Vallalar case full order W.P.Nos.9141, 8190, 13325 and 29630 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.32281 and 32282 of 2024R.SURESH KUMAR, J and S.SOUNTHAR, J(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESHKUMAR, J)Except W.P.No.29630 of 2024, all other three writ petitions have already been heard and successive interim orders have been passed by this Court. Last such order was passed by us on 19.09.2024, where interalia we have passed the following order :
W.P.Nos.9141, 8190, 13325 and 29630 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.32281 and 32282 of 2024
R.SURESH KUMAR, J and S.SOUNTHAR, J
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESHKUMAR, J)
Except W.P.No.29630 of 2024, all other three writ petitions have already been heard and successive interim orders have been passed by this Court. Last such order was passed by us on 19.09.2024, where interalia we have passed the following order :
” 9. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the HR & CE Department and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
- Insofar as the claim of the temple that there were totally 106 acres of land, which is equal to 80 Kaanis of land, which was donated by various people in that villages during the lifetime of Saint Vallalar, of late, after Saint Vallalar attained
Mukthi through Jothi, even though a team of Trustees have been maintaining the temple at various point of time, a number of properties ie., many acres of land out of those 106 acres have been either encroached upon by individuals or sometime the individual persons, claiming to be Trustees at various point of time, have sold the properties on piece meal basis to various individuals for the reasons best known to them. - Very adjacent to the temple, about six acres ofland has been in the possession of an individual or group of individuals, in respect of which there has been already a litigation which is also being heard by this Bench.
- If these lands are retrieved from the occupants or the encroachers after due process of law, for which steps also are being taken by this Court in this lis itself, the 71 acres of land presently under the control of the Temple could be expanded into 100 plus acres ie., totally 106 acres.
- However, insofar as the present issue is concerned, the objection raised by the petitioners to have any construction as proposed by the Government to have Vallalar International Convention Centre in Site-A is concerned, if such a construction is made, the view of several thousands or lakhs of people who would gather during the Thai Poosam festival to have the glimpse of the Jothi in the Vallalar Temple at Parvathipuram Village, Vadalur, will be hampered as such a huge construction would act as a view breaker for several thousands of people. Therefore, such a move made by the Government is being opposed by the petitioners’ side.
- Insofar as the Site-B is concerned, as wediscussed herein above, which is in S.No.78/4 etc., which is located far away ie., one kilometre away from the temple. In between, there are a lot of constructions already been made besides thick vegetation and there is a main road runs in between. Beyond that road, there are still some lands, which included S.No.78/4 etc., wherein the said Site-B construction has been proposed by the HR & CE Department, where they are going to utilize only 4040 Sq.Mtrs of the total extent of 10.44 acres in the said survey numbers at
Parvathipuram Village, Kurinjipadi Taluk, Cuddalore District. - If any construction as proposed by the HR & CE Department like Old Age Home, Siddha Clinic etc., are constructed, that construction or buildings to come up, would not be in hindrance to the devotees of Saint Vallalar, as first of all, it is doubtful that during the festival season devotees will stand in the said lands which is far away from the temple. Assuming that some devotees want to stand there to have a glimpses of the Jothi, it is thoroughly impossible to have a glimpse of Jothi, as already developed buildings would be a strong view breaker between the temple and Site-B. Therefore, the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners for the proposed construction at Site’B is without any reason or substance. Hence, this Court is of the view that, insofar as the construction proposed by the HR & CE
Department at Site-B is concerned, we do not see any impediment or hindrance to proceed with the construction, which they can proceed after two weeks ie., after 2nd week of October 2024. - In the meanwhile, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks further time in order to get further instructions on the specific issues / plausible reasons and objections to have the proposed construction at Site-B, which they want to project before this Court. For the said purpose, post the matter on 03.10.2024.
- Notice is hereby ordered to the newly impleaded respondents returnable by 03.10.2024. Private notice is also permitted. It is the duty of both the petitioners as well as the respondent HR & CE Department to take private notice and take steps to serve notice to the newly impleaded respondents.
