BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 17.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

Writ Petition(MD)No.28395 of 2025

K.P.Nageswaran .. Petitioner

Vs

1.The Director,

Town and Country Planning Department,

O/o., Directorate of Town and Country Planning,

2, 3 and 4 Floor, C & E Market Road,

Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.

2.The Assistant Director,

District Town and Country Planning Office,

Nehruji Street, Allinagaram,

Theni 625 531.

3.The District Collector,

O/o., Theni District Collectorate,

Theni.

4.The Block Development Officer,

O.o., BDO at Periyakulam,

Vadugapatti,

Periyakulam Taluk.

5.J.Bharath .. Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.1280/2023/Nj.kh. 2 dated

02.12.2024 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Nageswaran (Party-in-person)

For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader (for R4)

ORDER

Private notice, which has been issued to the fifth respondent has been returned with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. Therefore, there is a deemed service on the fifth respondent.

2. Chellanging the order in Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.1280/2023/Nj.kh. 2, dated

02.12.2024, passed by the second respondent, this writ petition has been filed by the party-in-person.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had originally filed a writ petition to dispose of his representation dated 28.12.2023 pending before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the DTCP approval No.1035/1995 in respect of property situated in S.No.772 to the extent of 1 acre 96 cents and DTCP approval No.1317/1995 in respect of property in S.No.769/2 to an extent of 2 acres and 3 cents at Jeyamangalam Village, Periakulam Panchayat, Theni District. The said writ petition was disposed of, as the representation of the petitioner has already been considered and disposed of on 02.12.2024. It is the contention of the petitioner that when his representation was considered, the same had been rejected directing him to approach the civil Court, which stand is totally contrary to the counter filed in the earlier writ petition in W.P(MD).No.23793 of 2025. He would further submit that despite requests for conducting an enquiry, no enquiry was conducted and impugned order came to be passed straight away.

4. During the arguments, the party-in-person would submit that the property in question continues to remain vacant and has not been alienated. Therefore, according to him, the property ought to revert back to the petitioner and the petitioner continues to be the owner thereof, since the layout was originally developed through power agents. He would submit that the original owner, namely, the petitioner's father, who had executed the power of attorney, has since passed away and the petitioner is now the absolute owner of the property in question by virtue of the registered settlement deed dated 03.12.2022, executed by his mother and sister in respect of their share in the property.

5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in which, they would submit that the layout approval No.L.P/DTCP No.1035/95 was approved by the Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, vide proceeding ROC.No.27967/95LA1 dated 02.08.1995 involving S.Nos.719, 720, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741/1, 3, 742, 743, 762/5, 763, 765, 767/1, 2C, 768, 769/1, 2, 3, 770/1, 2, 771, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 864/1, 2, 865, 866, 867/1, 3, 868, 876/1A, 1B, 1C, 3, 877/1, 2, 880, 882/1, 2, 885, 886, 887, 889, 890, 907, 908, 909/1, 4, 910, 911, 912, in respect of an extent 110.68 acre and layout approval No.L.P/DTCP No.1317/95 was approved by the Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, vide proceeding ROC.No.34489/95LA1, dated 18.09.1995 involving S.Nos.672/2, 3, 4, 691, 692, 693/2C, 701/4, 5part, 703/1C, 2, 727/1C, 2C, 728, 729/1, 2, 730, 731, 7