Holding

The de‑reservation order is valid, Section 250 is inapplicable, and under Section 38 the 40 plots are deemed released, so the Trust may use them for its intended purpose.

Summary

The Pillayar P.K.V.K.N. Trust, which had acquired 76.12 acres and created a layout of 910 plots, retained 40 plots for its own use. After the Town Panchayat merged with Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the original plan showing those 40 plots as reserved for a school was re‑validated, but a later detailed development plan demarcated them as residential. The Municipal Corporation denied construction on two of the plots, citing the reservation, and the High Court upheld a writ petition directing that the plots could not be used for any purpose other than the public purpose shown in the earlier plan. The Trust challenged the High Court’s order and the State’s de‑reservation order (G.O. No. 244 dated 23‑09‑1994). The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred: the de‑reservation order was within the Government’s powers, Section 250 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act was inapplicable, and under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act the land, not having been acquired within three years, was deemed released from reservation. Consequently, the Trust’s right to develop the 40 plots stands.

Issues considered

The validity of the State Government's de‑reservation order (G.O. No. 244 dated 23‑09‑1994).
Whether Section 250 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act applies to the dispute.
Effect of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act on land reserved for public purpose but not acquired.
The correctness of the High Court's direction restricting use of the 40 plots.

Legislation cited

Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971s. 250(2)
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971s. 37, s. 38

Subjects

Town planningLand reservationDe‑reservationSection 38Section 250Public purposeTrustLayout planMadurai City Municipal Corporation ActTamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act

Judgment

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 1

PILLAYAR P.KV.K.N. TRUST THRU RAMANATHAN A
v.
KARPAGA N.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7305-7306 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2010
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Urban Development - Town planning - Trust acquiring~
certain land - Dividing of the land into plots - Approval of
layout plan for the land - Trust selling off the plots except forty C
Plots - On revalidation of the plan, the forty plots shown as
reserved for public purpose - A subsequent layout plan, which
cancelled the previous plan, demarcated the forty plots as
residential area - Denial to make construction on two of the
forty plots by Municipal Corporation on the ground that the o
plots were reserved for public purpose - Later in subsequent
plan the forty plots shown as reserved for public purpose -
The same being questioned, the State de-reserved the area
earmarked for public purpose - Order of de-reservation set-
aside by High Court - On appeal, held: Order of the High E
Court is erroneous - Challenge to the order of de-reservation
was not correct - Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act,
1971 - s. 250(2) - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning
Act, 1971 - ss. 37 and 38.

Appellant-Trust acquired certain land to the extent of F
76.12 acres. It divided the same into 910 plots and
prepared a layout plan for the entire extent of the land.
The plan contained provisions for roads which area was
to the extent of 21 acres. This layout plan was approved
by Town Panchayat in the year 1972 in P.R.No. 21172. The G
Trust sold the plots, retaining 40 plots for its own use.
After merger of the Town Panchayat with the City
Municipal Corporation,. the original plan (21/72) was
revalidated as Plan No. 1/75 wherein the 40 plots were
1 . H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.

A shown as reserved for school. Thereafter in 1979-80, the
local Planning Authority prepared a detailed development
plan which also included the lands covered by the layout
plan of the Trust and the same was approved as Plan No.
12/80. In this plan the 40 plots were demarcated as
B residential area. It was later informed to the Municipal
Corporation that Plan No. 1/75 was to be treated as
cancelled and Plan No. 12/80 alone would be valid.

The Municipal Corporation granted approval to the
C Trust for construction on one of the plots. But when the
Trust sought approval for construction on other two of
the plots, it was denied on the ground that the area was
reserved for public purpose i.e. for school building. The
denial of approval was held to be illegal by the High Court
in a writ proceeding initiated by the Trust. The High Court
D observed that the approval in respect of the area
comprising of the 40 plots could be denied by Municipal
Corporation only if the area would be classified as
'reserved for public purposes' within a period of three
months from the date of the judgment. No action was
E taken, as per rules, to covert the area 'reserved for public
purposes'. When the Trust applied for approval of
construction on other plots, the same was again denied
on the ground that the area was reserved for
construction of the school. The representation of the
F Trust, questioning the Plan No. 9/92, was accepted1Jy the
State Government. The State, accordingly passed G.O.
Ms. No. 244 dated 23.9.1994, whereby it granted
permission to de-reserve 2.5 acres of land earmarked for
the school in the plan No. 1/75 and held that the same
G would be residential area subject to the condition that all
the roads in the layout area were handed over to the
Municipal Corporation. The Trust had pointed out that it
had already surrendered all the roads to the Panchayat
by executing a gift deed.
H
PILLAYAR P.K.V.K.N. TRUSTTHRU RAMANATHAN v. 3
KARPAGA N.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY

The order of de-reservation passed by the State A
Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 244 dated 23.9.1994 was
challenged. The High Court took notice of the facts that
in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant-Trustee,
the High Court had not dealt with the development Plan
No. 9/92, and thus the G.O. Ms. 244 dated 23.3.1994 was B
illegal and vitiated by ma/afides and was in excess of
powers of the Government; and that the Municipal
Corporation had made a demand u/s. 250(4) of Madurai
City Municipal Corporation Act from the appellant and the
said demand was quashed by the High Court. Therefore, c
the instant appeals were filed by the appellant-Trust.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court was wrong in deducing that
on the basis of the reading of the judgment passed in the D
earlier writ petition, G.0.No. 244 dated 23.3.1994 was
illegal, vitiated by malafides and was in excess of powers
of the Government. The said order also could not be
faulted as being in violation of principles of natural
justice. It is true that a reference to the High Court E
j:.idgment is made in the order dated 23.9.1994 which was
impugned before the High Court. However, that is not the
only thing on which the Government has relied upon. In
fact, the judgment of the High Court was studied by the
Director of Town and Country Planning, who F
recommended the case for de-reservation, subject to the
conditions that trustees may be required to hand-over all
the roads to the Municipal Corporation. There is no
reason to doubt the correctness of this recommendation
made by the Director, who was aware of the earlier
position. He was aware that this layout was part of 21/72 G
plan and it was duly approved by the Town Panchayat
and it then continued to be so, vide plan No.12/80 to the
exclusion of the plan of 1975. It is presumed that the

