JUDGMENT :

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this Writ Appeal and set aside the order, dated 01.03.2023 made in W.P.No.24278 of 2022 and consequently, dismiss the W.P.No.24278 of 2022.)

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 01.03.2023 in W.P.No.24278 of 2022. By the said order, the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Writ Petition.

2. The writ petitioner had prayed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the impugned order, dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning (Coimbatore Region) and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant building approval for the petitioner's property in S.No.24/1, New Thillai Nagar, Coimbatore.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that she purchased a residential site measuring 3627 Sq.ft., bearing Site No.3, New Thillai Nagar, Coimbatore, by the registered sale deed in Doct.No.2735 of 1992, dated 15.07.1992 from one Rangammal. The said Rangammal and five of her sisters were allotted 62 cents of land by a decree in a partition suit in O.S.No.1182 of 1980, on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The final decree was passed in I.A.No.241 of 1982 on 30.04.1989. Thereafter, the writ petitioner's vendor Rangammal and her sisters further partitioned their share of 62 cents among themselves, by a partition deed, dated 11.09.1989 which was registered as Doc. No.2573 of 1989 at the office of the Sub-Registrar - II, Coimbatore. The above-mentioned Site No.3 was allotted to Rangammal in the said partition deed. Before selling the property to the writ petitioner on 15.07.1992, her vendor Rangammal had even obtained residential building plan permission on 29.06.1992.

4. After the purchase, when the petitioner approached the respondents for fresh planning permission to put up a superstructure, citing that the site was situated in a place originally earmarked as a public purpose site - school/playground in a layout approval in L.P.A.No.199/80, no permission was granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.10677 of 2017 for a Writ of Mandamus, and by an order, dated 14.06.2017, this Court directed the respondents to consider the writ petitioner's representation, dated 09.02.2017 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, upon the filing of contempt proceedings, the order impugned in the present proceedings, dated 06.07.2022 was passed rejecting the request of the petitioner and hence the Writ Petition.

5. The writ petitioner contends that the alleged sanctioned layout i.e., L.P.A.No.199/80 is non-existent. The respondents do not have any official records in respect of the same. The layout was allegedly formed by one Yakoob being the Power of Attorney agent of the brother of the vendor of the writ petitioner. He attempted to form the layout claiming title to the property. Whereas, the writ petitioner's vendor filed the above suit for partition which was decreed in favour of the petitioner's vendor by the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the same would be binding on the promoter of the layout and consequently the respondents. As a matter of fact, in a similar plot which is claimed to be reserved for public purpose, already a residential building permission, dated 29.06.1991 was granted and a building has been put up.

6. The Writ Petition was resisted by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning (Coimbatore Region) by filing a counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, the earlier Writ Petition is mentioned and the impugned order is quoted as such. After extracting the impugned order, it is submitted that the Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority vide L.P.A.No.199/1980, dated