A party who obtains planning approval conditional upon gifting road portions to a local body and subsequently acts upon that approval is estopped from claiming exclusive rights over said road.

by all the parties. However, the petitioners would submit that the approval given in No.564/1991 was not acted upon and compound walls were forcibly removed and the authorities laid the road.

4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Thanjavur Corporation would submit that as per the Town Survey Register, T.S.No. 104 [old Survey No.374/2A2] has been shown as a road and therefore, the Corporation has formed the road in the said survey number.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The approval granted vide approval No.564/1991, dated 30.12.1991 is not disputed. However, according to the petitioners, the said approved plan was not acted upon. As per DTCP (Directorate of Town and Country Planning) norms in Tamil Nadu, all the roads of a layout should be connected to the existing public roads and must be handed over to the concerned local body through a registered gift deed to ensure public right of way and maintenance by the local body. Perusal of the approval order in No.564/1991, dated 30.12.1991 also shows that at clause 1(d), it has been categorically stated that the plot road portions should be handed over to the local body by way of registered gift deed, otherwise, the approval will not be granted. Thus, only after satisfying the said condition, approval has been granted and hence, T.S.No.104 [old Survey No.374/2A2] has been shown as a road in the records of the 3rd respondent corporation. However, the petitioners are disputing it stating that they and their family members are having 7 plots in the said survey number and the road in the said survey number is meant for those 7 plots only, as such the road is solely for the usage of the petitioners and their family members alone and not for the other plot holders and public.

7. Though the petitioners contended that the approval granted vide approval No.564/1991, dated 30.12.1991 was not acted upon, it is the specific case of the petitioners that after such approval, they sold 4.5 acres of land to the Central Excise Department and the department also constructed a building therein and enjoying the same and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the plan approval dated 30.12.1991 was not acted upon, cannot be countenanced. Having obtained the approval with a condition to gift the road portions of the subject layout to the local body, the petitioners are estopped from claiming exclusive right and enjoyment over the road. Even assuming that the subject road is the only approach road to 7 plots where the houses of the petitioners and their family members are situated, still the petitioners cannot claim any exclusive right, since approval has been given subject to the condition that the road portions in the layout should be gifted to the local body for maintenance and public usage, as such the petitioners have no vested right to block the road portion by putting up compound walls. The authorities have rightly removed the same and laid road for public access.

8. For all the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The respondents are directed to take appropriate legal action against the petitioners including criminal action in the event of any threat from the petitioners. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) payable by the petitioners to the Legal Services Committee attached to this Bench within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of non payment of the costs, the 1st respondent is directed to take appropriate action under the Revenue Recovery Act for recover