Mr.D.H.Sarath v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

W.P.37187/07Petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for therecords of the 2nd respondent culminating in its communicationbearing Letter No.C3/8922/07 dated 31.7.07 issued by the 2ndrespondent refusing planning permission for the proposal submittedby the petitioners quash the same and direct the Respondent toconsider and grant planning permission under the Town and Countryplanning Act, 1971, to the petitioners for their project at SurveyNumbers 167/2C, 3C, 2D, 3D, 2E, 3E1, 1C, 1J, 1K, 1M1, 1M2,2E2,3E2of Karapakkam Village, Old Mahabalipuram Road. (ii) Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not toinclude the petitioners property at Karapakkam village oldMahabalipuram Road and comprised in survey Numbers 167/2C,3C,2D,3D,2E,3E1,1C,1J,1K,1M1,1M2,2E2,3E2 in the proposed 200 feet road inthe new Master plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area and the concernedDetailed Development Plan in WP.37793/07. For petitioners : Mr.Sriram Panchu,Sr.Counsel for Mr.G.Swaminathan For respondents : Mr.N.Senthilkumar Government Advocate for R.1 in both the WPs. Mr.C.Kathiravan for R.2 in both the WPs. Mr.K.Elango for R.4 in WP.No.37793 of 2007. No appearance for R.3 and R.5 in WP.37793/07..COMMON ORDERBoth the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioners.While W.P.No.37187 of 2007 is filed challenging the proceedings ofthe second respondent, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority(CMDA) dated 3.07.2007, refusing to grant planning permission tothe petitioners and consequently to direct the CMDA to grantplanning permission under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country PlanningAct,1971 to the petitioners to their project at Survey Nos.167/2C,3C, 2D, 3D, 2E, 3E1, 1C, 1J, 1K, 1M1, 1M2, 2E2, 3E2 of KarapakkamVillage, Old Mahabalipuram Road, the other writ petition, viz.,W.P.No.37793 of 2007, is for direction against the respondents,particularly with reference to the Government and CMDA, not toinclude the said property of the petitioners comprised in the abovesaid Survey Numbers in the proposed 200 feet road in the newMaster Plan for the Chennai Metro area and the concerned detaileddevelopment plan. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioners, who are the brothers are joints owners ofthe property measuring an extent of 3.45 acres comprised in theabove survey numbers in Karapakkam Village, Old Mahabalipuram Road(OMR). The petitioners came to know that OMR is being developedinto an Information Technology Highway, there was a proposal forOuter Ring Road (ORR) passing through OMR connecting the East CoastRoad (ECR). Therefore, before purchasing the property in the abovesaid survey numbers, in order to get clarified as to whether thesaid property would be covered under any acquisition proposal andwith that view the second petitioner by his letter dated 04.04.2002addressed to the Member Secretary, CMDA for issuance of NoObjection Certificate for the development of the land at SurveyNo.167 Karapakkam Village, Old Mahabalipuram Road, indicatingvarious survey numbers under which the property is proposed to bepurchased.2(a). The second respondent, by letter dated 28.05.2002 hasrequested the second petitioner to furnish the authenticated FMBsketch in respect of the property sought to be purchased for givingcorrect information and accordingly, by letter dated 10.06.2002,the second petitioner has produced the FMB sketch. Afterverification of the same, the second respondent by letter dated01.08.2002, communicated to the second petitioner that the abovesaid survey numbers lie in General Industrial Use Zone and therevised Outer Ring Road alignment is not passing through KarapakkamVillage.2(b). It was, after the said communication from the secondrespondent, the petitioners have completed the sale transaction, bypurchasing the property in the above said survey numbers under 4sale deeds on 24.10.2002, 15.12.2002, 05.03.2003 and 24.03.2003.Thereafter, on 12.12.2003, the petitioners have submitted anapplication to the second respondent for sanctioning of theproposal for development of a commercial office building in theabove said site and the petitioners also paid Rs.14,200/- towardsscrutiny fees along with the application, and thereafter, severaldocuments required by the second respondent were furnished.2(c). As a temporary measure, the petitioners have put up atemporary asbestos roofing in the above said property and let outto a Company owned by them to stock marbles and granites. Based onthe subsequent advise of the architects, the original scheme forcommercial office building which was pending with the secondrespondent, was modified for treating it as a proposal forInformation Technology Park ("IT Park") expressing willingness toeffect necessary changes, and fresh proposal was sent along withscrutiny fees. At request of the second respondent, thepetitioners have also obtained clearance certificate from theElectronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (ELCOT), which wasrequired by the second respondent as a mandatory.2(d). The ELCOT, by a letter dated 15.06.2004, informed thesecond respondent that the petitioners have fulfilled theconditions required for IT Park and are eligible for extra FSI aslaid down in