Rejection of layout regularization invalid without comprehensive inspection verifying pre-cut-off formation beyond sale deed recitals.

ORDER

The petitioner assails the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the first respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request for regularization of an unapproved residential layout comprised in S.F. Nos. 1/1A3, 1B (old S.F. No. 159/1), 7/1 (old S.F. No. 160 part), 7/2 (old S.F. No. 160 part), 3/1A (old S.F. No. 157/1A), and 3/1B (old S.F. No. 157/1B), totally measuring 23.60 acres of dry land, forming a contiguous parcel situated in Kanthalur Village, Thiruverumbur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, came to be rejected.

2.The petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject lands and states that he had formed an unapproved residential layout in the said lands. It is further stated that a plot measuring 2600 sq. ft. in the said layout was conveyed in favour of one M. Jeyapalan through a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1984. On that basis, the petitioner claims entitlement to regularization of the unapproved layout in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 172 dated 13.10.2017 issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

4.G.O.Ms. No. 172 dated 13.10.2017 amended the Tamil Nadu Regularization of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017. Under the amended provisions, Rule 7(3)(g) enables regularization of an unapproved layout where at least one plot has been sold prior to the cut-off date, by permitting internal roads to be regularized on an “as is where is” basis. The cut-off date for regularization was fixed as

20.10.2016.

5.The petitioner’s application was considered and a spot inspection was conducted, pursuant to which an inspection report dated 04.04.2023 was submitted. In the said report, it was stated that, in respect of the plot allegedly sold in the year 1984, there were no details regarding access, approach road, or layout road abutting the said plot. Based on the said inspection report, the first respondent issued the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s request.

6.A perusal of the inspection report does not indicate whether, upon inspection, it was found that there were no internal roads in the alleged unapproved layout. Further, no enquiry appears to have been conducted by recording statements from the adjoining landowners to ascertain whether an unapproved residential layout had in fact been formed in the year 1984.

7.The rejection appears to be based solely on the absence of recitals in the sale deed indicating that the property formed part of an unapproved layout. Merely because the sale deed does not expressly describe the property as part of an unapproved layout, it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner has failed to establish formation of such layout prior to the cut-off date. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim requires reconsideration after conducting a proper and comprehensive inspection.

8.In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not legally sustainable.

9.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in G.O.(3D) No. 34 dated 07.06.2024 issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department is set aside.

10.The third respondent is directed to conduct a fresh inspection in respect of the subject lands and to record statements from the owners of the adjoining lands, and thereafter submit a report as to whether the petitioner had, in fact, formed an unapproved residential layout in the year 1984.

11.If the inspection report reveals that the petitioner had formed such an unapproved residential layout in 1984 and conveyed a plot measuring 2600 sq. ft. through a registered sale deed, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders for regularization of the said layout in accordanc