BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.12.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.31286 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.24486 of 2025 Ganesan Arumugan ...Petitioner Vs

1. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai.

2. The Joint Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Commissioner, O/o.Sattur Municipality, Sattur, Virudhunagar District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in File No.JSAJN9T2/2025/TCP dated 06.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 13.04.2025 afresh for conversion of the use of the land earmarked for Community Hall in the layout approved by the 3^rd respondent vide Roc No.4839/80 F1 dated 14.03.1986 into residential use in the light of Rule 47(6)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019.

For Petitioner : M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader * * * * * ORDER The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order of the second respondent dated 06.05.2025 wherein the request of the petitioner for conversion of a plot reserved for community hall into residential use has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for a mandamus to permit such conversion, on the basis of Rule 47(6)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Buildings Rules, 2019.

2. The petitioner's father and others have developed the lands of an extent of 11.58 acres in S.Nos.12/2, 3, 4 part and 14/3, 4 part and 15 as layout and obtained layout approval from the third respondent on 14.03.1986. Thereafter, registered settlement deeds were executed in favour of the local body for the lands which were earmarked for road and public park by way of documents dated 06.01.1986 and 12.02.1986.

3. The disputed plot having an extent of 56 cents in the layout approval was reserved for community hall. For more than 30 years, no one come forward to put up any construction. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application to the third respondent on 20.09.2021 seeking the permission for conversion of the usage from community hall to residential purposes. The third respondent had recommended the same to the first respondent on 21.10.2021. However, no action was taken by the first respondent.

4. The petitioner had preferred an online application on 17.09.2024 for re-classification of the land. Several particulars were called for from the writ petitioner. The application was returned on 19.02.2025 for rectification of certain defects. After rectification of the defects, the petitioner has uploaded documents on 13.04.2025. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed pointing out that when the plot has been classified for public purpose in the approved layout, it can be used only for the respective purpose only. He further pointed out in the impugned order that the land reserved for community hall has to be used only for community hall purpose and cannot be converted for residential purpose. This order is put to challenge in the present writ petition.

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the Rule 47(6)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Buildings Rules, 2019, empowers the authority to effect conversion from one purpose to another purpose. She further relied upon the circular issued by the first respondent dated 14.08.2021 wherein the authorities have been vested with the power to convert any land which is reserved for public purpose into residential purpose. She further submits that for more than 30 years, no one has come forward to purchase the land for construction of communit