The court emphasized the importance of awareness of land reservation for public purpose at the time of purchase, and the inapplicability of Development Control Rules and previous court judgments to the present case.

The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus against the third respondent, the Commissioner, Villivakkam Panchayat Union, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053 in Ref.Na.Ka.2091/04 A3, dated 24.05.2004, whereby the third respondent has rejected the planning application of the petitioner and to further direct the third respondent to issue a building permit in accordance with law in favour of the petitioner for developing Plot No.24, in Survey No.77/10 of Ayapakkam Village, Villivakkam Panchayat Union, Ambatttur Taluk.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the approved lay out of land bearing Plot No.24 in Survey No.77/10 of Ayapakkam Village and Ayapakkam Panchayat limits. The lay out approval of the petitioner's land was accorded in K.No.1769/74 by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Chengalpattu and Chennai Zone. At the time when the planning approval was granted, the property was allotted for public use. According to the petitioner, without knowing that the property was meant for public use, sale deed dated 19.08.1974 was executed and the petitioner purchased the property from the person who obtained the lay out sanction. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for patta relating to the property. He has also got Chitta and Adangal extracts from the concerned Revenue official. According to the petitioner, he continued to be in possession of the property without any interference from any one and that the plot was treated as open space allotted for public purpose. As the property was not required by any of the respondents herein, the petitioner approached the third respondent to sanction a building plan. The third respondent advised the vendor to deposit a sum of Rs.2,650/- as reservation charges to regularise the lay out to obtain sanction for putting up a building, which was deposited by the vendor of the petitioner on 09.09.1980. This amount was for the purpose of executing a gift deed in favour of the Panchayat Union in respect of the public land and roads that were forming part of the lay out. According to the petitioner, the property was not included in the gift deed and the petitioner continued to be in possession and the third respondent suggested that after the execution of the gift deed, the plan would be sanctioned in petitioner's favour.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he obtained a sanctioned plan and planning permit to put up the building, which was granted on 24.02.1989 by the Block Development Officer, Villivakkam Panchayat Union, Ambattur, Chennai. When the construction was about to commence, the fourth and fifth respondents obstructed the activities of construction stating that the property was allotted for public use. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17089 of 1991 and the same was dismissed on 08.04.1999, as the petitioner has not made out any case for quashing G.O.Rt.No.558, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.12.1990 challenged therein. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation, dated 23.12.2001 to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) for exempting the petitioner's property from public use and to permit him to use the land privately for putting up construction. The CMDA, vide letter dated 20.03.2003 directed the third respondent to issue planning permission for approval under the delegated powers for the property owned by the petitioner for residential development of the property, subject to satisfying the Development Control Rules and stipulations. The respondents 3 to 5 have not challenged or disputed the said order. The petitioner further alleges that on 24.04.2004, when the petitioner presented an application for obtaining a sanctioned plan to put up a residential construction, the third respondent, by letter dated 24.05.2004, rejected the application on the ground that the property has been allotted for public purpose.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted