High Court · 2025

W.P(MD)No.28395 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 17.11.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHAWrit Petition(MD)No.28395 of 2025K.P.Nageswaran.. PetitionerVs1.The Director, Town and Country Planning Department, O/o., Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2, 3 and 4 Floor, C & E Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.2.The Assistant Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Nehruji Street, Allinagaram, Theni 625 531.3.The District Collector, O/o., Theni District Collectorate, Theni.4.The Block Development Officer, O.o., BDO at Periyakulam, Vadugapatti, Periyakulam Taluk.5.J.Bharath .. Respondents1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28395 of 2025Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.1280/2023/Nj.kh. 2 dated 02.12.2024 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Nageswaran (Party-in-person) For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleaderfor R1 to R3 Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader (for R4) ORDERPrivate notice, which has been issued to the fifth respondent has been returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. Therefore, there is a deemed service on the fifth respondent.2. Chellanging the order in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.1280/2023/Nj.kh. 2, dated 02.12.2024, passed by the second respondent, this writ petition has been filed by the party-in-person. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had originally filed a writ petition to dispose of his representation dated 28.12.2023 pending before the first 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28395 of 2025respondent seeking cancellation of the DTCP approval No.1035/1995 in respect of property situated in S.No.772 to the extent of 1 acre 96 cents and DTCP approval No.1317/1995 in respect of property in S.No.769/2 to an extent of 2 acres and 3 cents at Jeyamangalam Village, Periakulam Panchayat, Theni District. The said writ petition was disposed of, as the representation of the petitioner has already been considered and disposed of on 02.12.2024. It is the contention of the petitioner that when his representation was considered, the same had been rejected directing him to approach the civil Court, which stand is totally contrary to the counter filed in the earlier writ petition in W.P(MD).No.23793 of 2025. He would further submit that despite requests for conducting an enquiry, no enquiry was conducted and impugned order came to be passed straight away. 4. During the arguments, the party-in-person would submit that the property in question continues to remain vacant and has not been alienated. Therefore, according to him, the property ought to revert back to the petitioner and the petitioner continues to be the owner thereof, since the layout was originally developed through power agents. He would submit that the original owner, namely, the petitioner's father, who had executed the power of attorney, has since passed away and the petitioner is now the absolute owner of the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28395 of 2025property in question by virtue of the registered settlement deed dated 03.12.2022, executed by his mother and sister in respect of their share in the property. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in which, they would submit that the layout approval No.L.P/DTCP No.1035/95 was approved by the Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, vide proceeding ROC.No.27967/95LA1 dated 02.08.1995 involving S.Nos.719, 720, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741/1, 3, 742, 743, 762/5, 763, 765, 767/1, 2C, 768, 769/1, 2, 3, 770/1, 2, 771, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 864/1, 2, 865, 866, 867/1, 3, 868, 876/1A, 1B, 1C, 3, 877/1, 2, 880, 882/1, 2, 885, 886, 887, 889, 890, 907, 908, 909/1, 4, 910, 911, 912, in respect of an extent 110.68 acre and layout approval No.L.P/DTCP No.1317/95 was approved by the Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, vide proceeding ROC.No.34489/95LA1, dated 18.09.1995 involving S.Nos.672/2, 3, 4, 691, 692, 693/2C, 701/4, 5part, 703/1C, 2, 727/1C, 2C, 728, 729/1, 2, 730, 731, 732/1, 2, 733, 744, 745, 746/1, 3A, 3B, 4, 747, 748, 749/1A, 1B, 2, 750, 751, 752/1, 2, 753, 754, 755, 757, 758/1, 3, 759, 760, 761/1, 2, 762/1, 2, 3, 4, 767/2A, 2B, 772, 777, 778/1A1, 1A2, 1B for an extent of 123.50 acre at Jeyamangalam Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28395 of 20256. In the light of the above, the petitioner's request to cancel the entire approval layout and to approve the layout now presented by him is absolutely without any legal basis. The respondents would submit that the petitioner's father late S.K.Pandiyan had owned lands in S.Nos.769/2 and 772. He had executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the fifth respondent's father, late M.Jaganathan and on the basis of this power, the said late.M.Jaganathan has formed a layout and sold the plot Nos.277, 278 and 279 in the approved layout No.L.P/DTCP No.1035/95 and plot No.11 in approved layout No.L.P/DTCP No.1317/95, which fall within the first stated survey number. The settlement deed in favour of the petitioner has been made much after the layout approval. Further, the lands in these survey numbers have also been sold using the power of attorney document and only an extent of 3.99 acres remains unsold. The petitioner has not described the property by boundaries and metes and bounds and has also not described which portion of the property in the layout remains unsold. When only a small extent out of total extent of 110.68 acres remains unsold, the petitioner cannot seek to have the entire layout approval granted cancelled. At best, the respondents would submit that the request for modification of the layout can be made only on the joint application of all the land owners and not on the sole request of the petitioner. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of this writ petition.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28395 of 20257. The impugned order has been passed making the followings statement:“NkYk; jq;fs; ,izg;gpy; ngwg;gl;Ls;s jhd nrl;by;nkz;l; Mtzq;fs; 2890/2020 ehs; 03.12.2020-d;gb 3.99 Vf;fh; kl;LNk kDjhuUf;F chpikahf mikfpwJ. ghh;it 6-y; fhZk; efh; Cuikg;G nrd;id mth;fshy; xg;Gjyspf;fg;gl;l kidg;gphpT vz;.1035/95-d; gug;G 110.68Vf;fh; MFk;. kPjKs;s xg;Gjyspf;fgl;l gug;gpw;F chpikahsh;fspd; tpguk; VJk; ,izf;fg;gltpy;iy. vdNt xg;Gjy; mspf;fg;gl;l kidg;gphptpid jpUj;jp mikf;f efh; Cuikg;G ,af;Feh;> nrd;id mth;fSf;F ghpe;Jiu nra;a toptif ,y;iy vd;w tpguKk; njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”8. Admittedly, the petitioner's mother and sister have settled only an extent of 3.99 acres in his favour. The layout in question pertains to a much larger extent, in which several plots have already been alienated. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek cancellation of the approval granted in respect of the entire larger extent of land. As rightly contended by the respondents, the petitioner may at best seek a modification of the original layout by excluding the portion that belongs to him and which remains unsold. However, such an application has to be made jointly by all the owners in the layout. Moreover, the settlement deed in favour of the petitioner does not indicate in which 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28395 of 2025portion of the layout it is situated.9. For the aforesaid reason, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the relief claimed by the petitioner is not tenable one. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is needless to state that with respect to those portions of the land comprised in S.Nos.769/2 and 772, which remains unsold the petitioner has a right. No costs. 17.11.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NoInternet:YesRmkTo1.The Director, Town and Country Planning Department, O/o., Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2, 3 and 4 Floor, C & E Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.2.The Assistant Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Nehruji Street, Allinagaram, Theni 625 531.3.The District Collector, O/o., Theni District Collectorate, Theni.4.The Block Development Officer, O.o., BDO at Periyakulam, Vadugapatti,7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28395 of 2025 Periyakulam Taluk.P.T.ASHA, J. Rmk Writ Petition(MD)No.28395 of 2025 17.11.20258/8