Approval for layout development remains valid under statutory provisions despite pending legal disputes unless explicitly prohibited.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, M/s.C.Meera Arumugham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, Mr.Stalin Abi Manyu, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the fifth respondent, Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Navin Balaji, appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent in SWP/DTCP/ Tiruvannamalai District – Layout Number 2/2025, 3/2025 and 4/2025 dated 02.01.2025 and the records of the 11^th respondent in vide VP/Resolution No. 88/01/2025, dated 01.02.2025 and quash/cancel the same as null and void and consequentially direct the second and third respondents not to grant layout approval in respect of the schedule property till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No. 17 of 2021.

3. The petitioner's father, one, Selvaraj is said to have purchased the property which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition, from one, Kallappan. He had executed a sale deed in favour of the sixth respondent on 16.04.2009 and 05.08.2009. Selvaraj took a plea that the sale deeds were not meant to convey title but had been executed as the security for a loan transaction between himself and the sixth respondent. In pursuance thereof, Selvaraj is said to have lodged complaint with the Land Grabbing Cell of the police. As the complaint did not progress further, he presented a suit in O.S.No. 17 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Thiruvannamalai. The suit is for declaration of his title and for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. Pending the suit, he took out an application for ad-interim injunction restraining the registration department/5^th respondent from registering any documents. The Sub Registrar filed an affidavit of undertaking before the learned Principal District Judge that he will not register any documents with respect to the subject matter of the suit till the disposal of the same. Thereafter, the application for injunction was withdrawn by the plaintiff. Consequently, the undertaking died a natural death. This withdrawal took place on 11.08.2023. Prior to the undertaking affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, the sixth respondent herein alienated the property in favour of the seventh respondent. The seventh respondent, in turn, alienated the property in favour of the eighth respondent on the very same day through a sale deed registered as Doc.No.1063/2023. This transaction was for an extent of 5.96 acres. On the very day that the aforesaid transactions took place, namely, 27.01.2023, the sixth respondent alienated the property in favour of the eighth respondent by way of a separate document to an extent of 4.07 acres.

5. The sixth respondent had filed an application for layout approval. It came to be rejected by the respondent No.3 by an order dated 02.11.2023. Subsequently, the respondent Nos. 7 to 10 had filed an application seeking approval to develop this property into a layout. Three separate applications had been filed and were pending consideration.

6. In the meantime, Selvaraj passed away on 26.04.2021, leaving behind four legal heirs. The writ petitioner is one such legal heir. Catching scent of the application seeking approvals having been filed, the writ petitioner gave a representation to the third respondent on 18.02.2024 setting forth the facts relating to the transaction between S