H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A Director did consult the earlier correspondence on the
subject. [Paras 13 and 14] [14-B-F]

2. Even if it is presumed that the 40 plots were
included under the plan of 1992, yet since the land was
not acquired either by agreement or by acquisition, they
8
would be deemed to have been released from reservation.
In view of the admitted position that the land is not
acquired by agreement till the date of the judgment of the
High Court, the deeming clause as provided u/s. 38 of
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 would
C certainly come into force and, therefore, the concerned
land would certainly be deemed to have been released.
[Paras 14 and 15) [15-A-C]

Raju S. Jethmalani and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra
0 and Ors. 2005(11) SCC 222; Bangalore Medical Trust vs.
B. S. Muddappa and Ors.1991 (4) SCC 54; Balakrishna H.
Sawant and Ors. vs. Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal
Corporation and Ors. 2005 (3) SCC 61, distinguished.

E 3. Reliance on Section 250(2) of Madurai City
Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 by the High Court was
completely uncalled for in the instant controversy. In the
instant case, the Writ Petition was filed before the High
Court challenging the G.O.Ms. 244 dated 23.9.1994. In fact,
in the three questions which the High Court had posed,
F Section 250 did not find place. Section 250 speaks about
the obligation on the part of the owner to make a street
while disposing of the lands as building sites. Sub-
section (2) on which a heavy reliance was placed by the
High Court, speaks about the owner's liability to reserve
G 10% of the lay-out for the common purpose in addition
to the area provided for laying out streets. It is nobody's
case that the area of the 40 plots, in all, comes to 10% of
the total area besides the area which was reserved for the
streets. The High Court completely ignored the fact that
H
PILLAYAR P.K.V.K.N. TRUST THRU RAMANATHAN v. 5
KARPAGA N.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY

the appellant-trust had already parted with more than 21 A
acres of its land while getting the approval from the Town
Panchayat for the layout. There is clear correspondence
on the record to the effect that the appellant-Trust had not
only parted with 21 acres, but had also effected a gift deed
in respect of that land. It is nobody's case and indeed the B
High Court has also not found that the 40 plots would be
the aforementioned 10% of the total lay-out area. There
is absolutely no basis for the High Court to invite the
applicability of Section 250(2) by making reference to 10%
of the area. Therefore, the factual background, on which C
the provision is tried to be made applicable, itself, is not
established and the finding to that effect is incorrect. The
question as regards applicability of s. 250 had been
decided by High Court in the writ petition filed by the
Trust, and as such there was no question of invoking
0
Section 250. This decision was also affirmed in appeal by
the High Court. [Paras 18 and 19] [18-D-H; 19-A-E]

4. The High Court has also erroneously compared
the provisions of Section 37 and 38 of the Tamil Nadu
Town and Country Planning Act and Section 250 of the E
Madurai Corporation Act. There is no question of any
such comparison. There was no necessity to consider as
to whether Section 250 of the Madurai Corporation Act
repealed the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1971 for the simple reason that such F
question could never have fallen for consideration.
Section 250 was not applicable to the controversy at all.
It operates into an entirely different field and the factual
basis for inviting that Section was also not available in
the circumstances of the instant case. [Para 20] [19-F-H] G

5. It cannot be contemplated that once the land, even
if it was reserved for public purpose lik~construction of
school in the plan of 1992 and got released, because it

H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S:C.R.

A was not acquired for more than three years in terms of
Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning
Act, could be then taken away from the owner on the plea
u/s. 250 of the Madurai Corporation Act. [Para 21] [20-A-
B] .
B
6. The High Court went on to record its comments
on the judgment of the High Court passed in the earlier
writ petition which was filed by the Trust. The original writ
petitioner in the instant case was a party to that writ
petition and to the judgment whereby specific permission
C was granted for the construction in plot Nos. 276 and 269
which was part of the 40 plots. [Para 23] [20-G]

7. The High Court gave the direction that the plots
covered in LP/MR 1n5 cannot be used for any purpose
D other than public purpose mentioned therein with the
exception of the plot Nos. 276 and 369. This was a
completely incorrect direction particularly because way
back in 1982, plan No.1/75 was treated as cancelled and
th.ere was no revival of that plan. Morever, respondent
E No.1 has also filed a suit in the Court of Additional District
Munsif, in his capacity as a resident of Karpaga Nagar
Colony, wherein he had sought for an injunction
restraining the Trust from selling or using the property
for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was
F reserved in LP MR 1/75. Therefore, the judgment of the
High Court cannot be affirmed. The Writ Petition filed by
the respondent is directed to be dismissed with costs of
Rs.50,000/-. [Paras 25, 26 and 27] [21-D-H]
Case Law Reference:
G
2005 (11) sec 222 distinguished. Para 16
1991 (4) sec 54 distinguished. Para 16
2005 (3) sec 61 distinguished. Para 16
H
PILLAYAR P.K.V.K.N. TRUST THRU RAMANATHAN v. 7
KARPAGA N.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. A
7305-7306 of 2010.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27.4.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 5051 & 19015 of
1996.
B
K. Ramamoorthy, N. Shoba, Sriram J. Thalapathy for ti1e
Appellant.

Dayan Krishnan, Gautam Narayan, Nikhil Menon, Nikhil
Nayyar, S. Thananjayan, T. Harish Kumar for the Respondents. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted ..

2. The appellant-a religious Trust challenges the judgment D
of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the High Court
allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein.
The respondent No.1 claims to be the representative body of
the residents of the area called Karpaga Nagar. The High Court
while allowing the Writ Petition issued the following direction:
E
"We allow the writ petitions and direct that the plots covered
in LP/MR 1/75 cannot be used for any purpose other than
the public purposes mentioned in such LP/MR 1/75."