- Apart from this, it is open to the HR & CE Department to initiate separate action of provisions of the HR & CE Act to the former Trustees, Temple Staff or any other individuals who had been acting upon to transfer the property or sell the property or entrust the property to various individuals at various points of time, without any concurrence or permission from the Government. Such action to be taken by the HR &
CE Department under provisions of the HR & CE Act will be independent of the action being
initiated by this Court in this lis.” - Today when these cases are taken up for hearing, W.P.No.29630 of 2024 also has come up for admission and hearing as a fresh matter. This W.P.No.29630 of 2024 has been filed by the very same petitioner who filed writ petition in W.P.No.9141 of 2024.
- In the Writ Petition in W.P.No.29630 of 2024, the petitioner sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein, challenging various orders and proceedings issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, the Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Cuddalore, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Cuddalore and the Commissioner, Vadalur Municipality, Vadalur.
- Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the HR & CE Department and the Temple.
- In Today’s hearing, submissions were made only in W.P.No.29630 of 2024 especially in the context of the prayer sought for in the said writ petition challenging various proceedings issued by the respondents as stated herein above in the context of the order that has been passed by us by our order, dated 19.09.2024, where we have observed that, insofar as the construction proposed by the HR & CE Department at Site-B is concerned, we do not see any impediment or hindrance to proceed with the construction, which they can proceed after two weeks, i.e, after 2nd week of October 2024. We have also observed in the said order, dated 19.09.2024 that, in the meanwhile, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks further time in order to get further instructions on the specific issues, plausible reasons and objections to have the proposed construction at Site-B, which they want to project before this Court.
- Only at this juncture, the writ petition in W.P.No.29630 of 2024 with the prayer as stated therein has been filed.
- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited theattention of this court on certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, especially Section 47 and 47-A of the Act.
- The learned counsel would contend that, the area in which now the proposed construction is to be made both in Site-A and Site-B are concerned, they do not come under any planning area, therefore if any development is to be made by any person in other than the planning area, what procedure to be followed for getting such a permission to make such development since has been contemplated under Section 47-A of the Act, the said provision has to be scrupulously followed, he contended.
- He would also submit that, the State Government under its rule making power under Section 122 of the Act r/w Section 47(A) has framed a rule called, The Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From Agriculture to Non-Agriculture purposes in Non-Planning Areas) Rules
- This Rule has been issued in G.O.Ms.No.79, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 04.05.2017. Relying upon the said rule, the learned counsel would contend that, under rule 3 application shall be made to seek permission for conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture usage and under rule 4, that application how to be processed has been provided for, under rule 5, 6 and 7 how such concurrence and prior approval or prior concurrence or a report from the Director of Town and Country Planning, the District Collector as the case may be depending upon the nature of the land, whether it is nanja land or punja land to be obtained, those procedure to be adopted has been demarcated or spelt out in rule 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules.
- Relying upon these rules, the learned counsel would contend that, in getting such a permission from various authorities like Director of Town and Country Planning, Agriculture Department as well as local authority, i.e., Municipal Authorities are concerned, these provisions, i.e., Section 47-A of the Act as well as rules under G.O.Ms.No.79 has been violated, therefore these permission orders which are impugned in W.P.No.29630 of 2024 cannot be permitted to be acted upon and therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court pressing for an interim order of stay or injunction.
- On the other hand, Mr.NRR.Arun Natarajan, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader appearing for the HR & CE Department as well as the Temple would contend that, insofar as the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules are concerned, none of the provisions either under the Rule or under the Act has been violated and these permissions are necessarily to be sought for from various authorities like Director of Town and Country Planning Department, Agriculture Department, District Collector as well as the local authorities. From all these authorities, such a necessary concurrence, approval or permission as the case may be since has been secured by the Department of HR & CE as well as the Temple authorities, in order to proceed with the proposed construction, i.e., Vallalar Centre at Vadalur as proposed, for which, the administrative and financial sanction was issued by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.361, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 05.10.2023, there could be no further impediment.
- The learned Special Government Pleader would also contend that, since there has been no violation of either the provisions of the Act or the Rules and every approval, concurrence or permission which are supposed to be secured from various authorities as stated supra, since have been secured under HR & CE Department and the Temple concerned, there can be no impediment for the HR & CE Department and the Temple authorities to proceed with the proposed construction, hence, absolutely there has been no ground in having any challenge in the present writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.29630 of 2024 against these orders. Therefore the learned Special Government Pleader would seek for dismissal of the writ petition W.P.No.29630 of 2024.