I.T. Policy of Tamil Nadu,2002 and the copy of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same has been sent to the petitioners also. It was based on thesaid letter of the ELCOT dated 15.06.2004, the petitioners sent theproposal with necessary documents seeking planning permission.However, by letter dated 19.10.2004, the second respondent hasrefused to accept the said proposal stating that the site isaffected by ORR alignment. Later, the petitioners were orallyinformed by the second respondent that the said 400 feet proposedroad was dropped by the Government due to objections from public.2(e). It is also the case of the petitioners that the RoadDevelopment Corporation has also recommended that the proposed 400feet Outer Ring Road would be superfluous as there were already 2roads, one in Thorapakkam (Pallikaranai to OMR) and the other atSholinganallur (Medavakkam to OMR to ECR) giving proper connectingroads between OMR and ECR. Accordingly, the first petitioner wasadvised to submit fresh proposal after the 400 feet Outer Ring Roadproposal is dropped. The petitioners, later, written to the RoadTransport Corporation, for which there was no reply. In themeantime, by letter dated 28.12.2005, ELCOT has communicated thepetitioners, requesting details, such as stage of construction,expected date of completion, etc. by referring to the No ObjectionCertificate dated 15.06.2004, issued for construction of I.T.Building. Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted application tothe second respondent on 27.03.2007, seeking approval of planningpermission for the proposed IT Multi-storied building at the abovesaid site along with sum of Rs.73,132/- towards scrutiny fees, bycomplying with various other items informed by the secondrespondent in the earlier rejection letter issued in 2004. 2(f). It is the case of the petitioners that new Draft MasterPlan has been released and as expected by the petitioners, the said400 feet ORR has been dropped. Public hearing was conducted by thesecond respondent in Sholinganallur regarding the proposed changesin the plan for Karapakkam village. The petitioners learnt that400 feet ORR was dropped, however, the petitioners understood thatthe 400 feet road has been reduced to 200 feet road only to serviceabout three plots in the ELCOT Special Economic Zone situatedbehind the petitioners plot. Normally, only after the new DraftMaster Plan is approved by the Government, the process ofdelineating the road alignment and identifying the area of roadwould be made. However, in the public hearing the petitioners wereinformed by some of the authorities of the second respondent thatnew 200 feet road would pass through a portion of their propertyand asking them to file their objections immediately. Thereafter,the petitioners have given their objections stating that there isalready 200 feet wide Sholinganallur Medavakkam High Road inexistence just 500 metres away from the proposed road, apart from200 feet Thorapakkam Velachery Road just 3 kms. away from 200 feetroad. The petitioners also requested the second respondent toensure that the 200 feet road would not pass through theirproperty, which was received by the Deputy Planner, DetailedDevelopment Plan Unit of the second respondent on 18.05.2007, forwhich no reply has been given. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2(g). It was thereafter, by the impugned order dated31.07.2007, the second respondent has refused planning permissionfor the proposal submitted by the petitioners. The petitionershave informed the second respondent that even though the MasterPlan for 400 feet ORR was dropped, only after obtaining NoObjection Certificate from the second respondent, they havepurchased the property and requested the second respondent torecall the said order of refusal of planning permission. Since thesame has not yielded any result, the petitioners challenged theimpugned order of the second respondent by filing these writpetitions.2(h). The impugned order of the second respondent ischallenged on various grounds including that the second respondenthaving given a letter stating that the properties sought to bepurchased by the petitioners are not covered by 400 feet ORRalignment, they cannot now go back and hence the doctrine of equityand promissory estoppel applies to the case of the petitioners. Itis also challenged on the ground of discrimination, viz., that thesecond respondent has intimated one J.Ravi, who wanted to purchasethe next plot of the petitioners stating that Survey Nos.167/2,167/3, 168/8A of Karapakkam Village and Survey No.602/A ofSholinghanallur village are affected by ORR Road alignment andbased on which the said Ravi has not purchased the property,however, construction has been put up on the said adjoining land.Therefore, the targeting of the petitioners alone is discriminatoryand arbitrary in nature.2(i). It is also stated that the lands behind the petitionersplots were also developed by ELCOT as Special Economic Zone andCompanies like Wipro, Satyam and HCL have been allotted vast extentof land and rapid constructions have been put up and therefore,there is no possibility of 400 feet Outer Ring Road at all andaccording to the petitioners that in spite of dropping of the said400 feet ORR, the second respondent has refused planning permissionto the petitioners.2(j). It is the case of the petitioners that the existing roadconnecting OMR and Sholinganallur is being widened into 400 feetroad and therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with theproperties of the petitioners. Inasmuch as the Government has notyet approved the said 200 feet road, it is not open to the secondrespondent to reject the planning permission for the petitioners.It is also stated that if at all there is a need to provide a roadfor the I.T. Companies in the ELCOT special Economic Zone, the samecan be achieved by providing a 100 feet wide road through theproperty belonging to the petitioners neighbour. 