Holding

The land was deemed released from public‑purpose reservation under Section 38(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the original owner retained title and could lawfully transfer it, and the respondents’ suit lacked any cause of action.

Summary

The dispute concerned a 11,200 sq ft parcel in Nachimuthu Nagar that was earmarked for public purpose in a layout plan approved in 1978 and revised in 1981 under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. After the original owner, Nachimuthu Mudaliar, died in 2004, his heirs sold the land to the appellants in 2009 and subsequent deeds transferred portions to various appellants. The respondents, office-bearers of the resident welfare association, sued for a permanent injunction to stop construction, alleging the land remained subject to public‑purpose reservation. The Supreme Court examined Sections 36‑39 of the Act and held that because no acquisition declaration or agreement was made within three years of the layout notification, the land was released from reservation under Section 38(b), leaving the original owner free to transfer title. Consequently, the suit had no viable cause of action and the First Appellate Court’s dismissal was affirmed. The Court set aside the trial and High Court judgments and restored the First Appellate Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether land earmarked for public purpose under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972, becomes released from reservation after the lapse of the three‑year period prescribed in Section 38(b).
Whether the original owner retained title and could validly transfer the suit property in 2009 despite its earlier reservation.
Whether the respondents’ suit for permanent injunction was maintainable in view of the release of the land from reservation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972s. 36, s. 37, s. 38, s. 39

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the suit land was under any sort of legal encumbrance so as to make it unfit for transfer of right, title and interest thereon in light of the Layout Plan notified by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Thanjavur region in the revised in the year 1981. Headnotes† Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 – ss.37 and 38 – For a creation of a Nagar various plots were formed by one N – In a Layout plan, a portion of land was earmarked for public purpose for welfare of the residents –

Subjects

Layout planLand earmarked for public purposeMixed residential areaTitleInterest in propertySuitPermanent injunctionConstruction on landPower to acquire land under the Land AcquisitionPower to purchase or acquire lands specified in development plan

Judgment

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1673 : 2024 INSC 1047

Pradhan Babu and Others
v.
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 2023)
28 August 2024
[Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the suit land was under any sort of legal encumbrance
so as to make it unfit for transfer of right, title and interest thereon
in light of the Layout Plan notified by the Deputy Director, Town
and Country Planning, Thanjavur region in the year 1978 and later
revised in the year 1981.

Headnotes†
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 – ss.37 and
38 – For a creation of a Nagar various plots were formed by
one N – In a Layout plan, a portion of land was earmarked for
public purpose for welfare of the residents – That earmarked
site is the suit land/property – N died on 29.04.2004 – Appellants
case that after the death of N, the suit property was sold by
his legal heirs to appellants – The cause of action arose when
appellant no.1 started construction of a building on the suit
property – Respondents no.1 and 2/original plaintiffs are the
office-bearers of the Resident Welfare Association, who filed
suit and sought relief of permanent injunction, restraining
the defendants from encroaching upon the suit property
and putting up construction – Trial Court decreed suit – The
First Appellate Court dismissed the suit – However, the High
Court restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court –
Correctness:
Held: In the case at hand, although the Layout (originally 1978
and revised in 1981) shows that it has been earmarked for a
public purpose – However, admittedly, nothing happened thereafter
in terms of Section 37 of the Act, namely, neither was the land
acquired under land acquisition laws nor any agreement was made
with the person(s)/owners – Neither the State Government nor
* Author
1674 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Respondent no.3 acted to takeover or gain ownership of the suit
property – No steps were taken either by the planning authority
or the State Government to acquire the land which as per the Act
was required to be done within 3 years from publication – This
apart, ultimately in the year 2005, the Layout itself was revised
showing it as a mixed residential area – Be that as it may, on the
core issue, the original owner of the suit property, never lost right,
title, interest and usage therein – The deeming provision under
Section 38(b) of the Act would operate to release the suit property,
as the 3-year period would have lapsed, latest in 1984, counted
from the year of revision i.e., 1981, after the initial Layout in the
year 1978 – The original owner, thus, was competent in law to
transfer the suit property to any other person on 20.04.2009 (date
of the first Sale Deed) – Thus, the suit filed by the respondents
had absolutely no cause of action evincible from a reading of the
plaint – The First Appellate Court rightly interfered and dismissed
the suit – The reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the
High Court, is erroneous, and cannot be sustained. [Paras 22, 24]

Case Law Cited
Pillayar P.K.V.K.N. Trust v. Karpaga N.N.U.S. [2010] 11 SCR 1 :
(2010) 9 SCC 344 – referred to.

List of Acts
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972; Constitution
of India.

