COMMON ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

The writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.32539 to 32544 of 2025 are listed for admission today. Other writ petitions where similar relief as in the aforesaid matter had been sought and granted by us, are listed as item No.98 under the caption 'for being mentioned'.

2. We have heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of M/s.Ajmal Associates for the petitioners, Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General, who appears on behalf of Mr.K.Balasubramani, learned Standing Counsel for R2.

3. In the light of the order proposed to be passed in these matters, no notice is necessary to R3, M/s. Karur District Vengamedu, Kongu Nagar, Residents Welfare Associations ('Association') and also the private respondents, at this stage.

4. The prayer is for a certiorari, challenging an order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Karur District.

5. The matter has a chequered history. The Association had filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.2895 of 2011, wherein the prayer was for a mandamus, directing the official respondents to remove the unauthorized developments found in areas reserved for public purpose in SF Nos.135,136,137,138,140,141,146,151,152,153,154,155&160 in Vengamedu Region, Inam Karur Town, Karur District ('properties'/'properties in question').

6. The learned counsel would accede to the position that there is an identity between the properties being the subject matter of the earlier writ petition and the present batch of writ petitions.

7. An order was passed in that writ petition on 04.04.2016, wherein after recording rival contentions, the learned Judge rendered two categoric findings at para 10, which reads as follows:-

'(a) that plots in the land earmarked for public purposes have been and are being sold indiscriminately on the specious plea that the layout is unapproved and (b) every one of the respondents in now washing away their hands prompting the purchasers as well as people, who put up constructions, to seek regularization.'

8. In summary, the findings rendered at para 22 of the order dated 04.04.2016 are extracted below:-

'22. Therefore, in fine, we are of the considered view (i) that a layout plan was approved way back in 1983 (ii) that there has been an attempt on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 to suppress the factum approval of layout and to mislead this Court as though there was only a technical approval (iii) that even admittedly, the plots forming part of all the lands earmarked for public purposes have been sold, construction permitted and electricity connection given (iv) that in order to overreach the orders of this Court passed in two earlier writ petitions and in order to overcome to present writ petition, the Municipal Council had passed two resolutions during the pendency of this writ petition seeking to regularize the unauthorized construction and (v) that based upon those resolutions, the Municipal Chairman and the elected councilors have purchased plots in the names of their relatives, during the pendency of the writ petition.'

9 That writ petition was disposed on 04.04.2016, with the following directions:-

'27. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) A Committee comprising of a Joint Director of Town and Country Planning. nominated by the first respondent, a Revenue Divisional Officer nominated by the second respondent and an officer of the rank of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, nominated by the second respondent, is hereby constituted.

(ii) Within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, the first respondent shall nominate an officer of the rank of Director of Town and Country Planning, who has a track record as an officer of high integrity.

Similarly, the second respondent District Collector shall also nominate an officer of the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer and an officer of the rank of A