2(k). It is also the case of the petitioners that the 200 feetroad itself is unnecessary and even if the proposed 200 feet roadis approved by the first respondent, Government, it can still bedone without affecting the petitioners property. Since thepetitioners have purchased the property as per the No ObjectionCertificate given by the second respondent, they are entitled forprotection on the principles of equity. In view of the same, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned order of thesecond respondent by which the planning permission proposal givenby the petitioners was refused and also for direction againstrespondents 1 and 2, viz., the Government and CMDA not to includethe petitioners property stated above in the new Master Plan forChennai Metropolitan area and the concerned detailed developmentplan.3. The second respondent has filed a common counter affidavit.It is the case of the second respondent, CMDA that while denyingthe various averments made by the petitioners in the affidavitfiled in support of the writ petitions, it is the case of thesecond respondent that in the Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitanarea, Ring Roads were proposed, the Outer Ring Road is one suchroad proposed in the First Master Plan with right of way of 400feet. The proceedings of acquisition of land in the stretchbetween Grand Southern Trunk Road (GST) in the South West andThiruvottiyur Ponneri Panchetty Road in the North has already beentaken up and the acquisitions are expected to be completed by theend of 2008 and action is being taken through Tamil Nadu RoadSector Project. In respect of the South stretch between GST Roadand OMR, acquisition by Highways Department is in progress.3(a). It is the case of the second respondent that originallyin the Master Plan, 400 feet wide alignment was proposed betweenMBI Road junction at Medavakkam to OMR and in the second MasterPlan its width was reduced to 200 feet, however, as far as thealignment, there was no change in the private land. It is thefurther case of the second respondent that the central line is keptintact, the width proposed for reduction from 200 feet to 100 feeton either side by introducing a smooth curve in Pallikaranai andSholinganallur stretch, pushing its alignment to the northern edgeof Special Economic Zone on Government lands without changing thealignment in the private lands. It is also the case of the secondrespondent that as far as the petitioners land is concerned, thecentral line of it remains the same while the extent of landaffected in the petitioners property was originally 200 feet, whichhas been reduced to 100 feet width, releasing about 50% of the landbecause of reduction in width proposed in the second Master Plan.As far as the letter of CMDA dated 01.08.2002, it is the case ofthe second respondent that the said letter is not available and thesame was destroyed by efflux of time. 3(b). It is the further case of the second respondent thatactually the ORR alignment of first Master Plan was revised onlyfor the stretch between the GST Road and TPP Road and not in thesecond stretch, wherein the petitioners site is situated. In theletter dated 01.08.2002, it is found to have stated that therevised ORR was not passing through Karapakkam village, whichaccording to the second respondent may be true as revised alignmentdoes not pass through, but the original alignment remains in thesame village. It is also denied that the petitioners havepurchased the property after clearance from CMDA. The petitionersapplication for construction of stilt + 3 floor IT building filedin June,2004 was examined and planning permission application wasalready rejected on 19.10.2004 itself for the main reason that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proposed development falls in the land reserved for ORR alignmentapart from other technical reasons. It was thereafter, thepetitioners once again applied for multistoried construction withbasement + ground floor + 7 floor buildings for office use inApril,2007. The defects including that violation of the proposedconstruction in the alignment of 400 feet ORR was stated whilerefusing the application on 31.07.2007.3(c). The No Objection Certificate obtained by the petitionersfrom ELCOT is only for the purpose of showing that the proposal forI.T. Development is proper in respect of considering the floorspace index and ELCOT does not examine any Town Planning orDevelopment Control Rules. Therefore, the letter of the ELCOTitself does not give any right to the petitioners to obtainplanning permission. The second Master Plan was published in theGovernment gazette on 11.04.2007 and the process was on till31.08.2007. It