List of Keywords
Layout plan; Land earmarked for public purpose; Mixed residential
area; Title; Interest in property; Suit; Permanent injunction;
Construction on land; Power to acquire land under the Land
Acquisition; Power to purchase or acquire lands specified in
development plan.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in SA No. 794 of 2019
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1675

Pradhan Babu and Others v.
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others

Appearances for Parties
R Nedumaran, Sr. Adv., Beno Bencigar, Parijat Kishore, Advs. for
the Appellants.
T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Subham Kothari, Bharathi
Subramaniayan, V Balachandran, Siddharth Naidu, M/S. Ksn &
Co., Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal arises from the Final Judgment and Order
dated 24.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”),
passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in S.A. No.794
of 2019, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed
setting aside Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2019 passed in A.S.
No.71 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai
(hereinafter referred to as the “First Appellate Court”) and confirming
Judgment and Decree, dated 13.09.2017, passed in O.S. No.265 of
2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit”) on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai (hereinafter referred to as the
“Trial Court”).

A FACTUAL APPRECIATION:
3. For the creation of Nachimuthu Nagar, plots were formed in T.S.
No.1000/1, & 2, 1002, 1003/1 & 2, 1004 of Thirumanjanaveethi,
Koorainadu, Mayiladuthurai Town by one Nachimuthu Mudaliar. This
was approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Town Planning,
Thanjai, Trichy and the Municipal Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai.
The layout was approved in 1978 and later revised in 1981. In the
Layout, a portion was earmarked for public purpose for the welfare
of the residents of Nachimuthu Nagar. That earmarked site is the
suit land/property admeasuring 11200 square feet.
1676 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

4. It is the case of the appellants that Nachimuthu Mudaliar died on
29.04.2004 and the suit property was sold by his legal heirs through
a Sale Deed on 20.04.2009 to the Appellants No.6-10. Thereafter,
vide an Exchange Deed dated 27.03.2013, Appellants no.4 & 5
(parents of Appellant no.1) were put in possession of a total area of
6145 square feet of the suit property. On the same day, through a
Sale Deed, the Appellants no.2 & 3 (brother and father-in-law of the
Appellant no.1, respectively) purchased the remaining 5055 square
feet in the suit property. The cause of action is said to have arisen
in October 2013, when Appellant no.1 made clear his intention of
constructing a building on the suit property.
5. Respondents no.1 and 2 are the office-bearers of Nachimuthu
Nagar Resident Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as
the “Society”), which is registered with the District Registrar,
Mayiladuthurai. They are the original plaintiffs in the suit, which was
originally filed against Appellant No.1 (later on, Appellants no.2-10
were impleaded1 in the suit). The suit sought the grant of “relief of
permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, from
in any manner, encroaching upon the suit property and put up any
construction or disturbing in any manner.” (sic).
6. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence
on record, noted that permission should have been obtained from
the Joint Director for changing the public purpose site and to sell the
same, in the manner in which approval was obtained for Nachimuthu
Nagar layout. In the absence of such permission, the legal heirs of
Nachimuthu Mudaliar did not have a right to change the character
of the suit property. Further, it was noted that the Family Partition
Deed dated 31.07.1980, on the basis of which Sale Deed dated
20.04.2009 was created, was not produced before the court. The Trial
Court opined, hence, that the Sale Deed 20.04.2009 was not legally
proved. Consequently, the subsequent Sale Deed and Exchange
Deed (mentioned supra) made in favour of the appellants was also
held not to have been proved. On this basis, the Trial Court decreed

1 Appellant nos.2-5 were impleaded vide Order of the Trial Court dated 21.02.2014. Appellant nos.6-10
were impleaded vide Order of the Trial Court dated 17.12.2014.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1677

Pradhan Babu and Others v.
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others

the suit and granted permanent injunction against the appellants,
as was sought.
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the appellants filed
an appeal viz. A.S. No.71 of 2017 before the First Appellate Court.
On consideration of the issues that fell before it, the First Appellate
Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the respondents.
While doing so, it was noted that though the suit property was
reserved for public purpose, since it was neither in the possession
of the respondents or the Municipal Authority nor was it seized, the
character of the suit property was not maintained as such. Further,
on perusal of the documentary evidence produced before it, the First
Appellate Court took the view that transfer of title had taken place
in favour of the appellants and the suit was bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties and in the absence of a prayer for declaration.
8. Against the decision rendered by the First Appellate Court, the
respondents preferred a second appeal, namely S.A. No.794 of 2019
before the High Court, which was allowed vide the Impugned Order
and the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court dated 13.09.2017
was restored.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS:
9. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the Appellants submitted
that the High Court fell in error in reversing the well-reasoned order
of the First Appellate Court and holding that, in the absence of
permission under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the Sale
Deed made by the legal heirs of Nachimuthu Mudaliar would be illegal,
without correct appreciation of the provision in its true sense. It was
contended that under the said provision, if the land which is reserved
for Public Purpose is not utilized/acquired by the Government within
3 years of the reservation, the same stands released automatically
from reservation.
10. It was submitted that the suit property in the present case was
reserved for ‘public purpose’ in the year 1978 in the Layout,
which reservation was continued in the year 1981. However, since
thereafter, no steps were taken by the Municipality for putting up the
1678 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

