignoring that the same had not been allotted to respondent- v. society by any public authority. THE VIJAYAWADA, GUNTUR, TENALI, MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS s.5(1) – Powers and duties of the Development Authority (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2011) – Discussed. B B SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 WORDS AND PHRASES: Word ‘development’ – Meaning of, in the context of s.2(e) of the Andhra Pradesh [G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. ANDHRA PRADESH URBAN AREAS Respondent No.1 was constituted under Section 3(1) (DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1975: C C of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 to promote and secure the development of different s.12 – Change of land use – Site in question earmarked parts of the four towns, namely, Vijayawada, Guntur, for recreational purpose in the Zonal Development Plan duly Tenali and Mangalagiri. In 1978, respondent No.1 acquired approved by the State Government – Grant of permission by 91 acres land at Chenchupet, Tenali and prepared a layout Development Authority to respondent-society to construct a plan for development. As per the approved plan, 10 sites D D temple at the site in question – HELD: Development Authority were earmarked for parks. These included an area of 75 erred in granting permission to respondent-society to construct cents comprised in Town Survey No.2/3, Block No.1, Ward a temple at the site in question – Once the Master Plan or No.1, Chenchupet. The Master Plan was approved by the the Zonal Development Plan is approved by the State State Government. After about 15 years, the State Government, no one including the State Government/ Government decided that the Master Plans be replaced E E Development Authority can use land for any purpose other by a comprehensive Zonal Development Plan. The land than the one specified therein – There is no provision in the in question was shown in the Zonal Development Plan Act under which the Development Authority can sanction earmarked for recreational purpose. Respondent No.3- construction of a building etc. or use of land for a purpose society submitted an application to respondent No.1 for other than the one specified in the Master Plan/Zonal grant of permission to construct Sri Venkateswara F F Development Plan – The power vested in the Development Swamy Vari Temple at the site which formed part of Town Authority to make modification in the development plan is Survey No.2/3. Respondent No.1 passed resolution for also not unlimited – It cannot make important alterations in grant of permission to the Residents Welfare Association the character of the plan – Such modification can be made to construct the Temple. In furtherance of that decision, only by the State Government and that too after following the Vice-Chairman of respondent No.1 issued order dated procedure prescribed u/s.12(3) – Therefore, Development G G 30.3.2010.After about one month and ten days, the Vice Authority could not have entertained the application made by Chairman of respondent No.1 issued amended order respondent-society and granted permission for construction dated 10.5.2010 in the name of respondent No.3 because of temple at the site reserved for recreational use and that too by mistake permission for construction of temple was issued in favour of the Residents Welfare Association, 639 H H which had not even submitted application. MACHAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO v. VIJAYAWADA, GUNTUR, 641 6 4 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. TENALI, MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEV. AUTH. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 made efforts for securing A A respondent No.3. Therefore, the High Court was clearly an order from the State Government for change of land in error in deciding the writ petition by assuming that it use. The appellants filed a writ petition by way of public was only a case of allotment of land. [Para 11] [651-D-F] interest litigation questioning the decision of respondent 2. Section 2(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas No.1 to sanction construction of temple. They pleaded (Development) Act, 1975 contains the definition of term that the Zonal Development Plan prepared by respondent B B “development”. The definition of the “development” is No.1 and approved by the State Government was comprehensive. It takes within its fold the carrying out of statutory in character and land covered by the Zonal all or any of the works contemplated in a Master Plan or Development Plan could not be used for a purpose other Zonal Development Plan and the carrying out of building, than the one specified in the Plan and respondent No.1 engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or did not have the jurisdiction to sanction construction of C C under land, or the making of any material change in the temple at the site of which land use was shown as existing building or land. Redevelopment is also included recreational (park). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf within the ambit of the term “development”. The proviso of respondent No.1, it was pleaded that mere allotment to the definition excludes certain works, which are of of land for construction of temple did not give any cause temporary nature. Section 13 of the Act empowers the to challenge order dated 30.3.2010. D D Government to declare an urban area or group of urban The High Court declined the appellant’s prayer for areas to be a development area for proper development quashing order dated 30.3.2010 on the premise that of such area or areas. Once an urban area or a group of respondent No.1 had merely allotted land to respondent urban areas is declared to be a development area, the No.3. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order Government is obliged to constitute an Urban of the High Court. E E Development Authority under Section 3(1). The Development Authority is enjoined with the task of Allowing the appeal, the Court promoting and ensuring development of all or any of the areas comprised in the development area according to HELD: 1. None of the documents produced before the sanctioned plan and for that purpose, the Authority the High Court and this Court showed that respondent F F has the power to acquire, by way of purchase or No.3 had applied for allotment of land for construction of otherwise, hold, manage, plan, develop and mortgage or temple and respondent No.1 had allotted the site after otherwise dispose of land and other property, to carry out following some procedure consistent with the doctrine of by or on its behalf building, engineering, mining and equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Not other operations, to execute works in connection with only this, a bare reading of order dated 30.3.2010 showed G G supply of water and electricity, disposal of sewerage and that respondent No.1 had granted permission to control of pollution, other services and amenities respondent No.3 for construction of temple at the site in [Section 5(1)]. Chapter III of the Act contains provisions question. There was nothing in the language of that order for preparation of Master Plan and Zonal Development or the conditions enshrined therein from which it could Plan. Section 12(1) empowers the