was made known to the public that the proposal forreduction of ORR width from 400 feet to 200 feet keeping intact ofthe central line. It is admitted that the petitioners have givensuggestion to drop the 200 feet wide road and the same was examinedby the Transport Committee constituted for the purpose ofexamining objections and suggestions and recommended that thesuggestion is not acceptable and the road under reference hadstrategic importance and according to the second respondent theroad is necessary for the purpose of relieving traffic congestion.3(d). The impugned proceedings of the CMDA is in accordancewith law and the planning permission applied by the petitioners wasrefused due to the said reason. It is also stated that as far asthe construction of the 5th respondent M/s.Chettinad Builders Pvt.Ltd., by inspection on 06.02.2007, it was found that theconstruction was unauthorised and stop work notice has already beengiven and subsequently demolition notice was also issued on13.03.2007 for the unauthorised construction of ground floor + onefloor. The case has been referred to the local authority fortaking necessary action. It is the case of the second respondentthat the petitioners property was affected by the ORR in the firstMaster Plan, which is now in force and also in the draft secondMaster Plan forwarded to the Government. According to the secondrespondent CMDA has acted as per law and passed the refusal order.It is also stated that as against the refusal order, the petitionerhas got right of appeal under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town andCountry Planning Act,1971.4. It is the contention of Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned seniorcounsel for the petitioners that the purchase of property by thepetitioners itself was only based on the clarification issued bythe second respondent in no uncertain terms and it is not open tothe second respondent now to go back by refusing planningpermission. He would also rely upon the judgement of the SupremeCourt in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure IndustrialCoke and Chemicals Ltd., and others (2007 (8) SCC 705) tosubstantiate his contention that right to property is not only aconstitutional right, but also human right and in respect of townplanning developments there is a need to balance both public andprivate interest since that deals with the valuable rights of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ citizens. In order to substantiate his contention on the point ofpromissory estoppel, he would rely upon the judgement of the FullBench of this Court in Vairavikulam Lime Products Private Ltd., vs.Government of India (2006 (3) CTC 609), apart from the judgement ofthe Supreme Court in Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt., Ltd. vs.U.P.State Electricity Board (1997 (7) SCC 251). Further, tosubstantiate his contention of legitimate expectation, principlesof applicability and promissory estoppel he would rely upon thejudgement of the Supreme Court in Hira Tikkoo vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh (2004 (6) SCC 765). He would also submit that the TownPlanning Regulations are regulatory in nature and in respect ofgrant of permission for construction of building, the same has tobe decided as per law applicable on the day when such permission isgranted by relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court inT.Vijayalakshmi vs. Town Planning Member and another (2006 (8) SCC502).5. On the other hand, Mr.Kathiravan, learned counsel appearingfor the second respondent CMDA has submitted that there is nodetailed development plan. It is his further submission that asfar as the No Objection Certificate granted by ELCOT is concerned,it is only in relation to the requirement for putting up of ITpark and the same has nothing to do with the constructionactivities, which are governed under the Tamil Nadu Town andCountry Planning Act and in any event, according to the learnedcounsel, the recommendations of the ELCOT will be taken intoconsideration for the purpose of giving FSI benefits to thepetitioners. It is his further submission that the first MasterPlan by which 400 feet width road was effected and the central linewhich has been marked has not been changed by the second proposedMaster Plan, by which the width of the road is sought to be reducedto 200 feet taking 100 feet on each of the central line, which isalready in existence.6. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners andlearned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.7. It is seen in the impugned order of the second respondentdated 31.07.2007 that the petitioners have given a revised plan forapproval for construction of basement floor + stilt + 7 floors ofITES building. The main reason for refusal of planning permissiongiven by the second respondent is "the proposed 400 feet wide OuterRing Road alignment passes through the site under reference". Thisis sought to be challenged by the petitioners. It is also seen inthe impugned order that as against the said order an appeal can bepreferred to the Government by furnishing a copy of such appeal toCMDA and that is the statutory appeal provided under Section 79 ofthe Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971 ( in short, "theAct"). The appellate authority being the Commissioner andSecretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department,and the appeal has to be filed within two months from the date ofthe rejection letter. 