The court upheld the validity of the impugned order under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, confirming that it was neither arbitrary nor perverse, and emphasized adherence to statutory procedures.

ORDER :

M.SUNDAR, J.

Two writ petitioners in the captioned two 'Writ Petitions' {hereinafter 'WP' in singular and 'WPs' in plural for the sake of brevity} are spouses.

2. Captioned WPs have been filed with certiorari prayers assailing an 'order dated 27.01.2025 bearing reference No.11243/2021/H2(E) made by R1 [The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore - 641 001]' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity}. The impugned order has been made under proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of 'The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act 9 of 1999)' (hereinafter 'TNULB Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

3. The subject matter of the captioned two main WPs is a 'piece of land in Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore District' {hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} purchased by writ petitioners vide two sale deeds, one sale deed dated 16.04.2010 (Document No.3115 of 2010) and another sale deed dated 26.08.2011 (Document No.8394 of 2011), both on the file of Singanallur Sub-Registrar's Office. In one sale deed, both writ petitioners are purchasers and in another sale deed one of the spouses is purchaser. One sale deed pertains to 6400 sq.ft and another sale deed pertains to 3200 sq.ft totalling 9600 sq.ft.

4. Said land is part of an unapproved layout in the name and style of 'Krishna Nagar' and unapproved layout comprises of 8 survey numbers namely, 134/1, 134/2, 134/3, 134/4, 135/1, 135/2, 125/3 and 135/4, all in Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore District.

5. As already alluded to supra, the impugned order has been made under proviso to Section 128(1)(b) of TNULB Act and Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa, learned counsel on record for writ petitioners submits that impugned order inter alia is perverse, arbitrary and it proceeds on the premise (without any basis) that said land has been earmarked for the purpose of public well vide unapproved layout.

6. Issue notice to respondents.

7. Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for all four respondents and submits, on instructions that the captioned WPs are third set of WPs on the same subject. The second writ petitioner in W.P.No.4315 of 2025 and first writ petitioner in W.P.No.4360 of 2025 (Mr.A.Umapathy, Son of Mr.M.Alagarsamy) is a former employee of Coimbatore Corporation, he took 'Voluntary Retirement' {'VR'} as Public Relation Officer and regularization for said land has been obtained suppressing the fact that the said land is set apart for public well and it is (Krishna Nagar Public Place).

8. Owing to the nature of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, main WPs were taken up with the consent of learned counsel on both sides.

9. Learned counsel for writ petitioners contended that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that said land has been set apart for being a public well without any basis.

10. It was submitted by learned State Counsel that original promoter one Mr.Krishnamma Naidu had not given any plot number to said land and spaces for public purposes such as roads and public well were earmarked in unapproved layout which is for 121 plots.

11. We find that the impugned order traces the flow of events and it has noticed that after the demise of original promoter, his legal heirs granted Power of Attorney to a Power Agent authorizing the sale of the public well also and power agent by suppressing material facts fraudulently obtained a regularization on 31.12.2006. Therefore, the point that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that said land has been earmarked for public well without any basis d