Petitioner cannot be deprived from using its private land without acquiring the same.

This writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent.

.2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent culminating in the communication bearing letter No.B1/24359/2006 dated 07.03.2007 issued by the respondent directing the petitioner herein to provide for a 10 meter wide link road running in the property sought to be developed by the petitioner, quash the same and to direct the respondent to grant planning permission to the petitioner for its project "RIVIERA" at Velacherry- Tambaram Main Road, Pallikaranai Medavakkam, Chennai under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

.3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

.The petitioner company has submitted an application in SBC No. 1244 on 211. 2006 to the respondent seeking planning permission for construction of stilt + four floors of residential building i.e., group development in 4 blocks and a ground + first floor club house in their lands to an extent of 4.47 acres comprised in Survey Nos. 192/1, 2, 193/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7, 8A, 8B, 197/1, 2, 3 and 198/1 of Medavakkam Village abutting the Tambaram-Velacherry-Velacherry Main Road. The authorities of the respondent have also inspected the said lands and thereafter, the petitioner was requested to pay a sum of Rs.21,400/-towards scrutiny fee which was also paid by it. While things are such, the respondent has sent a letter in No.B1/24359/2006 dated 07.03.2007 directing the petitioner to furnish revised plan satisfying Development Control Rules by providing 10 meter wide link road from Tambaram-Velacherry Main Road for opening up development in the rear side of the construction site, which is impugned in this writ petition on the ground that it is illegal and excess of jurisdiction.

.4. The case of the respondent is as follows:

.The planning permission application submitted by the petitioner was examined wherein certain provisions of Development Control Rules were found violated and some other additional particulars were noted, hence, the impugned letter was directing the petitioner to submit a revised plan along with additional particulars in accordance with the Development Control Rules. In any event, the writ petition is not maintainable since alternative and efficacious remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Sriram Panchu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows:

The petitioner has submitted a plan satisfying all requisite provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act and Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area in existence, hereinafter referred to as Development Control Rules without any deviation from any of its prescribed standards. The respondent has no authority, whatsoever, to impose the conditions to provide 10 meter wide link road from Tambaram Velacherry Main Road for opening up development in the rear side of the site under reference or to furnish revised plan and such restrictions are violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 19

.(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Development means carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in regional plan or master plan as stated in Section 2 (13) of the Act, whereas, in the case on hand, the said road now insisted neither a scheme road nor a proposed road contemplated by the master plan or development plan. There is absolutely no necessity and legal basis for the respondent to insist on the petitioner to provide 10 meter wide link road for opening up development in the rear side of the proposed construction site. Moreover, the rear side of the proposed construction site is a large extent of paddy fields, which also surrounded by access roads from the arterial Tambaram-Velacherry Ma