The High Court, however, did not include two plots, namely, plot F
Nos. 276 and 369, meaning thereby that those plots could be
used for any other purpose.
I

3. Some ~factual background would be necessary before
w~_approach the controversy. The appellant is a Trust formed
·in the year 1924 to look after religious and secular activities of G
Pillayarpatti Koil situated at Pillayarpatti and for the welfare of
Nagarathar community. The Trust acquired properties in
Tallakulam village in Madurai District including lands in S. No.
92, 94, 120 to 126, 130 to 133, 176/1 and 178. These
H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A properties were sub-divided into 910 plots and they are named
as Karpaga Nagar. The Trust thereafter prepared a detailed
layout plan for the entire extent of 76.12 acres in all, in which
the provision was made for 60 feet, 50 feet and 40 feet roads.
The road area was to the extent of about 21 acres. This layout
B plan was submitted to Tallakulam Town Panchayat which was
the appropriate authority in the year 1972. This layout plan was
· approved by Tallakulani Town Panchayat vide its order dated
19.5.1972 in P.R. No. 21 of 1972 under Rule 3 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1970. Pursuant thereto,
C majority of the plots were sold by the Trust retaining about 40
plots for its use. The said Tallakulam Town Panchayat along with
other Town Panchayats merged with Madurai City Municipal
Corporation on 30.1.1974 and, therefore, the laws applicable
to Madurai Corporation were made applicable to Tallakulam.
The Madurai Corporation insisted to r~validate the plan. The
0
Trust again applied for revalidation of the original plan in 21/
72. Plan No.1/75 showed 40 plots as re~erved for school. The
appellants herein claimed that as per the savings clause the
Corporation was bound by all rights and liabilities created by
the erstwhile Town Panchayat before the date of merger.
E
4. Thereafter, in the year 1979-80, the Local Planning
Authority of Madurai prepared a detailed development plan
which also included the lands covered by the appellant's layout
plan. This detailed development plan was approved as DTP
F (MR) 12/80. In this plan the area relating to the 40 plots which
were retained by the appellant Trust, was demarcated and
shown as residential area. Finding that they were contrary to
plan No.1 of 75, clarification was sought and it is claimed that
the Deputy Director, Regional Town & Country Planning, by his
G letter ROC No. 4589/82 dated 30.8.1982 informed the
Corporation of Madurai that plan No.1/75 may be treated as
cancelled and plan No.12/80 alone would be valid.

5. Thereafter when the Trust proposed to make some
constructions in plot No.342, Madurai Corporation granted its
H
PILLAYAR P.K.V.K.N. TRUSTTHRU RAMANATHAN v. 9
KARPAGAN.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

approval by order No. K.3/PR 533/82. However, when the fresh A
application was submitted for putting up construction in plot No.
276 and 369, the Corporation by its order dated 16.12.1986,
rejected the application on the ground that this area was
reserved for public purpose of putting up school building.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 1565 of 1987 B
for quashing the order of rejection and for a direction to the
Madurai Corporation for grant of approval for putting up the
·construction. In this, the plea was taken by the Corporation that
the detailed development plan bearing No.12/80 was sought
to be modified and hence the plan could not be approved. The C
High Court by its order dated 21.11.1991 allowed this petition
and held that the rejection of the plan was illegal. The High Court
restored the applications in respect of plot Nos. 276 and 369
and directed Madurai Corporation to pass orders
expeditiously. It was further stated that if the orders were not
0
passed within three months of the said date, the application for
sanction of construction would be deemed to have been
granted. It was, however, made clear by the High Court that the
/"'applications could be rejected only if this area comprising of
40 plots was in the meantime classified as 'reserved for the
public purposes' in the detailed development plan. E

6. It seems nothing was done for inclusion of this area into
the detailed development plan as per the procedure laid down
under Section 25, 27, 29 and 33 of the Tamil Nadu Town &
Country Planning Act, 1971 read with Rule 13,14 and 16 of the F
Preparation, Publication and Sanction of Detailed.
Development Plan Rules. The appellant thereafter applied for
approval of plan in respect of four other plots bearing No.326,
331, 336 and 340 of the layout plan. However, by its order dated
27.4.1993, the Corporation rejected the said application on the G
ground that the plots were forming part of the area reserved
for construction of a school and hence the application for
construction could not be allowed. Quoting all these facts, the
appellant made a representation to the Director, Town and
Country Planning No.807 Annasalai, Madras dated 15.6.1993
H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 11 S.C.R.

A and pointed out that the stance taken by the Corporation was
not correct and that this new plan No. 9 cf 92 would be
completely illegal and against law. The appellant reminded the
concerned authority that the plans were approved in the year
1972 itself by Tallakulam Town Panchayat by its order dated
B 19.5.1972 and the rights of the respective parties had been
crystallized at that time itself and it would not be just to disturb
it after a lapse of 20 years by introducing new modifications in
the detailed development plan and, therefore, the stand taken
by the Corporation that the said area was reserved for school
C purpose, was clearly in contravention of plan 12/80. In that'
representation the Trust gave the whole history which has been
stated above by us. It was pointed out that the whole area was
reserved for residential purpose under the ::ipproved plan and
on that strength, several plots were sold to several persons and
they would also be affected if the modified plan No. 9/92 is
0
approved as it is. A prayer, therefore, was made that this petition
to the proposed detailed plan No. 9 of 92 was liable to be
considered in favour of the Trust on the basis of the detailed
development plan No. 12 of 80, so that the Trust could utilize
40 plots for constructions. It seems that this representation was
E accepted by the State Government which passed G.O.Ms.
No.244 dated 23.9.1994. In this order it was suggested that the
Government accepted the recommendation by the Director,
Town and Country Planning and the permission was accorded
to de-reserve 2.5 acres of land earmarked for school in the
F approved layout LP/MR 1/75 in T.S. No.92/94 etc. and the same
would be deemed to be residential area in Madurai Corporation
subject to the condition that all the roads in the layout area
should be handed over to the Madurai Corporatior by
Pillayarpatti Karpaga Vinayagar Koil Nagarthar Trust.
G
7. It appears that immediately after this order was passed,
the appellant Trust pointed out that it had already surrendered
before Tallakulam Panchayat all the roads in the Karpaga Nagar
layout by executing a gift deed dated 11.5.1972. A copy of the
H aforesaid gift deed was also sent by the Trust. It was thereafter

/
PILLAYAR PK.V.K.N. TRUSTTHRU RAMANATHAN v. 11
KARPAGAN.N.U.S. REP BY SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

informed by the Trustee on 28.2.1995 that the aforementioned A
gift deed was also registered and the roads were handed over
to the Madurai Corporation.