suit property for public purpose and in fact, the said land was lying
as vacant land, for which the owners were paying tax also. It was
urged that as such, by virtue of Section 38(b) of the Act, the suit
property is deemed to be released from the Development Plan of the
Municipal Council and there is no question for the owners to obtain
any permission before selling the suit property. It was submitted that
the above provision came into force even before the notifying of the
Master Development Plan for Mayiladuthurai Municipality; later the
modified Master Development Plan for Mayiladuthurai Municipality,
which was notified by the State Government in GO(Ms) No.100
issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department dated
21.03.2005.
11. It was argued that in the present case, the suit property has not
acquired the character of public property so as to be owned by
all the public of Nachimuthu Nagar but the same was reserved for
“Public Purpose” in the Layout Plan by the Municipality. As such
the ownership of the property always remained with the family of
Nachimuthu Mudaliar and they always had the right to sell the same,
after the suit property was deemed to be released under Section
38(b) of the Act. It was contended that seeking permission is a
mere administrative act and seeking such permission is not made
mandatory by the Act.
12. Next, it was submitted that Section 38 of the Act is a directory
provision and not obtaining previous permission of the Municipal
Authorities would not render the Sale Deeds in question invalid. Since,
no consequence is provided in Section 38 or any other provision in
the Act to treat the transaction in violation of Section 38 as void, the
transfer in favour of Appellants no.2 to 10 cannot be regarded as
ineffective or invalid. Such a transfer would at best be voidable, that
too only at the instance of the Municipality concerned and none else.
13. It was submitted that respondents have no right or interest in the
suit property as the same is still a private property in the hand of
the original owners, even though reserved for Public Purpose at one
point of time. And admittedly, till date the suit property was/is not
utilised for Public Purpose (even after a lapse of more than 30 years)
by the Municipality concerned. Therefore, reservation in respect of
the same stood lapsed long back in terms of Section 38 of the Act.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1679

Pradhan Babu and Others v.
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others

It was pointed out that undisputed possession and enjoyment of the
suit property, based on registered documents, for over three and
a half decades had remained with the appellant(s) concerned and
their predecessors-in-title, and they had acquired rights thereupon
by way of adverse possession. Thus, the claim made by a newly-
formed Society [Respondents no.1 and 2] after 35 years is barred
by limitation.
14. It was further submitted that the suit filed by the original plaintiffs/
respondents without seeking the relief of declaration as to title is
not maintainable in view of the fact that the suit property is not a
public property, but a private property reserved for public purpose
whose character has changed over the years. The further contention
was that the suit filed by the original plaintiffs/respondents is not
with bonafide intention which is evident from the fact that the
sangam-society was formed just prior to the filing of the suit and that
too without following the requisite procedure. For all these reasons,
the learned senior counsel prayed for allowing the appeal and sought
setting aside of the Impugned Order.

SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2/SOCIETY:
15. Learned counsel for the Society began by submitting that there is no
question of law, much less, a substantial question of law involved in
the present case under Article 1362 of the Constitution of India and
therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. He submitted
that the Trial Court has given a just, fair and cogent judgment based
on reliable evidence, which has been affirmed by the High Court,
and as such, does not require interference by this Court.
16. It was submitted that the Act provides for planning the development
and use of rural and urban land in the State of Tamil Nadu and for
purposes connected therewith. The suit property was part of the
Housing Layout and it was earmarked for public purpose when the
Layout was formed in 1978 or when it was revised in 1981. The

2 ‘136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter,
the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made
by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.’
1680 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

land was not acquired as required under the Act and Section 38
of the Act is not applicable to the suit property, submitted learned
counsel.
17. It was canvassed that once, as per the Layout Plan, the area is
notified as being for public purpose while forming the Layout, the
same cannot be converted into personal property. It was contended
that the suit property is not acquired by the Government under the Act
and therefore the provisions in the Act cannot be invoked in respect
of Nachimuthu Nagar. The Act will apply in a case where acquisition
is made, and property is kept vacant without construction. Therefore,
the Trial Court and High Court correctly appreciated the distinction
and decreed the suit as prayed for. Learned counsel prayed for the
dismissal of the appeal.

