Patta is no guarantee for building on a plot

Those who buy plots often think that a mere possession of the patta is sufficient enough a guarantee to construct a building since their claim to the title is undisputed. This understanding is not entirely correct.

In the case involving Teachers Colony Residents' Welfare Association, Vettuvankeni, Injambakkam, Chennai and The Commissioner and Special Commissioner of Land Administration, the Madras High Court (decided on Feb 11, 2010) said that the possession of patta and construction of buildings were two different things. Building a superstructure will depend on whether proper permission for construction had been obtained or not. In the above case, even though the plot owners had valid pattas for the land they bought, they were refused building permission for putting up buildings since the entire layout was unapproved and the unauthorised structures put up were subsequently ordered by the court to be demolished.

In 1979, the residential colony at Vettuvankeni was laid out on a ground measuring 7.83 acres and the plots were sold. In this layout, 26 cents of land was reserved for public purpose. However, in 1981, this reserved land was subdivided into four plots and sold to four individuals. In one of the plots a residential house was constructed. Aggrieved by this, the Residents Welfare Association filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu challenging the grant of patta to those who bought the reserved land. After hearing the petition, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu cancelled the patta.

Violations

This order was then challenged before the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram. The District Revenue Officer set aside the earlier order on the ground that the layout was unapproved since it violated coastal regulation rules. He also observed that, in the first place, the Welfare Association had no right to execute a gift deed giving the land reserved for public purpose to the Panchayat.

However, he ruled that since the land owners had purchased the plots from the original owner directly they were entitled to patta in respect of the property. On further appeal, this order was reversed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration since he found the property was ear-marked for public purposes and could not have any patta in favour of those who purchased it.

This order was challenged in the Madras High Court. The court, after hearing the arguments, held that although the buyers of the space reserved for public purpose would have the right to possess those particular plots, they cannot out build any superstructure unless they have the permission.

The provisions of the Panchayat Rules make it clear that no construction can come up on these plots. In these circumstances, the Court said that the Commissioner of Land Administration was not justified in cancelling the patta by confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Office.

 

/*added buzzr for google buzz */

/*added buzzr for google buzz */