- We have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
- Under G.O.Ms.No.361, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department dated 05.10.2023, the State Government had permitted the proposed construction of Vallalar International Centre at Vallalar Temple in Parvathipuram, Vadalur, Cuddalore District and issued administrative as well as financial sanction. The total cost was estimated at Rs.99.90 Crores, for which administrative sanctions had been given and in the first phase, Rs.15 Crores finance has been released.
- Under the said proposal, there would be two constructions. InSite-A, the main construction would be undertaken which is the back side of the Vallalar Temple, whereas the proposed construction in Site-B is a far of place, i.e., beyond 1 km where also the land belongs to the temple since had been available in S.No.78/4, 79/2 and 82/2B2 in order to have some allied constructions, which is part of the Vallalar International Centre as proposed by the Government, the necessary permission to get from various authorities for proceeding with the said construction, have been secured.
- In this context, it is to be noted that, Section 47-A of the Act makes it clear that, any person intending to carryout any development on any land in any area other than the planning area, shall make an application in writing to the local authority for permission in such form and containing such particulars and accompany such documents as may be prescribed.
- Sub-section 2 of Section 47-A states that, the local authorityshall before according permission under sub-section 1 shall obtain the prior concurrence of the Director and shall also collect such fees at such rate as may be prescribed, provided that in the case of wet lands, the prior concurrence of the Collector of the District concerned is necessary.
- In this context, it is to be further noted that, under the rule making power, the said rules since has been made under G.O.Ms.No.79, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 04.05.2017 for conversion of the lands from agriculture to nonagriculture purposes in non-planning areas, where under rule 3, such an application by any intending party to carry out any development in the non-planning area can be made, under rule 4, the local authority before according permission for carrying out the development, shall obtain the prior concurrence of the Director. Under rule 5, the Director after the receipt of the application from the local authority, shall obtain the prior concurrence of the Collector in case of wet lands and a report from the Joint Director of Agriculture in case of dry lands. Rule 6 speaks about the guidelines to be followed by the Collector for giving his prior concurrence, rule 7 speaks about guidelines to be followed by the
Director for giving his prior concurrence. - Only in this context, it is the contention of the learned counselappearing for the petitioner that, in respect of Site-A and Site-B, separate applications had been made by the HR & CE Department / Temple and that application having been processed, the Director of Town and Country Planning had given a technical concurrence in respect of Site-A on 06.06.2024. Like that, in respect of Site-B such a technical concurrence had been given by the Director of Town and Country Planning on 20.06.2024.
- The land in question both in Site-A and Site-B are no doubt punja lands, therefore as per the Rules, the Director in case of wet lands shall obtain prior concurrence from the Collector and in case of dry lands a report from the Joint Director of Agriculture.
- In the case in hand, on 10.06.2024, the Joint Director of Agriculture at Cuddalore has conveyed his NOC along with the report to the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Cuddalore in both cases, i.e., both in Site-A as well as in Site-B for the purpose of conversion of the said punja lands at various survey numbers belong to the Temple into a non-agriculture land.
- The District Collector has conveyed his NOC on 12.06.2024 inrespect of Site-A and on the same day in respect of Site-B also separately, the District Collector has conveyed the NOC.
- The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning, Cuddalore has conveyed his technical concurrence through his order, dated 18.06.2024 in respect of Site-A and similarly in respect of Site-B on 20.06.2024, the Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning, Cuddalore has conveyed his technical concurrence.
- Ultimately, the Director as stated supra in respect of Site-A conveyed his technical concurrence on 06.06.2024 and in respect of Site-B he has issued his technical concurrence on 20.06.2024.
- Based on these technical concurrence, NOC etc., the Commissioner of the local authority, namely, the Vadalur Municipality, has given the site approval as well as the building approval on 28.06.2024. All these proceedings have been under challenge in W.P.No.29630 of 2024.
- Technically in this context, it is the objection raised by thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the land in question both at Site-A and Site-B though it is a dry land, as per rule 5, the Director after receipt of the application from the local authority shall obtain the prior concurrence from the District Collector in case of wet lands and the report from the Joint Director of Agriculture in case of dry lands.