8. It seems that this order of de-reservation passed by the
State Government came to be challenged before the Madras
B
High Court and by the impugned judgment, the Madras High
Court set aside that order and directed that reserved area
shown in the earlier plan LP/MR 1/75 cannot be used for any
other purpose other than public purpose. The High Court,
however, made an exception in case plots 276 and 369,
perhaps because the earlier orders of the High Court were C
finalized in Writ Petition 1565 of 1987 to which reference has
already been made earlier.

9. It is this judgment which has been challenged before us
by the appellant Trust. Shri K. Ramamoorthy, learned Senior D
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Trust, pointed out
the earlier history starting right from 1972 and pointed out that
out of that total 76.12 acres owned by the Trust, the Trust had
already parted with 21.62 acres of land which was reserved for
public purpose by way of a gift deed dated 11.5.1972 which E
was later reiterated in favour of the Corporation also. The
learned Senior Counsel pointed out that it is only out of the
remaining land that the Trust created as many as 832 plots out
of which 40 plots were retained by the Trust. He then pointed
out that after the whole plan was approved by the Tallakulam F
Town Panchayat on the basis of the Tamil Nadu District
Municipalities Act, 1920 and Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1958
as also under TN Panchayat Building Rules, 1970 framed by
the Government by virtue of Section 178 of the Madras
Panchayat Act, 1958. He then pointed out that the petitioners G
were the residents of the same plots and they had purchased
the plots from the Trust and they were residing on the same
plots. He also pointed out that on the merger (by taking
recourse to Section 3 of Madras Corporation Act) of Tallakulam
Panchayat in Madurai City Municipal Corporation on
H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 11 S.C.R.

A 30.1.1974, the matter went into the regime of the corporation.
It was further pointed out that in the year 1975, the Trust applied
for granting permission for layout which in fact was already
granted by the Town Panchayat. The learned Senior Counsel
further pointed out that in the year 1979-80, detailed draft plan
B was prepared by Madurai Local Planning Authority under the
Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 wherein the plots retained
by the temple were shown as residential area. He also invited
our attention to the communication dated 30.8.1982 on the
consent by the Deputy Director of Town Planning to
c Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Madurai to the effect that
the earlier lay out plan bearing No. 1 of 75 stood cancelled and
the Commissioner was directed to proceed as per the
approved scheme plan bearing No.12 of 80 wherein 40 plots
were earmarked as residential area. The learned Senior
D Counsel also invited our attention to the earlier Writ Petition
No.1565 of 1987 dated 21.11.1991. The learned Senior
Counsel invited our attention to the further representations
made by the Trust to the Government and the ultimate order
passed by the Government. The learned Senior Counsel
E contended in this backdrop that it was absolutely incorrect on
the part of the High Court to have revived the earlier plan of
1975. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that there was
no locus standi to the respondents (petitioners before the High
Court) as in fact they had themselves granted permission in
respect of plot No.342, which is one of the 40 plots reserved
F for the Trust. It was further pointed that that for all these years
nothing has happened nor has the area been acquired by the
government and, therefore, in fact the whole area has become
de-reserved as per Section 38 of the Town Planning Act.

G 10. As against this, Shri Dayan Krishnan, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners and the
respondents herein contended that the very look of the
impugned order dated 23.9.1994 would suggest that it has
been passed under a misnomer and is a result of
H misunderstanding the High Court's judgment in W.P. No.1565/
PILLAYAR PK.VK.N. TRUSTTHRU RAMANATHAN v. 13
KARPAGAN.N.U.S. REP BY SECRETARY [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

87. According to the learned Counsel, the order gives an A
impression as if there is a direction contained in that judgment
to de-reserve the concerned area of 40 plots. According to the
learned Counsel, such direction was never given by the High
Court. He further pointed out that in the absence of the
amenities like school etc., the citizens would suffer. He also B
pointed out that no basic amenities like roads etc. were
provided though the Corporation was collecting road costs from
the plot owners as and when they applied for permission for
construction.

11. It is on these rival claims that we have to .see as to C
whether the High Court was justified in allowing the petition as
it did. The High Court formulated the following points:

(1) Whether the challenged order G.O.Ms.244 dated
23.9.94 was vitiated by ma/a tides and in excess D
of the powers of the first respondent in violation of
principles of natural justice?

(2) Whether the modification issued under Section 27
of the Town and Country Planning Act reserving E
disputed 40 plots for the public purpose under
detailed development plan had become null and
void in the absence of any final orders passed
within three years from the date of publication under
Section 38 of the Town and Planning Act?
F
(3) What is the effect of the approval of the earlier plan
P.R. No.21 of 72?

12. It also took notice of the fact that when Madurai
Corporation had demanded Rs.80,69,784/- under Section 250 G
(4) of Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act from the present
appellant, the said demand notice was quashed as per order
in W.P. No.8962of1988. The High Court also made reference
to the order passed in W.P. No.1565 of 1987 and found that
in that judgment the High Court had not dealt with the
H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 11 S.C.R.

A development plan No. 9 of 92. The High Court then came to
the conclusion that G.O.Ms. 244 dated 23.3.1994 was illegal,
vitiated by ma/a tides and was in excess of powers of the
Government.

