The right of access to property is constitutionally protected under Article 300A, and layout approvals cannot infringe upon this right.

ORDER :

This instant writ petition filed for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 7 to 9 from encumbering in any manner, the subjected land and to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent with regard to rejection of approved layout and to secure the rights of the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms.Maria Roseline learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6. Inspite of notice being served on the respondents 7 to 9, they have neither chosen to appear in person nor through their counsel.

3. Mr.Ms.Maria Roseline, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owns lands in Survey No.190/8A2B at Madhava Perumal Kovil Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy, adjoining the property of the petitioner, the land belonging to respondents 7 to 9 were promoted by them. The petitioner can approach the main road only through the land belonging to respondents 7 to 9. However, when they had formed the layout, they had not provided any approach road to enable the petitioner to reach the petitioner's property. The respondents 7 to 9 have left out a portion of the land from the ambit of the layout approval in such a way to block the ingress and egress of the petitioner to his land. Hence he had earlier approached this Court by a Writ of Mandamus in which recording that they had been granted with a layout approval, liberty was given to the petitioner to file an appeal. Against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the first respondent. However, the first respondent rejected the appeal by holding that the roads have been laid upto the boundary of the layout and that the plan approval had been granted as early as in the year 2003 and the layout had already been sold and therefore, there can be no question of canceling the said layout approval. He would submit that the respondents 7 to 9 had purposefully laid a layout in such a way to block the right of the petitioner.

4. He would also really upon a Report of the learned Advocate Commissioner and submit that a portion of 330 Sq.ft of land belonging to the respondents 7 to 9 are lying between the road sanctioned and the petitioner's property. They have willfully taken out a layout approval to deny the petitioner right of ingress and egress affecting his constitutional right under Article 300A . Therefore, he would submit that an injunction also ought to have been granted against the respondents 7 to 9 from preventing the petitioner from accessing his land belonging to respondents 7 to 9.

5. Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 & 6 would submit that the layout had been sanctioned as per the law. He would submit that the roads had been laid and permitted in the layout till the boundaries of the land till which the layout had been approved. Respondents 7 to 9 are the promoters had retained a certain portion of the land in between the layout and the petitioner's land. The said land retained by the respondents 7 to 9 do not form part of the approved layout. Therefore, it is only a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 7 to 9 and for that reason the layout can't be questioned. Therefore, he would submit that there is no necessity to interfere with the order impugned passed by the first respondent and it is for the petitioner to work out his civil rights before the appropriate Court.

6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for their respective parties and had perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, a sanc