IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD W.P.No.8514 of 2023 P.Thilakavathy ...Petitioner -Vs-

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003

3.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Buiding, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Revenue & Finance Greater, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai- 600 003.

5.The Zonal Officer, Zone -14, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.6/64, Pzhidivakkam Main Road, Ullagaram, Puzhidivakkam, Chennai-600 091 ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Ni.Ma.U.Thu.Na.Ka.No: LE9/596/2022 dated 24.01.2023 on the file of the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to consider the petitioner's application for exchange of land for accessing her land dated 17.03.2022 in accordance to law.

For Petitioner : Mr.Adinarayana Rao For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate for R1 Mrs.S.Vanitha Joice Rani Standing Counsel for R2, R4 & R5

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed in Ni.Ma.U.Thu.Na.Ka.No: LE9/596/2022 dated 24.01.2023 on the file of the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 4^th respondent to consider the petitioner's application for exchange of land for accessing her land dated 17.03.2022 in accordance to law.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2.The Petitioner is a owner of 1 acre 18.5 cents of land in Jalladianpet Village, had long accessed her property through a pathway adjacent to the 1st Respondent’s park. In 2010, M/s Selene Estates Ltd sought to develop a multi-storey building on the Petitioner’s land but was refused. Later, in 2013- 14, the company constructed a compound wall blocking her access, citing a 1 Acre 36 cents land gift (02.03.2010) required for building approval. The Petitioner was led to believe a pathway existed on the Southern side of the gifted land, which was to be converted into a park. After not visiting her property from 2018 due to health issues and COVID-19, the Petitioner later discovered that her access had been blocked by a building, effectively landlocking her property. She requested a land exchange, offering to cover costs, but despite inspections confirming no alternative access, the 4th Respondent rejected her request without proper evaluation. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the application of the petitioner was not consider till date by the 2^nd respondent. The learned counsel would further submit that one Selene builder gifted the property to the Chennai Corporation for OSR due to which she was not having access to her land. Hence, she proposed to give her land in exchange to the Corporation so that the Corporation shall provide her with a pathway to go to her land. He further submit that the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent is extracted hereunder:

"The Tamil nadu Parks, Play - Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1959- as mentioned in paragraph No.6 :

''No park, play-field or open space specified in the list published under section 4 or 5 shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, be used for any purpose other than the purpose or purposes for which it was used on the date of the coming into force of this Act under sub-section (3) of section 1 or on the date with effect from which this Act is