13. In our opinion, this deduction on the part of the High
8
Court on the basis of the reading of the judgment in W.P.
No.1565 of 1987 is wholly incorrect. There is nothing to suggest
that the G.O.Ms. 244 was hit by ma/a tides or was in excess
of the power of the Government. This finding has no basis. We
also do not understand as to how the said order could be
C faulted as being in violation of principles of natural justice. It is
absolutely true that a reference to the High Court judgment is
made in the impugned order dated 23.9.1994. However, that
is not the only thing on which the 'Government has relied upon.
In fact, the judgment of the High Court was studied by the
D Director of Town and Country Planning who recommended the
case for de-reservation subject to the conditions that trustees
may be required to hand over all the roads in Madurai
Corporation. There is no reason for us to doubt the correctness
of this recommendation made by the Director, Town & Country
E Planning, who was aware of the earlier position. He was aware
that this layout was part of 9/72 plan and it was duly approved
by the Tallakulam Town Panchayat and it then continued to be
so vide plan No.12/80 to the exclusion of the plan of 1975.

F 14. We also presume that the Director did consult the
earlier correspondence on the subject and, therefore, the High
Court was completely in error in deducing that the order was
in excess of the power of the Government or was hit by ma/a
tides or was in violation of the principles of natural justice. In
our opinion, the deductions reached by the High Court in
G paragraph 11.5 are baseless. In the latter part of its judgment,
the High Court has taken stock of the whole Act right up to
Section 38. We have nothing to say about it excepting that the
reference to all the provisions of the Act was no~ at all
necessary. The High Court then referred to the argument made
H
PILLAYAR PKV.KN. TRUSTTHRU RAMANATHAN v. 15
KARPAGAN.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

that admittedly 40 plots were private land and, therefore, even A
if it is presumed that it was included under the plan of 1992,
yet since the land was not acquired either by agreement or by
acquisition, they would be de~med to have been released from
reservation.
B
15. The High Court has undoubtedly posed this question
up to paragraph 16 but has chosen not to answer it till last. We,
therefore, put the same question to the Counsel for the
respondent as also to the Counsel for the Government and both
the Counsel fairly conceded that the land is still not acquired.
c
16. Section 38 of The Tamil Nadu Town & Country
Planning Act, 1971 runs as under:-

38. Release of land:- If within three years from the
date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil D
Nadu Government Gazette under section2 6 or
section 27- (a) no declaration as provided in sub-
section (2) of section 37 is published in respect of
any land reserved, allotted or designated for any
purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan,
E
detailed development plan or new town
development plan covered by such notice; or

(b) such land is not acquired by agreement,

such land shall be deemed to be released from F
such reservation, allotment or designation.

In view of the admitted position that the land is not
acquired by agreement till the date of the judgment of the High
Court, the deeming clause would certainly come into force and,
therefore, the concerned land would certainly be deemed t9 G
have been released. The High Court has also referred to thi:!:,
reported decision in Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. [2005 (11) SCC 222], where this Court has
clearly held that the owner of the special land cannot be
prohibited from using it since it is the private property and H
16 SUPREME c6URT.4REPORTS . [201or11 s:c.R.
' ' • ;." ' ii :(, ;,: '<"" ' ' ', ' '-< ~~ f • • 'I I ',• ). :

A G6vernniehfcannot deprive .the 'persons from usihg their private
property· and,:therefore; th'e ·:acquisiti6ri cit the ·prdl)erty'is must 1
a
before ariy"su'Gh. p'erson is r'esfrained from'usihg'tHe'land1<Th·e
High 1Courti'f'ias· again'e'xtenshiely"lfeferred to' the e'arlier two
decisions of this Court in Bangalore Medical TrusF\/s" B.'S.
8 f11~cf,~?PP5',, ·~rC![S.: [1991 (4) -~S.9 151!,?~~.~/Jl~~risQ7a H.
S~wa1~! !~ ,Qr's: .. V~., Sar1f!li:11Jr~(~j~4p'fad'/;(f!Y. ~~'ni~iP?I
C6rpoiation '&.Ors. [2Q05 (3) SCC 61]. However,' we do not
find ~ny a'fi·~Wer' in th~se j~C:fgmeni1L Tti~'·,:~;p8nd-~ht~i1i~d
sbedtica1ly~ralse1i"these .que~iioD$ in vievl ofth&~att-.tli~1-'the
c cont~h?J~f pro'perty h~sbn~t '~tff~-r ·ti~en ~2q~lred: fll'e1 it refore:
i~ cl~~_rJhaj Section 38 will GO[le in-the:'1'ay._of the:Gc)Ver{lment,
and the appellant Trust could not have been stopped from using
the property on the spacious ground that the said property was
reserved for~construction!of,school way.:.back:iri:tli'e year 1975
and thereafter-lri--1992. :: •1. 1 . :11, "' ,,·r.
D '\i 1i,.:_JCJ(:~ -, ~.:J:···
i -r ")\:· :·l·! ... "' 1

,· 17.~ljgwev~r.-Jhe_Higl:\_C,qu_rt,seHj!ms"" toJ1~¥!3 proceeded
on ,the, ,pa sis t:<>fi :$ectiOf!, 25_j1,qf•Thei;!v'la"durai- _City Municipal
Corporation .Act, . 19V. 1Section 250-runs
- , , ._,,..__, ,. ,,J-·< as
•·~..;.-· - .under:-
-.-
.... , . ~ ,,__,. , J •• 1·, . ._.._ i•I.

