PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to cancel the order of regularization / approval of Plot Nos.5 and 6 in SPFWD (Theni DCTP) 06/2023 dated 15.12.2023 and its consequential order Ma.A.No. 616/2024/F1 dated 01.02.2024 given by them, in the layout in old S.No. 172 (part) Survey Ward F, Block 3 and new T.S.No.3 (Part) in Karuvelanayakanpatti Village, Allinagaram.

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan

For R1 and R2 :Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff

Government Advocate

For R6 :Mr.K.Dinesh

R3, R4, R5 and R7:No appearance

*****

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to cancel the order of regularisation/approval granted in respect of Plot Nos.5 and 6 situated in the layout formed in Old Survey No.172 (Part), Survey Ward-F, Block No.3, corresponding to New T.S.No.3 (Part), Karuvelanayakanpatti Village, Allinagaram, Theni District.

2.According to the petitioner, Plot Nos.5 and 6 form part of an unapproved layout. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent had entered into an unregistered sale agreement with him in respect of the said plots for valuable consideration. Thereafter, the fourth respondent applied to the competent authority seeking regularisation of the plots and obtained approval on 15.12.2023. Subsequently, the fourth respondent executed registered sale deeds in favour of respondents 5 and 6 in respect of the said plots.

3.Aggrieved by the said transactions, the petitioner has instituted a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2024 seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale. The grievance of the petitioner is that, during the subsistence of the agreement, the fourth respondent conveyed the properties to respondents 5 and 6 and also obtained regularisation of the plots.

4.The petitioner further submitted a representation before respondents 1 to 3 seeking cancellation of the regularisation granted in respect of the said plots.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the regularisation granted in favour of the fourth respondent is contrary to Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017. It was further contended that the competent authority is empowered under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 to cancel an approval obtained in violation of the statutory provisions. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the lapse of considerable time, no orders have been passed on his representation.

6.Mr. M. Mahaboob Athiff, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s representation dated 06.03.2024 would be considered and disposed of by the second respondent on its own merits and in accordance with law within such time as may be stipulated by this Court. The said submission is placed on record.

7.In view of the aforesaid submission, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Court is inclined to direct the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders.

8.Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 06.03.2024 on its own merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other necessary parties.

9.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Index :Yes / No

09.06.2026

Internet :Yes / No

NCC :Yes / No

cmr

To

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,

E & C Main Road, Srinivasa Nagar,

Virugambakkam,

Koyambedu, Chennai

2.The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning,

DT