BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER RESERVED ON : 01.12.2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 04.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.17730 of 2025 and WMP(MD).Nos.13536 & 13537 of 2025 V.Kamala ....Petitioner Vs

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning Koyambedu, Chennai 600 017

2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning Office of the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District

3.Rajaram

4.R.Rani ....Respondents (4^th respondent is impleaded vide Court order dated 01.12.2025)

Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.17741/2024/TCP-10 dated 18.10.2024 quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to reclassify the land from car parking to residential plot in T.S.No.54/1, Kattalaipatti Village, Sivakasi Viruthunagar District on the basis of the petitioner's application dated

12.08.2024.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sri Charan Rengarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate for R1 & R2 : Mr.E.Mareesh Kumar for R3 :Mr.Mahaboob Athiff for R4 & R5

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