E

(1) ,:··.·-)1)1')-1:.u~:
If the owner of any land utilizes, sells, leases
.· .~ ,-. 1_:.;~_.J1 , . .;n: · ·· n - ·.1._j:J2 1'..
or
otherwise disposes of such land or any portion or
. l'' tJ ,·, cpo,rtionsJ_of the s_~me_.a~_:l'ites,for th~c,construction
F
1 1ciOf.~uJlgings,!he shaltsave inst,Jcjl e<!S~_s as the site
or sites may abut on an existing public or private
•. ·~'street: ·l~yout 1and make a streetto'r streets giving
; ' access to the'site<or sites and· conhettin'g with an
.'. 1 •, ·' existing pUblic'Ot priv::ttestreetpr~w1 ··i
·' 1; ; J

G : ! \..','li~.' ~~---\1'• ~;
0

r• 1,' •If ;:.t. ·,_' ,•I ,-, / {• b1 J;:).', • ·_t ··--!"'q

.. " t>1(2) ,. Jn regard to th13 laying.ol!_Lor IJlJlK\ng-"of any sych
,, ' ;; , i .str@eJorstreets, thep-rovls!ons 9f 1 ~~ptiori. 251 s_h~ll
•.. -·, , appJy.,.,s,1,1b~ect to-the condi~j()Jl~ tl?aJ the owoer,sflall
•. 'I , r~n:iit .Ci sur:n not ~XC\?E:idJng3 5PtP~! cent ?ffJhe

H . , ~.,stirnated cost of lay~ovUl!lPJOY~menJ~ iri Jh13 land
.51 J l?ILUAYAR PK.V.K.N. TRUST THRl;I RArv1ANP.;.ItlAN:y.::'. t1 7
KARPAGAN.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

rnm1>isilF' and that,thepwnertshall also reserv!3,!)9t·w~~§tji!}g ,A
tnn s1ev- do10•per.cent of,theclay-outfor,the cq!l}mPJ1,Pl.lrp9~e
~!'1t b~1.1ul ,. in addition io,the -area provi(jed, for, l9yi11g1c,0,4,!
!1'.Ju& ..>off •,streets. If, any ·o~ner,,contq:ivE?nes, ~8Y;"<?,~ 1 Jh@
•o t·):::.~ac .conditions specif_iedi.-ab.oven ·.~e ,shall,; b~diat:!lt? 1 Jqr
''WO• mul.'prosecution. , , ,, ion " 3•J r'• ~,, ,, '>' •:s,, · yilsqo:q a11 18
I
8!1 '(l ···~- ·C'·.,· :~ : , )It t..· ·SJ t :-:1· ~~ .. "--!·f.! ts 1f:.fi:in2c1
n,, (~)
J•

_1 01~ in. any ,,c~s.e,, tr;, pr9~isi~r~~9f if.\l..~-S.eft'?.ns J 11~
·
and (2) have not been ·complied with/ fhe
r<>~·- ., r,c.,CommissionEH may, -by notice, requJ;~e the
,,v,,,,, , defaultingi owner,J.o~layouhandim;:tkE_:i,~. ~tr!:!et or .c
,,, streets on such .land and ir:i such m~mner and,within ''
such time as may be specified in the notice'l

, (4) 1 If such.street Of7streets.are·not)aid out and made
•, ; in the manner and ,within U1e time spec~fi~d ii,n"t!;i§
., ··' ~' . 1notice, the Commissioner may lay;OYt. a:ndcmaJ<e D
· .. , .., •.. the street or stree~s, and tl;ie expem~es-~n<:;urred sb§!ll
,,,,j ·, · . be recovered frorri tbe defaulting QY<,n~(; : , '':'"'2
~i '.<· ~t-. ~. ~\- • ' · . • • '···:. C.' • ::;~ • ., ; \ ....: t ;:·.:; ,7: .:.:. ·,~~· f!U11f- r ··1l.,.
(5)
,The Comn:uss1oner may in li1s d,1scretion, issue the
. ,. ·>
1
.. , ·.

•.. J ' ... ~
notice
'...
referred
~-
to'Tn. su'b"..'$e'tstion'(3)C6·r
.f'.' :_:· ._r ,· ..... ·~
I '
tti\;~
"~· : ,_ ,.r;::
'J'.11• I r
recove'r' =F
. r,, . . ,expenses /eferre;~ ,to Ln .~9.b.:~,,e;~\io~,/4 t to' p,r fro~
r the owners orany..buiJd}n~s or,i;;w~~(~j~u~ting q,n.t~T
,, ,: . ~treet or. stre~t~ co_~:9;e~red.ibu.t any. sue~ c~~~rr
, shallbe
~
entitledJo. recover ball ~._jreasonable
.··-. b~')
e;!penses
1f~1· .. -""IJl
_,.'_;,:;.:-,( ..,.! 1 ..
01 '

'u .. , . incurred by;h.i.m .o~ ajl.te~r,~~Y,y.~ P,~jd ~X, ~i~ .. ~~ \~~ F
._ ,, ~ b ..... ?ase .n:iay b~, fy;<?fll. th,~_,d.~~~l01~,~~-~j'f;n,E(.r.rmers~~ 1t9
.. ". ,,,. , 'D ,sub-Sect~Qn,J~l-'~.p. 'l•!l [i tft•t:; ·;L.r'·.·. L,r, "-·' lo
' "Relying 'on 'this SeCC3tion 9 an~d, more: particuiarly~·~sub'
Sectioris (1 )'ancf(2)'.'the High"C'c5'urf 5Hfie 'viev/that:oefdre was
7
't~ 'usurp 1f)~e ·1iQ~}vit~i~"~~ ,,Mu'n.i~~e~~, 1~?rp·~ra~.~ri' f?_f :~ , G
layout, 10% of such land was bound to'bereserved forcommon
purposes'.' The High c6[frt firstircame to'the 'conclUsio'n' tl'ial th"e
Trust itseif sought the approval. of ttie 1ay6ut :pian 'from the
Corporation after Tallakulam Tow'n~Panchc'.lyat 1 merged with tfie
Madurai Corporation. The High' Court· ma8e refefe'nce to· the H a
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 11 S.C.R.

A earlier plan being P.R. No. 21/1972 approved by the Tallakulam
Town Panchayat, wherein the aforementioned 40 plots were not
shown as reserved for the public purpose. It refuted the
submission made by the appellant Trust to the effect that such
plan which has crystallized the rights of the Trust in respect of
B its property, was bound to be honoured after the Tallakulam Town
Panchayat became a part of the Madurai Corporation by its
merger. The High Court observed in para 19 of its judgment:-

"19. . ........ To the extent any alienation or construction
had been made by virtue or Tallakulam Town Panchayat
c P.R. 21/1972, such acts are of course required to be
protected."