RE RESPONDENT NO.3/THE MUNICIPALITY:
18. Respondent no.3 was impleaded under our Order dated 16.05.2024
for a limited purpose. In view of the discussion infra, nothing more
needs to be noted.

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
19. Having given our anxious thought to the lis, after perusing the
materials and in view of the submissions advanced, we find that
the moot question involved is whether the suit land was under any
sort of legal encumbrance so as to make it unfit for transfer of right,
title and interest thereon in light of the Layout Plan notified by the
Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Thanjavur region in
the year 1978 and later revised in the year 1981.
20. On this, the admitted fact is that at the time when the Layout Plan
was originally notified in the year 1978, the suit property reflected
as being in private hands as per the record of the land registry, not
belonging to the State Government nor to the Municipality/Respondent
no.3. At the relevant time i.e., in 1978, only the intention of the
competent authority under the relevant statute was discernible that
it had formed an opinion with regard to the suit land/property being
required to be kept reserved for ‘public purpose’. It would be useful
to extract Chapter IV of the Act containing Sections 36 to 39 titled
‘Acquisition and Disposal of Land’:
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1681

Pradhan Babu and Others v.
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others

‘36. Power to acquire land under the Land Acquisition
Act.—Any land required, reserved or designated in a
regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or
a new town development plan, as the case may be, shall
be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose within
the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of
1894) and may be acquired under the said Act as modified
in the manner provided in this Act.
37. Power to purchase or acquire lands specified
in development plan.—(1) Where after the publication
of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette of
preparation of a regional plan, master plan, detailed
development plan or a new town development plan,
as the case may be, any land is required, reserved or
designated in such plan the appropriate planning authority
may, either enter into agreement with any person for the
acquisition from him by purchase of any land which may
be acquired under Section 36 or make an application to
the Government for acquiring such land under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894):
Provided that if the value of such land exceeds fifty
thousand rupees, the appropriate planning authority shall
not enter into such agreement without the previous approval
of the Government.
(2) On receipt of an application made under sub-section
(1), if the Government are satisfied that the land specified
in the application is needed for the public purpose specified
therein, they may make a declaration to that effect in
the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, in the manner
provided in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(Act 1 of 1894), in respect of the said land. The declaration
so published shall notwithstanding anything contained in
the said Act, be deemed to be a declaration duly made
under the said Section 6 of the said Act:
Provided that no such declaration in respect of any
particular land covered by a notice under Section 26 or
1682 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Section 27 shall be made after the expiry of three years
from the date of such notice.
(3) On the publication of such declaration, the Collector
of the district within whose jurisdiction the land is situate
shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of such
land under the said Act; and the provisions of that Act
shall, so far as may be apply to the acquisition, of the
said land, with the modification that the market value
of the land shall be the market value prevailing on the
date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette under Section 26 or Section 27, as
the case may be.
38. Release of land.—If within three years from the date of
the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette under Section 26 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, 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 such reservation,
allotment or designation.
39. Right to compensation.—(1) Any person whose
property is injuriously affected by virtue of any of the
provisions contained in any regional plan, master plan,
detailed development plan or a new town development plan
made under this Act shall, if he prefers a claim for the purpose
to the Tribunal with such particulars and within such period
as may be prescribed, be entitled to obtain compensation
in respect thereof as determined by the Tribunal:
Provided that property shall not be deemed to be injuriously
affected by reason of any of the provisions inserted in any
development plan which impose any condition or restriction
in regard to any of the matters specified in clause (f) of
sub-section (2) of Section 15, or in clauses (k) and (f) of
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1683

Pradhan Babu and Others v.
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others

sub-section (2) of Section 17 or in clauses (m) and (n) of
sub-section (1) of Section 20, as the case may be.
(2) If at any time after the day on which any regional
plan master plan, detailed development plan or a new
town development plan has come into force, such plan
is varied, or revoked, any person who has incurred any
expenditure for the purpose of complying with such plan,
shall, if he prefers a claim for the purpose to the Tribunal
with such particulars and within such time as may be
prescribed, be entitled to obtain compensation in respect
thereof as determined by the Tribunal, if by reason only of
the variation or revocation of such plan, such expenditure
has ceased to be in any way beneficial to him.’
21. A perusal of Chapter IV of the Act brings to the fore the scheme
thereunder. For the present, we are unbothered by Section 39 of the
Act. Section 36 of the Act states that any land required, reserved or
designated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan
or a new town development plan shall be deemed to be land needed
for a ‘public purpose’ and can be acquired under the land acquisition
laws as modified under the Act. Section 37(1) of the Act permits the
appropriate planning authority to enter into an agreement with a
person to acquire such land by way of purchase, or to apply to the
Government for acquisition of such land under the land acquisition
laws in force. Section 38 of the Act mandates that if, within three
years from the date of publication in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette under Sections 26 or 27 of the Act, (a) no declaration under
Section 37(2) is published, or (b) the land in question is not acquired
by agreement, such land would be deemed released from reservation/
allotment/designation. At this juncture, we may also examine the
meaning and scope of the term ‘public purpose’ employed in the
Act. The relevant definitional clause reads as under:
‘2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,—
…
(36) “public purpose” means any purpose which is useful
to the public or any class or section of the public;’
1684 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

