IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN WA No.505 of 2026 C.Aruna W/o. C.Ramiah, 15/ 6, BalaRaman Street, Thiru.Vi.Ka Nagar, Chennai 82 : Appellant Versus

1.The Director Tamil Nadu and Country Planning, 807, 4th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 2

2.The Deputy Director, Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning, Chengalpattu Zone, 124 GST Road, Chingleput I Kancheepuram District

3.The Residents of Thirupathinagar Welfare Association, Rep. by its President C.Radhakrishnan, No. 36, Old No.

4, First Main Road, Thirupathi Nagar, Chennai 99 : Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed to set aside the order in W.P. No.10696 of 2019 dated 30.10.2024.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Nagarajan For Respondent : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

The present writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the judgment dated 30.10.2024 in WP No.10696 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased the property at No.173, Old Survey No.128/6, Old TS 110, New TS 110 Block 38 situated at Kolathur Village, Perambur, Purasawalkam Taluk, by a registered sale deed dated 16.07.2007 vide document No.6629 of 2007 ad-measuring 7140 sq.ft. While being so, the respondents claimed the said property as a school play ground as per the DTP layout approval No.220 of 1973. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition seeking the following relief:

“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from mentioning the Plot Nos.55 to 58 belonging to the petitioner property as school playground mentioned in the DTP Layout No.220 of 1973 and consequently directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to cancel the Plot Nos.55 to 58 under DTP Layout No.

220 of 1973 issued by 2^nd respondent.”

3. The learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition came to the conclusion that the record reveals that the appellant’s request for cancellation of the open space reservation as a play ground and its conversion into house plots was rejected by an order dated 04.05.2017, which is an appellate order. On an earlier occasion, the appellant had challenged the grant of approval for layout which was rejected. Both the orders have not been challenged in the writ petition.

4. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that without challenging the said orders, the appellant could not now seek a direction forbearing the respondents from claiming the subject property as a play ground as per the approved layout.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. On a bare perusal of the prayer clause in the writ petition, we find that the order passed by the competent authority approving the layout as well as the order of rejection dated 04.05.2017 by the appellate authority have not been challenged. Learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. The present appeal being bereft of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

16.03.2026 Index : Yes/No tar To

1.The Director Tamil Nadu and Country Planning, 807, 4th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 2

2.The Deputy Director, Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning, Chengalpattu Zone, 124 GST Road, Chingleput I Kancheepuram District THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G. ARUL MURUGAN , J.

(tar)

16.03.2026