8. Section 49 of the Act which forms part of Chapter VI dealswith Control of Development and use of land enables any person notbeing a State Government, etc. to make an application in writing to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the appropriate planning authority for permission to carry out anydevelopment on any land or building and it is open to theappropriate authority to either grant or refuse such permission,however, when the permission is refused, the reason must berecorded. Section 49 of the Act reads as under:"49. Application for permission.- (1) Except as otherwise provided by rules made inthis behalf, any person not being any State Government orthe Central Government or any local authority intending tocarry out any development on any land or building on orafter the date of the publication of the resolution undersub-section (2) of Section 19 or of the notice in theTamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26, shall makean application in writing to the appropriate planningauthority for permission in such form and containing suchparticulars and accompanied by such documents as may beprescribed.(2) The appropriate planning authority shall, indeciding whether o grant or refuse such permission, haveregard to the following matters, namely:-(a) the purpose for which the permission isrequired;(b) the suitability of the place for suchpurpose;(c) the future development and maintenance ofthe planning area.(3) When the appropriate planning authority refusedto grant a permission to any person, it shall record inwriting the reasons for such refusal and furnish to thatperson, on demand, a brief statement of the same."8. Likewise, Section 54 of the Act also enables theappropriate planning authority to revoke or modify any planningpermission for development already granted. Section 79 (1) of the Act enables a person aggrieved by adecision taken by the appropriate planning authority either underSection 49 or under Section 54 (1), to file an appeal to theprescribed authority and in the present case, the impugned orderitself indicates that the prescribed appellate authority isGovernment represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Housingand Urban Development Department.Section 79 of the Act contemplates the appellate authority togrant proper opportunity to the appellant while dealing withappeal. The said section makes the order of the appellateauthority as final. The said Section reads as under:"79. Appeal to the prescribed authority.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order ofthe planning authority under section 49 or sub-section(1) of section 54 may appeal to the prescribed authority.(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall bepreferred within two months from the date on which thedecision or order was communicated to him in the manner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prescribed, but the prescribed authority may admit anappeal preferred after the said period of two months ifit is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient causefor not preferring the appeal within the said period.(3) In disposing of an appeal, the prescribedauthority may, after giving the parties an opportunity ofmaking their representations, pass such order thereon asthe prescribed authority may deem fit.(4) The decision or order of the prescribedauthority on such appeal shall be final.(5) The prescribed authority may pass suchinterlocutory orders pending the decision on such appealas the prescribed authority may deem fit.(6) The prescribed authority may award costs inproceedings under this section to be paid either out ofthe Fund Account or by such party to such appeal as theprescribed authority may deem fit."9. Even though in the impugned order while rejecting theplanning permission, the CMDA has informed that there is a proposed400 feet ORR, which runs through the properties of the petitioners,as it is seen in the counter affidavit filed by the secondrespondent in these writ petitions, it is clear that the said 400feet ORR alignment was based on the first Master Plan andsubsequently, the same has been revised and a fresh proposal hasbeen given by way of a second Master Plan by reducing 400 feetwidth to 200 feet width. However, it is categorically stated bythe second respondent CMDA that the central line of the proposedroad remains the same. In fact, the case of the CMDA is thatwhether it was 400 feet or 200 feet width, the central line beingthe same, which runs through the property of the petitioners, forwhich planning permission has been sought for, only the extent ofland on both the sides belonging to the petitioners are going to beaffected. The second respondent in the counter affidavit hasstated that by the proposal in the second Master Plan by way ofrevision, 50% of the property of the petitioners alone is likelyto be affected by the second Master plan while compared to thefirst Master Plan. The learned counsel for the second respondenthas also produced the proposed new Master Plan as well as the oldMaster Plan in respect of the area concerned, which makes it clearthat the stand taken by the second respondent that the central lineof the proposed road passes through the land in question iscorrect.10. Section 17 of the Act enables the appropriate planningauthority to prepare Master Plan after consulting the regionalplanning authority and the local authorities concerned and submitthe same to the Government. Such Master Plan shall provide variousmatters as explained under Section 17(2) of the Act, which readsthus:"17.Master Plans.