22. The position under the Act is that law permits a planning authority to
come out with a Layout Plan or a Master Plan for an area in which
certain area may be reserved for public purposes. Given how our
cities are fast expanding, the salutary purpose and objective behind
Section 36 of the Act is obvious. Read with Section 2(36), ‘public
purpose’ has been given a very wide connotation and could even
include keeping the identified land as open spaces to act as lungs
for the city in view of environmental considerations. However, the
caveat is that though the planning authority can include private land,
the way ahead to acquire the land, either by way of resort to land
acquisition laws as modified by the Act or by way of agreement with
the person(s) concerned [Section 37], but in accordance with the
procedure as laid out in Chapter IV of the Act. In the case at hand,
although the Layout (originally 1978 and revised in 1981) shows that
it has been earmarked for a public purpose. However, admittedly,
nothing happened thereafter in terms of Section 37 of the Act,
namely, neither was the land acquired under land acquisition laws
nor any agreement was made with the person(s)/owners. Neither the
State Government nor Respondent no.3 acted to takeover or gain
ownership of the suit property. Clearly, no steps were taken either
by the planning authority or the State Government to acquire the
land which as per the Act was required to be done within 3 years
from publication. This apart, ultimately in the year 2005, the Layout
itself was revised showing it as a mixed residential area. Be that
as it may, on the core issue, we find that the original owner of the
suit property, never lost right, title, interest and usage therein. The
deeming provision under Section 38(b) of the Act would operate to
release the suit property, as the 3-year period would have lapsed,
latest in 1984, counted from the year of revision i.e., 1981, after the
initial Layout in the year 1978. This Court in Pillayar P K V K N
Trust v Karpaga N N U S, (2010) 9 SCC 344, in the facts of that
case, concluded ‘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 land concerned would
certainly be deemed to have been released.’ The original owner,
thus, was competent in law to transfer the suit property to any other
person on 20.04.2009 (date of the first Sale Deed). Obviously, nemo
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1685

Pradhan Babu and Others v.
Nachimuthu Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam and Others

dat quad non habet3 and any transfer of property would carry with it
inherently the same restrictions which were existing/passed on to the
vendor at the time of passing of the title to the concerned vendee.
23. It is not, and has not ever been, the case of the private respondents
that the appellants, who had originally bought the suit land and later
transferred it have violated the conditions of the Layouts of the
years 1978 and 1981 by constructing over it or using it other than
for a ‘public purpose’. The only cause of action on which the suit
was filed by the private respondents was that the appellants had
started construction of the boundary wall. This has been explained
by the appellants, who have stated that it was for demarcation of
the land in question and no further construction has been made on
the suit property. Moving further, even if it is accepted for the sake
of argument that some of the appellants, who were now claiming
ownership in their favour by way of Registered Sale Deed(s) in the
suit property, had made any construction and had started using the
land, there could, perhaps, be a cause of action for the respondents
to move before the appropriate forum for preventing such appellants
from either continuing with the construction or using it for a purpose
other than ‘public purpose’. The same would then have been required
to be decided by the appropriate forum after considering what was
the Layout/Master Plan applicable to the area on the date of such
consideration and whether the proposed construction or usage was
in conformity with the Plan operative on such date. However, as we
are informed, by way of the 2005 Layout, the suit property lies in a
mixed residential area.
24. Thus, for and upon a totality of reasons aforesaid, we find that the
suit filed by the respondents had absolutely no cause of action
evincible from a reading of the plaint. We hold that rightly the First
Appellate Court interfered and dismissed the suit. The reasoning
given by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, is erroneous,
and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order of the Trial Court as
well as the Impugned Order passed by the High Court are set aside.
The Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court is restored.

3 No one can give what they do not possess.
1686 [2024] 8 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

25. The appeal is allowed.
26. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
27. Pending applications are closed.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan