Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 81
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
AIBEA Nagar (Paravai) Resident's Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department – Respondent
WA. (MD) No. 1837 of 2025, C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 10411, 10413 of 2025
Decided On : 17-02-2026
For the Appellant : B. Saravanan
For the Respondents: S.P. Maharajan, M. Kannan, G. Prabhu Rajadurai, L. Shajichellan
The court upheld that a writ petitioner must approach with clean hands and cannot succeed by concealing material facts, affirming the need to disclose relevant prior judicial decisions.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 80 - Writ of Mandamus - Appeal to cancel regularization of unapproved layout - Appellant suppressed material facts and misled authorities - The learned Single Judge held that appropriate remedy lies in a revision petition under the Act. (Paras 4, 5, 9)
(B) Clean Hands Doctrine - The court emphasized that the writ petitioner approached with unclean hands by failing to disclose a civil decree against them in earlier proceedings. (Paras 4, 9)
(C) Ownership and Regularization - The status of the layout as unapproved was upheld; appellant failed to establish ownership over disputed OSR land and was not entitled to relief. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed that the approval for a neighboring layout was improperly granted, asserting ownership over OSR land while concealing a prior injunction.
Findings of Court:
The appellant's application was dismissed due to lack of standing and misleading conduct.
Issues: The primary issues were the appellant's claim of ownership over land and their suppression of prior court decrees affecting their case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the appellant could not seek relief due to the existence of a civil decree against them, emphasizing the importance of transparency in legal proceedings.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the writ petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's analysis of facts and reasons for the dismissal (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. contentions regarding approval and usage of osr land (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. court's conclusion on the appellant's lack of standing (Para 8 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. The appellant is All India Bank Employee Association (AIBEA), residential Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary. The Writ of Mandamus was filed by the appellant to cancel the regularization of unapproved layout accorded to the neighbouring layout by name Sivathanya promoted by the 11th respondent Venkatesan. Further it was prayed to refence the OSR property falling in petitioner's residential area.
2. The prayer in the said writ petition as couched by the appellant herein is extracted below for better appreciation:
“For issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 8 to cancel the in-principle regularisation of unapproved lay out accorded in 6th respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3663/2019/Mathi2 dated 03.03.2020 and the final approval granted in 8th respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 66/2019 dated 13.05.2020 and re-fence the OSR property falling in the petitioner's residential area duly cordoning of and restoring the position, which had been in existence fro the years.
3. After considering the counter filed by the official respondents and the 11th respondent as well as the respondents 12 and 13, were got impleaded being the purchasers of the plots from the 11th respondent. They got themselves impleaded and placed the facts and submitted that why the writ petition should not be allowed.
4. The learned Single Judge, after due appreciation of the pleadings and documents on record, primarily observed that the writ petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed vital facts and the Court also noted that the petitioner Association had misled the District Collector to pass order for fencing the disputed area by suppressing the fact that the disputed land not belong to the Association and the fact that an injunction decree had already been granted against the Association by the District Munsif Court, Madurai, in O.S. No. 4 of 2009. Further the learned single Judge, after analysing the documents and making an elaborate discussion, observed in tune with the Act and G.O passed for regularising unapproved layouts that the regularisation of the layout plan of the 11th respondent accorded by the sixth respondent vide proceedings dated 03.03.2020 and the final approval granted by the eight respondent, vide proceedings dated 13.05.2020. If at all the said proceedings were to be challenged, the appropriate remedy is to invoke Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT and prefer a Revision Petition before the Government.
5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant contending that the approval granted by the eight respondent on 13.05.2020 was a conditional order and therefore, the learned single Judge should not have given effect to the approval without complying the condition. Further, it is contended that a high-tension transformer line runs through the disputed land, which is recognized as OSR land for the appellant's layout. The Writ Court ought not to have gone beyond the scope of the writ petition and permitted shifting of the high- tension transformer. It is further contended that the regularisation of the unapproved layout of Sivathanya Nagar was not carried out under Section 48 of the TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT , 1971 and therefore, the revision remedy under Section 80 of the Act, referred to as an alternative remedy is incorrect. Submitting that the OSR land on which the high-tension transformer line runs cannot be utilised for any other purpose, but by granting approval of a road to access the said layout is candidly permitting utilisation of OSR land meant for the appellant AIBEA