- (1) ......... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) The maser plan may propose or provide for allor any of the following matters, namely:-(a) the manner in which the land in the planningarea shall be used;(b) the allotment or reservation of land forresidential, commercial, industrial and agriculturalpurposes and for parks, play-fields and open spaces;(c) the allotment and reservation of land forpublic buildings, institutions and for civic amenities;(d) the making of provision for national highways,arterial roads, ring roads, major streets, lines ofcommunication including railways, airports and canals;(e) the traffic and transportation pattern andtraffic circulation pattern;(f) the major road and street improvements;(g) the areas reserved for future development,expansion and for new housing;(h) the provision for the improvement of areas ofbad lay out or obsolete development and slum areas andfor relocation of population;(i) the amenities, services and utilities;(j) the provision for detailed development ofspecific areas for housing, shopping, industries andcivic amenities and educational and cultural facilities;(k) the control of architectural features,elevation and frontage of buildings and structures;(l) the provision for regulating the zone, thelocation, height, number of storeys and size of theyards and other open spaces and the use of buildings,structures and land;(m) the stages by which the master plan shall becarried out; and (n) such other matters as may be prescribed."11. After such Master Plan is prepared and submitted to theGovernment, it is open to the Government to give consent forpublication of notice of preparation of plan as contemplated underSection 24 of the Act. Such consent can be given by the Governmenteven after such modification of the Master Plan. Section 24stands as under:"Section 24. Consent of Government to the publicationof notice of preparation of plans.-(1)As soon as may be, after the regional plan, themaster plan or the new town development plan has beensubmitted to the Government, but not later than such timeas may be prescribed, the Government may direct theappropriate planning authority to make such modificationsin the regional plan, the master plan or the new towndevelopment plan, as they think fit and thereupon theappropriate planning authority shall make suchmodifications and resubmit it to the Government.(2) The Government shall, after the modifications,if any, directed by them, have been made, give theirconsent to the appropriate planning authority to thepublication of a notice under section 26 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preparation of the regional plan, the master plan or thenew town development plan."After such consent is received from the Government, the appropriateplanning authority publishes notice in the Tamil Nadu Governmentgazette inviting objections and suggestions from any person withinthe prescribed period as it is seen under Section 26 of the Act,and after considering the objections, the Government grantsapproval under Section 28 of the Act. 12. In the present case, according to the second respondent, afresh proposal in the form of second Master Plan has been submittedto the Government, which includes the reduction in width of the ORRfrom 400 feet to 200 feet and as it is seen in the counteraffidavit the said second Master Plan is yet to be approved by theGovernment, which can be done only after calling for objectionsfrom the affected parties after publishing the notice.13. In view of the specific stand taken by the secondrespondent in the counter affidavit that the revised second MasterPlan as against the first Master Plan is pending with theappropriate planning authority, viz., the first respondent andothers, which has to be implemented only after such Master Plan isapproved, especially in the circumstances that the petitionersbeing the persons affected have a right to make objections whensuch second Master Plan is to be considered by the Government, thecontention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners thatthe impugned order of rejection cannot be given effect to iscertainly reasonable.14. On a perusal of the entire factual situation as enumeratedabove, it is clear that the petitioners have made application forpermission on many occasions for the purpose of granting planningpermission regarding the proposed construction in the lands statedabove. It is also seen that the petitioners have applied to thesecond respondent by letter dated 04.04.2002 to inform about theproposal for ORR expansion etc. and issue No Objection Certificateat the earliest point of time. Thereafter, the second respondenthas called for authenticated FMB sketch for taking a decision whichhas been sent by the petitioners and the Member Secretary of thesecond respondent, which is the authority created in law for thepurpose of development of Chennai Metropolitan Area who by hisletter No.A4/21100/02 dated 01.08.2002 in clear term has informedthat the said survey numbers are lying within the generalindustrial zone and the revised ORR alignment is not passingthrough Karapakkam village. The said letter of the secondrespondent is as follows:"With reference to your letter cited, you areinformed that, the S.No.167/1M1, 1M2, 1J, 1K, 167/2C,2D, 2D1, 2E2, 167/3C, 3D, 3E1, 3E2 of Karapakkam villagelies in General Industrial use zone. The revised OuterRing Road alignment is not passing through Karapakkamvillage." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. In view of such categoric stand taken by the secondrespondent in 2002 with specific reference to the survey numbers ofthe properties of the petitioners, if it is the stand of the secondrespondent that thereafter the second Master Plan has been given byway of approval, it is not known as to how the impugned order cameto be passed on a ground which is totally opposed to the specificstand of the second respondent for rejecting the planningpermission. The letter dated 01.08.2002 given by way ofclarification is certainly a statutory function performed by theauthority created under law and therefore, it cannot be slightlybrushed aside simply because the second respondent has chosen tostate in the counter affidavit that the papers have been destroyedespecially when it is admitted that the proposal in respect of thesaid road is still pending. But in the present case, it isadmitted that in respect of the draft second Master Plan, afternotice was published in the Government gazette on 11.04.2007, theprocess of public consultation took place up to 31.07.2007, whichis as per the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971 andobjections were heard and thereafter, the entire matter has beenplaced before the Government for final orders. In suchcircumstances even assuming that in the year 2002, viz., on01.08.2002, the second respondent has informed the petitioners thatthere was no proposal of road passing through the land of thepetitioners under the said Outer Ring Road, which is certainlybinding upon the second respondent, the second respondent isentitled under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and CountryPlanning Act,1971 to have a fresh Master Plan as per the provisionsstated above. Therefore, when the second respondent subsequent tothe earlier letter dated 2002, has prepared a revised Master Plan,equally it is clear that the previous letter of the secondrespondent dated 01.08.2002 cannot stand in the way of the secondrespondent in preparing a revised second Master Plan. In suchcircumstances when it is not in dispute that the petitioners havebrought out their objections to the Government, viz., the firstrespondent explaining the necessity for dropping such a proposalfor Outer Ring Road, on materials placed to the Government, pendingsuch final order by the Government, it should have been only properon the part of the second respondent in not hurriedly coming to theconclusion in refusing to grant planning permission based on theoriginal proposal of 400 feet wide Outer Ring Road alignment. 16. It is in this aspect relevant to consider the submissionof the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that when theauthority contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Town and CountryPlanning Act,1971 viz., Government, is yet to pass final orders asper the revised second Master Plan submitted by the secondrespondent, the second respondent before passing the impugned orderought to have considered the valuable right of the petitionerssince in any event unless and until the Master Plan is grantedapproval by the Government, the second respondent cannot implementthe Scheme regarding the Outer Ring Road itself. The necessity ofconsidering the rights of individual citizens as provided underArticle 300A of the Constitution of India has been elaboratelydealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Chairman,Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd.,(2007 (8) SCC 705) in the following words: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "43. There are two competing interests viz. one, theinterest of the State vis-à-vis the general public and,two, to have better living conditions and the right ofproperty of an individual which although is not afundamental right but is a constitutional and human right.44. Before we embark upon the questions involved inthese appeals, we would like to make some generalobservations.45. Town and country planning involving landdevelopment of the cities which are sought to be achievedthrough the process of land use, zoning plan andregulating building activities must receive due attentionof all concerned. We are furthermore not oblivious of thefact that such planning involving highly complex citiesdepends upon scientific research, study and experienceand, thus, deserves due reverence.46. Where, however, a scheme comes into force,although it may cause hardship to the individual owners asthey may be prevented from making the most profitable useof their rights over property, having regard to thedrastic consequences envisaged thereunder, the statuteshould be considered in such a manner as a result whereofgreater hardship is not caused to the citizens thanactually contemplated thereby. Whereas