Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37777
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
M.Mannar Mannan – Appellant
Versus
Director of Town and Country Planning – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.10758 of 2026|W.M.P(MD)No.8436 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.M.Suresh
For Respondents: Mr.D.SAdiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R4, Mr.A.N.Ramanathan, Standing Counsel for R3
No prior approval required for gifting roads and parks in layout to local authority; rectification deed must be permitted.
Headnote:The petitioners sought approval for a residential layout, requiring gifting of roads and parks to the local authority as per statutory provisions, but the initial gift deed lacked boundaries. The court found that prior approval for gifting is not required under the statutes, rendering the rejection of the rectification deed illegal. The layout approval was withheld due to incomplete boundary details in the gift deed. The key issue was whether prior approval from the municipality is mandatory for executing a gift deed of layout amenities. The court held that gifting roads and parks is compulsory without needing prior consent, making the municipality's refusal unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned communication quashed, and the municipality directed to issue No Objection Certificate within two weeks for registering the rectification deed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners gifted layout amenities without boundaries; rectification rejected. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. no prior approval needed for mandatory layout gifting. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. quash rejection; direct noc issuance for rectification. (Para 9) |
ORDER
The petitioner assails the communication dated 20.01.2026 issued by the third respondent.
2. By the said communication, the petitioner's request for executing a rectification deed by mentioning the boundaries of the land gifted by the petitioner in favour of the third respondent came to be rejected.
3. The petitioner submitted that he is the owner of 20 cents in T.S.No.83/2 (S.F.No.42/5) Block No.8, Ward No.A, Manathattai Village, Kulithalai Municipality and an extent of 94 cents in T.S.No.84/1(S.F.No. 42/6) Block No.8, Ward No.A, Manathattai Village, Kulithalai Municipality belongs to the second petitioner.
4. The petitioners jointly submitted an application for approval of residential lay out in the said lands and the approval was subject to the gifting of the roads, parks etc., formed in the lay out in favour of the local authority. In terms of the statutory provision, the petitioners have executed a registered gift deed dated 16.07.2025 in favour of the third respondent by which without mentioning the boundaries.
5. The first respondent has not granted approval of the lay out citing that the gift deed does not contain boundaries of the properties gifted in favour of the third respondent and hence, the second respondent directed the petitioners to execute a rectification deed. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a rectification deed to the fourth respondent by defining the boundaries of the properties gifted. In turn, the fourth respondent sought clarification from the third respondent to which the third respondent issued the impugned communication.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
7. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the gift deed was executed without prior approval of the third respondent and therefore, the third respondent cannot be compelled to issue No Objection Certificate.
8. As per the statutory provisions, the gifting of deed surrendering of roads, parks etc., formed in the lay out is mandatory and therefore, the petitioners executed a gift deed in favour of the third respondent without defining the boundaries of the properties gifted.
9. The gifting of Roads, Parks etc, found in a lay out is mandatory and there is no requirement for obtaining prior approval of the third respondent. Therefore, the impugned communication issued by the third respondent is not legally sustainable.
9.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 20.01.2026 issued by the third respondent is set aside and the third respondent is hereby directed to issue No Objection Certificate for registration of the rectification deed presented by the petitioners. The said No Objection Certificate should be issued within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such production of the No Objection Certificate, the fourth respondent shall register the rectification deed within a period of one week therefrom.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