18. In our opinion, the reference to Section 250 (2) was
completely uncalled for in this controversy. This was a Writ
D Petition for challenging the G.O.Ms. 244 dated 23.9.1994. In
fact, in the three questions which the High Court had posed,
Section 250 did not find place. Section 250 speaks about the
obligation on the part of owner to make a street while disposing
of the lands as building sites. Sub-Section (2) on which a heavy
E reliance was placed by the High Court, speaks about the
owner's liability to reserve 10% of the lay-out for the common
purpose in addition to the area provided for laying out streets.
It is nobody's case that the area of these 40 plots, in all, comes
to 10% of the total area besides the area which was reserved
F for the streets. The High Court completely ignored the fact that
the appellant trust had already parted with more than 21 acres
of its land while getting the approval from the Tallakulam Town
Panchayat for this layout. There is clear correspondence on the
record to the effect that the appellant Trust had not only parted
G with 21 acres, but had also effected a gift deed in respect of
that land. It is nobody's case and indeed the High Court has
also not found that these 40 plots would be the aforementioned
10% of the total lay out area. There is absolutely no basis for
the High Court to invite the applicability of the Section 250(2)
H by making reference to 10% of the area. Therefore, the factual
PILlAYAR PK.V.K.N. TRUSTTHRU RAMANATHAN v. 19
KARPAGAN.N.U.S. REP BY SECRETARY [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

background, on which the provision is tried to be made A
applicable, itself, is not established and the finding to that effect
is incorrect.

19. In this behalf it is to be seen that earlier also this
question under Section 250 had cropped up in between the B
Madurai Corporation and the Trust. The Madurai Corporation
had sought the payment of 50% of the sum of Rs. 80,69,784/-
being the total cost for laying roads in the area. The Trust had
approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition whereby
the Learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court held that C
the roads shown in the lay out plan had already been handed
over to the Tallakulam Town Panchayat and ultimately it was
found that the roads were laid and it is only thereafter that
Tallakulum Panchayat got merged with the Madurai Corporation
and as such there was no question of invoking Section 250 of
the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act. This decision was D
also affirmed in appeal filed before the Madras High Court. The
High Court just had quoted this issue by saying that the
question regarding the land to be kept apart for the common
use had not fallen for consideration in that appeal. We do not
think that is the position. We have already shown that this E
question could not have come via Section 250 which was only
inapplicable to the factual situation.

20. The High Court has also erroneously gone and
compared the provisions of Section 37 and 38 of the Tamil F
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and Section 250 of the
Madurai Corporation Act. There is no question of any such
comparison. There was no necessity to consider as to whether
Section 250 of the Madurai Corporation Act repealed the
provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 G
for the simple reason that such question could never have fallen
for consideration. We have already shown that Section 250 was
not applicable to the controversy at all. It operates into an entirely
different field and the factual basis for inviting that Section was
also not available in the circumstances of the case.
H
SUPR~ME: COl'..IRT REPORTS
1
20 , [201'.tl] 11 .S:C.R.
:. L Y1~fl.S.'lj:{ ;'»·,~.,:·, "? \ ~ ~ {.1/: ··,.-·· , ·_/.\C :·\, '"">·1fv

fii clGL21.~Wcannot b'e contemplated that;olice the land,1 even-if it
Was1reserved :fb'r.lptlJbHc purp~se like constructiono6f ·school in
the plan of 1992 and got released because it was n6tacquired;
for more than three years in tarms of Section 38 of Tamil Nadu
fdWn (and c'bUfiff)' P1~nRlng Ac( c'6u1a be t~en t;fken away' from
1

B tti~\owhe~~Bn' th'e' spa'Cii'.>'us tple1a under 'section 250;' of'the
rli1~Hur~Cco'rri8ra'ii?i'r1
..Pf)\ l..-· _rtj .2.l't-tL
fct:.rt.·~t....·"c\J'-
' 1 L~ .•
~, '" · •-
1. "\
·· J.
· ,. ' .r, \ ·
t 1 1~· .... ~ .... L\;;::-~

t'srt 22! i Besit:les-"'afl this,· ittls clear that on ~19,5~.1972·, 1 1the
Tallal<:ularti Towni Pancnayat'had·approved the plan submitted
by the temple' for76:12·.·acres thereby 91 o plots were shown in
C the' plan and' 40r:pf6ts'were~retained' and the, balance •plots
appeant0ihaVel!beeh S'old:iF-fowever,,;in the yekr 1972, when-
the'.Ta:rnil,Nad'li Ti:5wn<& CC>untry1Planr:iing Act, 1971 came into'
f()foe;ras·'Act'No125 ofi.1972,'the ·whole area became 'part lof
the Madurai ·corpofatiol'I w.e.f. i30'.1174: It was then"liat>1e·to be
G seenrtf.lat·afterithe plfln of.1975·was prepared:· that 1plan· ·wa·s·
specificaHy •teferr.e'cts in tHe-:icdmmunication. dated 18:6:82
whe~eoy the 1 cornmissioher,·1Matiurai corporaticm1sought
cl<Hifit:atidns ffom rt-ne !Deputy Directbr; Regional: Town -and:
Country ·Pfanl1ing1fa0ol'.il me ·effecrol DDP ·on the layout in ·LR
E 1'175 ·aria '6HC·30.8!821' ffle=Geputf Director,· Regional• town &·
C:Ot:Jntly'Pla'nninginadrspeCific1:111y:conveyed that the approved
layout plan 1 of 75 required1if1iodifications and it should ·be
treated cancelled and that the Corporation may act as per the
approved pl~~ N"o.'12i8b. This sp~cific 'position was· completely
F ignored (i:iy'the 'H(ghl;CCo.urt~ file'High Court merely went on to
retard its coit1thents on
the'judgment ofthe'Madras High Court
iri w.P.
Nd'.156si87.'(• · · ·
. ; ,r· . .I 'L
·
,- ·~I· c' I I Y.. ~, ' l