an attempt shouldbe made to prevent unplanned and haphazard development butthe same would not mean that the court would close itseyes to the blatant illegalities committed by the Stateand/or the statutory authorities in implementationthereof. Implementation of such land development as alsobuilding laws should be in consonance with public welfareand convenience. In United States of America zoningordinances are enacted pursuant to the police powerdelegated by the State. Although in India the source ofsuch power is not police power but if a zoningclassification imposes unreasonable restrictions, itcannot be sustained. The public authority may have generalconsiderations, safety or general welfare in mind, but thesame would become irrelevant, as thereby statutory rightsof a party cannot be taken away. The courts must make anendeavour to strike a balance between public interest onthe one hand and protection of a constitutional right tohold property, on the other.47. For the aforementioned purpose, an endeavourshould be made to find out as to whether the statute takescare of public interest in the matter vis-à-vis theprivate interest, on the one hand, and the effect of lapseand/or positive inaction on the part of the State andother planning authorities, on the other.48. The courts cannot also be oblivious of the factthat the owners who are subject to the embargos placedunder the statute are deprived of their valuable rightfuluse of the property for a long time. Although ordinarily https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ when a public authority is asked to perform statutoryduties within the time stipulated it is directory innature but when it involves valuable rights of thecitizens and provides for the consequences therefor itwould be construed to be mandatory in character."17. The said judgement of the Supreme Court has beensubsequently affirmed in M.Naga Venkata Lakshmi vs. ViskhapatnamMunicipal Corporation and another (2007 (8) SCC 748). Therefore,considering the admitted fact of pendency of approval by theGovernment in respect of the second Master Plan, I am of theconsidered view that before such final order is passed by theGovernment, it is not open to the second respondent to pass theimpugned order by hurriedly coming to the conclusion stating that400 feet Outer Ring Road is crossing the petitioners propertyforgetting the fact that ultimately the Government may accept thereasoning of the petitioners while passing final orders as per theAct. 18. As far as the next contention raised by the learned seniorcounsel about estoppel either promissory or otherwise on the partof the second respondent, I do not accept the said contention forthe reason that even assuming that the second respondent hasthrough its Member Secretary given such letter on 01.08.2002,stating that no such road is proposed in the said Karapakkamvillage, as I have stated earlier, law does not prohibit the secondrespondent from framing the subsequent Master Plan which has beenin fact done in this case in 2007 and therefore, there can be noestoppel based on the letter of the second respondent of the year2002 for the subsequent proposal of the revised Master Plan.Therefore, that cannot be a ground for the purpose of givingdirection to the respondents to take a decision in not approvingeither 400 feet or 200 feet width Outer Ring Road before theGovernment passes order on the revised second Master Plan as perthe Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971.In view of the same, the impugned order of the secondrespondent dated 31.07.2007 challenged by the petitioners inWP.No.37187 of 2007 refusing planning permission is set aside withdirection to consider the proposal of the petitioners for planningpermission after the final orders passed by the Government inrespect of the second Master Plan. It is also made clear that thefirst respondent, Government, while passing final order as per thesecond Master Plan proposed by the second respondent shall takeinto consideration the objections made by the petitioners inrespect of formation of 200 feet width Outer Ring Road proposedbetween MBI Road Junction at Medavakkam to Old Mahabalipuram Roadin so far as it is stated to pass through the lands of thepetitioners comprised in Survey Nos.167/2C, 3C, 2D, 3D, 2E, 3E1,1C, 1J, 1K, 1M1, 1M2, 2E2, 3E2 of Karapakkam Village, OldMahabalipuram Road and also take into consideration the variousobjections raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions, andpass appropriate final orders giving liberty to the petitioners towork out their remedy against such final order that may be passedby the first respondent Government under the provisions of theTamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarkh To1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.2.The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Chennai 600 008.3.The President Karapakkam Village Panchayat No.1/101, Gangai Amman Koil Street Karapakkam, Off Old Mahabalipuram Road Chennai 600 097.4.The President Sholinganallur Town Panchayat Old Mahabalipuram Road Next to Indian Bank Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.+2ccs To Mr.C.Kathiravan, Advocate, SR.25861,25859+1 cc To Mr.K.Elango, Advocate, SR.25899+2 ccs To Mr.G.Swaminathan, Advocate, SR.25988 W.P.Nos.37187 & 37793 of 2007nm [co]gkg/2.5