The main legal point established in the judgment is that the planning authority's power to revoke or modify permission for development under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is subject to exceptions, and the authority lacks jurisdiction to suspend an approval that has already been acted upon and sold to third parties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order vide Na.Ka.No.20368/22/DCP.5 dated 12.11.2022 (signed on 16.11.2022) issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same.)

1.This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.20368/22/DCP.5 dated 12.11.2022.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.1.The subject property measuring an extent of 55¼ cents situated in S.No.388/13(part) and 388/10 was owned by one Mrs.Dhanammal and she bequeathed this property in favour of the 4th respondent by a Will dated 17.08.1989 which was registered as Document No.76/1989 before the Joint Sub Registrar''s Office-II, Chengalpet. The said Dhanammal died on 07.10.1999 and the Will came into force. The 4th respondent having become the owner of the property executed a Settlement Deed dated 20.07.2015 in favour of the 5th respondent who is none other than her son and this document was registered as Document No.8770/2015 before the same Sub Registrar''s Office.

2.2. The further case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent executed a Power of Attorney dated 01.08.2016 in favour of the petitioner and this document was registered as Document No.8060/2016 before the Sub Registrar''s Office, Chengalpet. Pursuant to this Power of Attorney document, the petitioner executed a Sale Deed dated 01.08.2016 and conveyed the subject property and a larger extent of other properties to and in favour of the 6th respondent. What was conveyed in favour of the 6th respondent was a total extent of 5.90 acres out of which the dispute pertains to 55¼ cents in this writ petition.

2.3. The 6th respondent made an application before the 2nd respondent seeking for layout approval and on scrutiny of the application, the layout approval was sanctioned through proceedings dated 09.11.2016 by the 2nd respondent. After the layout approval was granted, the property was plotted and 99 plots were sold by the 6th respondent in favour of the various prospective purchasers.

2.4. The 4th respondent seems to have made a representation to the 1st respondent seeking for the cancellation of the layout approval. Since the same was not considered, the 4th respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.6600 of 2021 for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation and to dispose it of in accordance with law. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 26.07.2022 and a direction was given to the 1st respondent to deal with the representation and specific reference was made to Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The 1st respondent was directed to take a decision, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

2.5. Pursuant to the above order, the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned and ultimately, the impugned proceedings dated 12.11.2022 came to be passed by the 1st respondent and thereby, the earlier approval that was granted through proceedings dated 09.11.2016 was suspended and the parties were directed to resolve their dispute with regard to the right and title over the property before the competent Court. A further direction was also given by the 1st respondent to the registration authority not to register any documents pertaining to the layout. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and this courter affidavit has been adopted by the 1st respondent also. The main stand that has been taken in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

6. It is further submitted that in compliance