ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 18.10.2024 wherein the request of the writ petitioner to reclassify the land from car parking to residential plot in T.S.No.54/1, Kattalaipatti Village, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District has been rejected.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.One Annamalai Prasad who was the original owner of Town Survey No.54/1, created a layout in the year 2004 and an approval was granted to the said layout on 15.09.2004 by the second respondent. As per the layout approval, there are 7 plots and one of the plots having an extent of 2080 sq.ft was reserved for car parking. The approval order specifically points out that all the plots were meant for commercial purposes. Therefore, it is clear that the plots reserved for car parking was meant for visitors/customers to the other commercial plots where the constructions are going to come up.

3.The petitioner had approached the local body, namely Sivakasi Municipality and sought building plan permission. Before execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the developer had approached the Sivakasi Municipality and obtained a No Objection Certificate for registration of sale deed. The No objection Certificate was granted with a condition that the plot should be used only for the purposes of parking vehicles. The developer had sold the plot reserved for car parking to the writ petitioner under a registered document dated 17.12.2007 under Document No.7233/2007.

4.The adjacent plot owners have filed O.S.No.285 of 2005 before the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi seeking a declaration that the suit property is a parking area and also sought for permanent injunction. The suit came to be decreed on 26.10.2010 and the developer had preferred A.S.No.35 of 2012 before the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi. Pending appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise wherein it was agreed between the parties that the decree of the trial Court may be set aside and the plaintiff would not have any objection for putting up construction in the plot earmarked for car parking. Though the Commissioner, Sivakasi Municipality and the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning were parties, they have not entered into compromise.

5.Armed with compromise, the petitioner had approached the Director of Town and Country Planning on 01.02.2012 seeking reclassification of the land from “car parking” area to “residential use”. This request was rejected citing pendency of A.S.No.35 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Sivakasi. Ultimately, the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed by the Director of Town and Country Planning on 18.10.2024 wherein the request of the writ petitioner for reclassification was rejected relying upon the Government communication dated 29.06.2015. As per the impugned order, the parking area falls within the non-saleable public purpose reservation and therefore, it cannot be reclassified. It further pointed out that the parking area covered 10.17% of the total extent of the layout. This order is put to challenge in the present writ petition.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

6.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that all the 7 plots, earmarked for commercial purposes, have been put to residential use. There is no commercial activities at all within the layout premises. All the residents have created a car parking within their own plots. In such circumstances, nobody is using the plot earmarked for parking purpose for more than 5 years. In such circumstances, the plot reserved for parking area was sold by the developer to the writ petitioner. None of the private respondents would be put to any prejudice because of the conversion/reclassification.

7.The learned senior counsel had further submitted that the Government Order dated 29.06.2015 has been misread by the authorities while passing the impugned order. There is a reference only for selling the non-sa