ORDER :

1. Heard Mr.T.Saikrishnanlearned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following prayer:-

i) To quash the order passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings dated 19.12.2019. whereby, the petitioner’s claim for regularization has been rejected and consequently, to direct 1st respondent to regularize the layout namely Ambujam Maniam Nagar situated at Devarkandanallur Village, Thiruvarur Taluk (Formerly Kodavasal Taluk) Thiruvarur District, comprised in survey Nos. 148/1, 148/2, 140/4, 140/6, 140/7 & 140/10 in all admeasuring 3.48 Acres from and out of 5.86 Acres.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of the order passed by the Government vide G.O.(Ms)No.78 of Country Planning Department dated 04.05.2017, particularly, clause 3, the petitioner is eligible to seek for regularization of the land; that therefore, the petitioner made an application seeking for regularization before the first respondent, but, the first respondent taking into consideration of the clarification issued by the third respondent, passed the impugned order dated 19.07.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, and hence, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging such rejection order.

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order passed by the first respondent by contending that, the petitioner after obtaining NOC from Devekankandanallur Village Panchayat, which passed a Resolution No.39 dated 31.01.2015 granting no objection for forming layout and selling the plot and after completing all such procedures relating alienation of plots, sold a Plot No.26, measuring to an extent of 1000 sq.mt in S.No.140/7 to one Mala by way of executing a Sale Deed dated 19.07.2016; that when the said document was presented for registration before the fifth respondent on 12.08.2016, the same has been retained by the fifth respondent for the purpose of fixation of guideline value, since, no property was sold in the above said layout; that after a lapse of two years, i.e. on 29.10.2018, the fifth respondent issued a notice and called upon the petitioner to get DTCP approval and again on 15.03.2019, issued a final notice to the petitioner to get DTCP approval and thereafter, issued a passed an order dated 08.12.2020 stating that the petitioner has not taken any steps for fixation of the guideline value for the past 4 years and returned the pending document dated 19.07.2016 to the petitioner, informing the petitioner to file appeal as against the said order dated 08.12.2020 before the fourth respondent, if so aggrieved.

3.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when the petitioner has executed a sale deed dated 19.07.2016 for sale of the plot in the aforesaid layout and when the same was presented for registration as early as on 12.08.2016, which has been kept pending by the fifth respondent for the purpose of guideline value for a period of two years, which fact was fully known to the first respondent through the second respondent, who vide letter dated 22.05.2019 clearly stated that the fifth respondent has retained the sale deed dated 19.07.2016 unregistered, it is not fair on the part of the first respondent to reject the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that the petitioner has not sold out any part of the land in the aforesaid layout.

3.3 The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended in similar way, it is not fair on the part of the fifth respondent to pass order dated 08.12.2020 declining to register the sale deed and return the same to the petitioner, by shifting the blame on the petitioner that the petitioner has not taken steps for getting DTCP approval; that ,when admittedly, the sale deed was retained by the fifth respondent for nearly two years without registering the same. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for quashing the impugne