Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.SUNDAR, K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ
S.Subhashini W/o.A.Umapathy – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of land purchase (Para 3) |
| 2. unapproved layout details (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. commissioner's notice acceptance (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. impugned order's basis (Para 11) |
| 5. cancellation of regularization (Para 12) |
| 6. writ petitions dismissed (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
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 cla
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 procedure....
Failure to acquire land within three years results in its release from reservation under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, violating property rights.
Regularization of unauthorized plots should not be denied when no ownership dispute affects the property; reliance on unrelated ongoing litigation is improper under applicable rules.
The Deputy Commissioner's order on land regularization is binding and cannot be revisited by administrative authorities once finalized.
The court emphasized the necessity to prevent further development of unauthorized layouts and conversion of agricultural areas for non-agriculture use.
The Court ruled that public authorities must provide reasons for their decisions, and failure to do so violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the regularisation of unauthorised construction obstructing a public drain was arbitrary and ultra vires, emphasizing the need for adherence to planning laws and public interest.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
