The court upheld that prolonged inactivity invalidates cancellation requests of approved layouts, highlighting laches and estoppel principles.

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The subject matter of the writ petition in W.P. No. 21118 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “first writ petition”, for the sake of brevity, clarity, and convenience) pertains to land bearing Block No. 15, N.A. No. 783/1 (part), measuring 2 acres, situated within the limits of Pollachi Municipality, Coimbatore Zone, Coimbatore District (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”).

2. The subject matter of W.P. No. 15775 of 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “second writ petition”) pertains to an extent of 20 cents of land earmarked as “park” within the said land.

3. Since both writ petitions concern the same parcel of land and are interrelated, they are taken up together, heard jointly, and disposed of by this common order.

4. Factual Background:

4.1 The petitioners in the first writ petition state that they purchased the said land in 2006 for the purpose of forming a residential layout. They executed a registered General Power of Attorney dated 16.10.2006 in favour of one Mr. J. Rajasekar, authorizing him to develop the layout, obtain necessary approvals from the competent authorities, convey plots to third parties, and execute gift deeds in favour of the concerned municipality for roads, parks, and other public spaces.

4.2 Pursuant to the Power of Attorney, applications dated 04.12.2006 and 12.01.2007 were submitted for layout approval. The Director of Urban Development, Coimbatore, granted layout approval vide communication dated 24.01.2007, subject to certain terms and conditions. Following this approval, the Power of Attorney holder executed a registered gift deed dated 29.08.2007 in favour of Pollachi Municipality, transferring the land earmarked for roads and park, including an extent of 8,874 sq. ft. designated as “park.”

4.3 Subsequently, the petitioners, through their Power of Attorney, submitted representations dated 05.04.2023 and 05.05.2023 to respondents 2 to 4, seeking cancellation of the approved layout, citing non-utilization of the land for layout purposes and absence of conveyance to third parties.

They expressed their intention to use the land for their personal purposes.

4.4 The grievance of the petitioners is that the said representations have not been acted upon by the respondents, thereby necessitating the filing of the present writ petition.

4.5 In the second writ petition, the Power of Attorney holder, Mr. J. Rajasekar, submitted representations alleging that a portion of the park area contains a rare tree locally known as the “Yeti” tree, beneath which a deity has been installed and worshipped by the local community. He contended that respondents 3 and 4, along with local residents, have commenced unauthorized construction of a temple around the said tree and announced the conduct of Kumbabishekam through printed pamphlets. Owing to the inaction of the official respondents in removing such encroachment, the present writ petition has been filed.

Submissions:

5. Learned counsel Ms. R. Sripriya, appearing for the petitioners in both writ petitions, submitted that since the residential layout was never implemented, no plots were conveyed to third parties, and no third-party rights were created, the authorities are duty-bound to cancel the approved layout. She relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 355 of 2015 , dated 05.02.2018, in support of her contention. She further submitted that the respondents failed to take action against the unauthorized construction in the area earmarked as park.

6. Per contra, Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that following approval of the layout, roads were