Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 39205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Rani Rajan Babu – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
WMP.No.38533 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Abishek A.M. for Mr.D.Carounagarane
For the Respondents: Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4, Mr.C.A.Diwakar for R5 to R9
Writ court refrains from cancelling layout approval without impleading beneficiary; directs civil court resolution in pending partition suit.
Headnote:Under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, petitioner sought cancellation of layout approval DTCP No.133 of 2023 amid pending partition suit O.S.No.230 of 1977 where preliminary decree was passed in 1979. Essential facts involve layout formation by third party after property sales, without final decree. Court found writ inappropriate without impleading layout developer. Issues framed around suitability of mandamus for layout cancellation versus civil suit resolution. Ratio: Absent impleadment of layout beneficiary (S.Dinesh) and pending civil proceedings, High Court declines interference, directing parties to civil court for final decree and disputes. Writ petition disposed with liberty to pursue issues in civil court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks mandamus for layout cancellation amid partition suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents claim oral partition and property sales justify layout. (Para 3) |
| 3. court requires impleading layout developer; directs civil court. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. writ disposed with liberty to approach civil court. (Para 6) |
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 07.11.2024 for cancellation of the layout approved in DTCP No.133 of 2023, Naduveerapattu Village, Cuddalore in terms of the Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 within a fixed time frame.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Abishek A.M. for Mr.D.Carounagarane For Respondent(s): Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.C.A.Diwakar for R5 to R9
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 07.11.2024 for cancellation of the layout approved in DTCP No.133 of 2023, Naduveerapattu Village, Cuddalore in terms of the Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, there is a suit filed in O.S.No.230 of 1977 for partition and without passing any final decree proceedings, the layout approval was granted.
Hence, the present writ petition is filed for cancellation of layout approval.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 9 would submit that they are the persons entitled for share in the property. He would submit that the private respondents 5 to 9 also sold the properties to form the layout. Accordingly, the layout was formed by one S.Dinesh, who has not impleaded as respondent in the suit. Further, he would submit that originally the suit for partition was filed in O.S.No.230 of 1977, preliminary decree passed on 25.07.1979 and rights of the parties have already been decided. Based on the said decision, the final decree was not able to be passed due to the reasons that the parties themselves orally agreed to have the earmarked portions. Accordingly, the same was sold and layout formed. If at all final decree is passed based on the oral partition between the parties, they are supposed to have passed an order based on the said agreement. Therefore, he would submit that if at all there is anything, the same can be decided in the suit pending before the civil Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well the respondents and perused the material available on record.
5. In the present case, the relief is for cancellation of the layout approval and the same was granted to and in favour of one S.Dinesh, who has not impleaded as party in the suit. The private respondents, who are all impleaded are owners of the property and they sold the property to one S.Dinesh and after the sale, S.Dinesh formed the layout and he has also sold the same. In such case, without impleading the said S.Dinesh, this Court is not inclined to pass any order as sought in the present writ petition. Even the said S.Dinesh is impleaded, the right course available to the petitioner is not by way of making representation for cancellation of layout approval. The petitioner has to approach the civil Court where O.S.No.230 of 1977 is pending for partition and final decree has to be passed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue any mandamus as sought for in the present writ petition.
6. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues before the civil Court, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