'· 23'. We have ·nothing toJsay about those comments.
However, the fact of:the matter is'-tnat· the respondent here iii
G andthe·original Writ Petitioner was a party to that•Writ<Petition
and t<:i':the~udgnient whereby 'specific permission was granted
foi"the-constructibn in Jjlot Nos. 276 and 269 which was partof
the··aforementroned 40 plotS: · ?£·. ·, ..
.-- .:_;-, t,,j.4 i ..;J •. it.-.~?"[1

H 24. Further an application was filed as WMP 3338/92 for
PILLAYAR PK.VK:N. TRl;:J.STTHRURAfl1ANATHAN v. 21
KARPAGAN.N.U.S. REP. BY SECRETARY [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

extension of time(.t,o ta~e1apR,fi9priate.de9ision in terms of the A
direction of the High Court which had given three months' time.
It is specifically pgi[!ted O\IJ ,that, ~he·i~PPli~ation for sanction
could be rej~9!,e,d ~nlyuo ·c(!SE1, th~_ qetaile_d_;~.evelopment for this
area, the two plots came under the classification 'reserved for
public purpose'. Even g'iving tflre~ 'rfi.dnftis; time, such step could ,B
no~ e~ t~~;~f!.d !r:'.-GJ~~~Ji!; c.g~!!~. "1~~;!'3Y~J>~nAa.~~.nJ!.n.G'}ew
of the earlier factual scenario, more particularly, because of the
decision dated 30.8.82 whereby the approved plan 12/80 was
7
'''re·i~W'ENtto' tl~lf.'N'o.1/75
pee-- 'CO\~_,,., pr'-f."\t'4
11
1flio~,· h. we)Heed
1c ';{~<· :;,'-..9~_
· ngti d~Ynfo the
-:~, '.. ,_,' . . ~-\·r· ,., '. i•'
further ~uestion 'as .to whether tlie d~cision' irfW .P.No.1565/87 .c
V;.i8t1a·Be·i~s"''6ciicata··~s"'"\/eW'6t'h~rWise.it is ·cffi~Hl-iartife st~te ·
G'6Q~?~;ih~nf~~ai~~g11 ·~ ~l~h11~t~'nce'in';pa·~~ir19'ttie\arcier ci~teci
"2·3"E9;·94'"il':'d" •r,i... '0"·1w"·"·. ·2·4··4-· · - · ··,\ -,.., " .. ··"~·- ·", ·. •~" '~"'"'"' ., ,...
. . . VI e,l:1. . S. . . . . , ,
~~.,,·,: . . ·,r:.in.r..-~~u Jt:.o ''.,;--':",b \-. ,... ~ ~~ '.1.··:> ·~; ·,. ~ . -:\ '°""
-t •. "~J 1•

025~ The\ High court irflhei1ast, ha·s given tt\€!'.<:lirectiot'l that
the plots covered in _LP/MR 1175 cannot be used for1 any ~D
··lr~ ri11,n_oel· ·- ..,(;\\i\.·\'-,\_ 1 · .':.~\'R :-1\0~.· · ?~1 ·.l-:~ ·_ c~ (·''1-1 ..~_.,,0':
1 1

~11tP.Pn~'~V1~~ ~. ~Q,.p.~,~1t1Jl1,rf ~?e rn~pt1~n,e~( t~7r~,1~.w\t~}~~
excepuon of the·plot No~. Li?
a~:d-(?9'., _I~~· oxf-P~')N~2· tti:~.-'f"~S
a completely incorrect d1rect1on particularly because way back
.incl:%~?.!R!~'b~e:Y?.5 1~~siJma~~tj:'!!§ . ~l1C.e!!~d.:~!1
. ....4t~~r~ was
£1.9,[eyjv<!L<?Ht!~t;;.1?!?1t?ic .19vonrn1 s!dsxs1 aJi ni at.Ji st .:i E
;:)'i)p12''"5·~:\ trl~b•e,tt "t<)t·h'.}!31110'.lt bF;rl ·~9dr•.•<;?l;N··~s1erl:l 1."irl'K' l'HHIOl
.,,, ,. ,i,,a$t ,u po . e ~.as." respon .en o.. n~rern, -~rpag_~
. .oq , Nso. 9fl, ~9or.i.. ,.,._1i-;1i:;(.9~ ~~01.," t' '!in ._s1u - h . ;'A"'
N. agar ,,a~ 1 urii:n~r .5 a,r~am.,.rew,ese~ -~u., uY..,., 8 .~1 .
Shania9a~gr11'ad'rn&i.~h 'bfigl1ia1 Suit N6'.1t
1o6t861h''the{ c6Ult
of Ad8i'Hb~~r6i~~i~i1;xuR§ifca'(Nt rViaci8~i'r6v51rfiifhfs::sfpcrci!Y F
g~~ ~I r~,JillMfii• ~f a '.Na,~·~v f ,,~io~y whir~t~Ii 11\? tia'..,lf ~8~ght
0
1<1Hh,Cg
.f If> .. 9 ,11. JO !:' ,,(l pr 'trt•.,O ! "'lh~i?.j-"-fit .f ny ~fl 11 .9n11>11. .rin'th1 r
Of an ~IJJ~n~UOIT res rarrll")Q, e ru~ r?m S~ ,l[l!:J 0£,..~Smg . e
tropgrtftdr diW1>°uiW>s~etti~l?~h~ P.Wrpoge"'ti:fr'Wllicti it'W~~
f.e~efv~8:id''f.p' NiR''1??5~:··' 'luns~9r,., SHJJ '{C• Tis~qqs 1::in:1u ~
Jn"' :-; o9m ~saa ·aas sn i •:mudn n()r i>xs isi:isq<'.! vb;,;.,
:•· •1Y21.rF=dr.a11' ffiese·reasonsFwe cahnoFattirm:hiefjudgmetit P
6fttl&"'rligh GoUrt~i lfi$ ·set raside:aha ·m'e1Writlf:>~tition'filed <by
the respondent is directed·!to1Be-rdishii$sea~withrcosts36f
Rs.50,0:JO/-.
t111o:J srU ,al5!Jq11b 9rl1 g11iaairnefl
K.K.T. ~~ Appeals allowed. H