- Whether under rule 5, such a report was received from the Joint Director of Agriculture by the Director before issuance of his technical concurrence was the issue projected before us.
- In this regard, if we have a close scrutiny of these documents in respect of both Site-A and Site-B, the NOC had been conveyed which can be taken as a report from the Joint Director of Agriculture in his letter, dated 10.06.2024. Therefore if at all any technical concurrence has to be conveyed by the Director, it must have followed the NOC issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture, dated 10.06.2024.
- However insofar as Site-A, the Director has conveyed histechnical concurrence on 06.06.2024, i.e., four days prior to the Joint Director of Agriculture’s concurrence or NOC or report.
- However in respect of Site-B on the very same day, i.e., on
10.06.2024, the Joint Director of Agriculture has conveyed his NOC / Report and the District Collector in both sites has conveyed his NOC on 12.06.2024 and the Assistant Director has conveyed his technical concurrence on 20.06.2024. - Based on these documents, the Director had conveyed his technical concurrence in respect of Site-B only on 20.06.2024. However, insofar as Site-A is concerned, though the Assistant Director has conveyed his technical concurrence only on 18.06.2024 and the Collector has conveyed his NOC on 12.06.2024 and the Joint Director of Agriculture has conveyed his NOC or report on 10.06.2024, prior to all these proceedings, the Director of Town and Country Planning has conveyed his technical concurrence on 06.06.2024 itself. Therefore such a technical concurrence given by the Director is not inconsonance with the Rules, especially rule 5 of the said Rules was the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner which of course prima facie is to be accepted.
- Therefore the consequential site approval or building approval given by the local authority, i.e., the Municipality, dated 24.06.2024 in respect of Site-A is also equally may not be inconsonance with the procedure as contemplated under the Rule.
- However insofar as Site-B is concerned, all these proceedings had been issued properly as the Joint Director of Agriculture has conveyed his NOC and report on 10.06.2024, Collector has conveyed his NOC on 12.06.2024, Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning has conveyed his technical concurrence on 20.06.2024 and ultimately the Director has conveyed the technical concurrence on 20.06.2024, based on which, the local authority, i.e., Vadalur Municipality has given the site approval and the building approval for the proposed construction to be made at Site-B on 24.06.2024.
- Therefore prima facie, we feel that, insofar as Site-A is concerned, there is a technical snag in securing such permissions from the Director of Town and Country Planning for making such conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture usage even in respect of the punja land. However, insofar as Site-B is concerned, all these proceedings issued by the various authorities as stated supra had been issued strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, for proceeding with the construction as proposed by the HR & CE Department and the Temple in Site-B is concerned, our order dated 19.09.2024 especially paragraph No.15 shall hold good and can be reiterated. But at the same time, the proposed construction to be made at Site-A is concerned, the technical impediment, apart from the other objections raised by the petitioner’s side since have to be delve into in detail, for which, the Court intends to hear further the matter of all these four writ petitions, such a proposed construction in Site-A may not be permitted at present.
- In that view of the matter, the following further interim orders are passed by this Court, which is in continuation of the earlier inter orders, especially the interim order passed on 19.09.2024.
(i) That the HR & CE Department and the
Vallalar Temple, i.e., its Executive Officer and Trustees shall not proceed to make any construction in Site-A as proposed by them pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.361, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 05.10.2023 as well as the various permissions, concurrence and approval issued by the respondent authorities like Director of Town and Country Planning, Joint Director of Agriculture,
District Collector concerned as well as the Vadalur Municipality until further orders.
(ii) However, the HR & CE Department and the Vallalar Temple, its Executive Officer and Trustees can proceed to make construction as proposed in Site-B at S.No.78/4, 79/2 and 82/2B2 pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 05.10.2023 and the concurrence, approval and NOC as the case may be issued by the authorities like the Director of Town and Country Planning, the Joint Director of Agriculture, the District Collector concerned as well as the Vadalur Municipality, without any further hindrance. - With these interim orders, post all these matters for further hearing on 17.10.2024.
(R.S.K., J.) (S.S., J.) 10-10-2024
tsvn
R.SURESHKUMAR, J and
S.SOUNTHAR, J tsvn
W.P.Nos.9141, 8190, 13325 and
29630 of 2024
10-10-2024