Development Authority be inferred that respondent No.1 had allotted land to H H MACHAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO v. VIJAYAWADA, GUNTUR, 643 6 4 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. TENALI, MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEV. AUTH. to make appropriate modifications in the plan which do A A much alive to this legal position and this was the reason not effect important alterations in the character of the why its Vice Chairman had written letter dated 15.6.2010 plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses to the Principal Secretary to the Government for change or the standards of population density. Section 12(2) of land use by stating that a mistake had been committed empowers the State Government to make any at the time of preparation of Zonal Development Plan. It modification in the plan either on its own or on a B B is a different thing that the State Government has not reference made by the Development Authority. Section sanctioned change of land use by modifying the zonal 12(3) and (4) lays down the procedure for making development plan in accordance with the procedure modification of plan which is substantially similar to the prescribed under Section 12(3) and (4). Respondent No.1 procedure prescribed for preparation of the plan. Section could not have entertained the application made by 15 prohibits the use of land otherwise than in conformity respondent No.3 and granted permission for C C with the plan. An analysis of these provisions showed construction of temple at the site reserved for that once the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan recreational use and that too by ignoring that the same is approved by the State Government, no one including had not been allotted to respondent No.3 by any public the State Government/Development Authority can use authority. As a corollary, it must be held that the High land for any purpose other than the one specified therein. Court committed serious error by refusing to quash order D D There is no provision in the Act under which the dated 30.3.2010 by assuming that it was merely a case Development Authority can sanction construction of a of allotment of land. [Para 15] [656-F-H; 657-A-D] building etc. or use of land for a purpose other than the one specified in the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan. Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa (1991) 4 The power vested in the Development Authority to make SCC 54: 1991(3) SCR 102 – referred to. E E modification in the development plan is also not 4. The matter deserves to be considered from unlimited. It cannot make important alterations in the another angle. It was neither the pleaded case of character of the plan. Such modification can be made respondent No.3 nor any document was produced before only by the State Government and that too after the High Court and none was produced before this Court following the procedure prescribed under Section 12(3). to show that 15 cents land forming part of Town Survey [Paras 12-14] [651-G-H; 654-G-H; 655-A-D-H; 656--A-C] F F No. 2/3 was allotted to it by any public authority after 3. In the pleadings filed before the High Court, the following a recognized mode of disposal of public respondents had not controverted the assertion made by property. Even though respondent No.3 was not an the appellants that in the approved Zonal Development owner of the site, it made an application for grant of Plan, land comprised in Town Survey No.2/3 was G G permission to construct the temple and functionaries of earmarked for recreational use. Therefore, in the absence respondent No.1 accepted the same without making any of change of land use which could have been sanctioned inquiry about the title of respondent No.3. Thus, the only by the State Government, respondent No.1 had no illegality committed by respondent No.1 in issuing order jurisdiction to grant permission to respondent No.3 to dated 30.3.2010 was writ large on the face of the record. construct temple at the site. Respondent No.1 was very [Para 17] [660-A-D] H H MACHAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO v. VIJAYAWADA, GUNTUR, 645 6 4 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. TENALI, MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEV. AUTH. Case Law Reference: A A different parts of the four towns, namely, Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali and Mangalagiri. In 1978, respondent No.1 acquired 91 1991 (3) SCR 102 referred to Para 16 acres land at Chenchupet, Tenali and prepared a layout plan CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. for development. As per the approved plan, 10 sites were 7935 of 2011 etc. earmarked for parks. These included an area of 75 cents B B comprised in Town Survey No.2/3, Block No.1, Ward No.1, From the Judgment & Order dated 13.09.2010 of the High Chenchupet. Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 12766 of 2010. 4. The Master Plan of Tenali town was approved by the State Government vide G.O.Ms. No.969 dated 21.11.1978 and WITH the Master Plan of the urban area of respondent No.1 was C C Contempt Pet. (C) No. 300 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 7835 approved vide G.O. Ms. No.144 dated 3.3.1988. After about of 2011. 15 years, the State Government decided that the Master Plans be replaced by a comprehensive Zonal Development Plan. For T. Kanaka Durga for the Appellants. this purpose, the Vice Chairman of respondent No.1 was authorized to take necessary steps. Thereafter, the area P.S. Narasimha, Satya Mitra, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, D D covered by the urban region of respondent No.1 was divided N. Rajaraman, P. Prabhkar, Sanjeev Kumar, Ajit Singh for the into 23 planning zones and it was decided that Zonal Respondents. Development Plans be prepared on priority basis in respect THe Judgment of the Court was delivered by of 15 zones including Tenali zone. The draft Zonal Development Plan of Tenali was published in the local newspapers and G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. E E objections/suggestions were invited from the public. In the final Zonal Development Plan of Tenali town, which was approved 2. The questions which arise for consideration in this by the State Government vide G.O. Ms. No.689 dated appeal are whether respondent No.1 – the Vijayawada, Guntur, 30.12.2006, land use was divided into the following 9 (main) Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority had the categories: jurisdiction to grant permission to respondent No.3 – Sri F F Venkateswara Swamivari Alaya Nirmana Committee for “1. Residential use Zone construction of temple at the site of which land use was shown as recreational in the Zonal Development Plan approved by the 2. Mixed Residential use Zone. State Government and whether the Division Bench of the High 3. Commercial use Zone [Local, Central and General Court of Andhra Pradesh was justified in refusing to nullify the G G Commercial use]. decision taken by respondent No.1 by assuming that it was only a case of allotment of site. 4. Industrial use Zone 3. Respondent No.1 was constituted under Section 3(1) 5. Public and Semi public use Zone of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, ‘the Act’) to promote and secure the development of H H 6. Recreational use Zone.