Madras High Court
M.Chinna Nachiappan vs The Director Of Town And Country ... on 13 August, 2025
Bench: J.Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024,
W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 29.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 &
Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.14475, 14476, 15855, 15857, 15859 & 16599 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.17321 of 2024
1.W.P(MD)No.16730 of 2024:
M.Chinna Nachiappan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
No.807, Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.The Member Secretary,
Madurai Town and Country Planning Authority,
Madurai, Madurai District.
4.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
1/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024,
W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
Madurai.
5.The Madurai Central Market Vegetables and
Perishable Commodities Merchants,
Co-ordinate Association,
Madurai – Represented by its President,
S.Manuel Jeyaraj. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
impugned planning permission in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2537/2023/Mathi2
dated 04.03.2024 of the first respondent, quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Government Pleader
For R – 4 : Mrs.S.Devasena
Standing Counsel
For R – 5 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.K.V.Law Firm
2.W.P(MD)No.18730 of 2024:
P.Ponnu Ganesan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
Office of the Director of Town and Country Planning,
E & C, Market Salai,
CMDA Complex, Koyambedu,
2/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024,
W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
Chennai – 107.
2.The Director of Municipal Administration,
Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,
No.78, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 28.
3.The Assistant Director/Member Secretary,
Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Madurai Local Planning Authority,
Madurai.
4.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai.
5.The Madurai Central Market Vegetables and
Perishable Commodities Merchant Co-ordinated Association,
Madurai – Represented by its President,
S.Manuel Jeyaraj. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.18941/2023/TCP-1 dated
23.02.2024 along with the site plan passed by the first respondent and
proceedings in E2/002626/2024 dated 07.03.2024 passed by the fourth
respondent quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the fifth
respondent from putting up any construction in the area earmarked as open space
and road as approved by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.470/07/Mathi 3, dated
31.12.2007 (Planning Permission No.40/2007) at Vilangudi Village, Madurai
North Taluk, Madurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel
3/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024,
W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
for Mr.P.Athimoola Pandian
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Government Pleader
For R – 4 : Mrs.S.Devasena
Standing Counsel
For R – 5 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.K.V.Law Firm
3.W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024:
PNR Nagar Housing Plots Owners Welfare Association,
Registration No.161/2014,
Represented by its President,
K.Sivanandham. ... Appellant/3rd Party
Vs.
1.The Madurai Central Market Vegetables and
Perishable Commodities Merchant,
Co-ordination Association,
Madurai,
Represented by its Secretary,
A.Balusamy. ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
Office of the Director of Town and Country Planning,
E & C, Market Road, Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107.
3.The Assistant Director/Member Secretary,
Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Madurai.
4.The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation, Madurai.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
4/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024,
W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
Madurai, Madurai District.
6.N.Meyyappan ... Respondents 2 to 6/
Respondents 1 to 5
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 08.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.26739 of 2023 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellant : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Suresh
For R – 1 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.K.V.Law Firm
For RR 2, 3 & 5 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Government Pleader
For R – 4 : Mrs.S.Devasena
Standing Counsel
4.Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020:
N.Meyappan ... Petitioner/Petitioner
vs.
1.Mr.S.Visakan,
The Commissioner,
Madurai Corporation,
Madurai.
2.Mr.S.Manuel Jeyaraj,
The Madurai Central Market Vegetables
Perishable Commodities Merchants,
Co-ordination Association,
Madurai,
5/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024,
W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
Represented by its President,
S.Manuel Jeyaraj ... Respondents/
Respondents 3 & 4
PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act,
to punish the respondents for their wilful deliberate disobedience of the order of
this Court dated 12.12.2018 in W.P(MD)No.1567 of 2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For R – 1 : Mrs.S.Devasena
Standing Counsel
For R – 2 : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.K.V.Law Firm
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by J.NISHA BANU, J.) The issue involved in the Writ Petitions, Writ Appeal and Contempt Petition pertain to a similar set of facts and legal contentions. Therefore, they are taken up together and a common Judgment is passed.
2.The facts in nutshell, in W.P(MD)No.16730 of 2024, are as follows:
2.1.The petitioner purchased 111 cents of land in Survey No.116/2 of Vilangudi Village+, Madurai Taluk. The land formed part of a 61-acre tract 6/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 originally owned by the Sethuraman Chettiar family. The fifth respondent Association initially purchased 15 acres from the Chettiar family to relocate its market and resolved to purchase the entire extent, with the intention of reselling the remaining 46 acres. To facilitate such resale and provide access to the southern plots, the Association, through resolutions passed in 2005, declared 60 and 40 feet wide roads as public access routes. Road layout sketches were annexed in the sale deeds and attested by the Association’s president.
2.2.Relying on these assurances, the petitioner and approximately 146 others purchased southern lands. Planning permissions were obtained from local authorities in 2007, subject to a condition that 60 and 40 feet roads and the OSR (Open Space Reservation) must be handed over to the local body, Vilangudi Panchayat (now within the Corporation limits). However, the fifth respondent's president later demanded additional payments from purchasers and failed to transfer the roads and OSR to the authorities, in violation of planning conditions.
2.3.From the year 2008 to 2021, several legal proceedings ensued.
Both the High Court and the Supreme Court directed the fifth respondent to hand over the roads and OSR. Pattas for the roads and OSR were eventually issued in favor of the Corporation. However, the roads remain encroached upon by the fifth respondent, who has constructed unauthorized shops and structures in violation 7/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 of planning approvals.
2.4. Parallelly, the fifth respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.26739 of 2023 for a writ of Mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai to restore the patta in the name of the fifth respondent qua the lands comprised in S.Nos.ll5/2, 115/3, 116/1A2, 11671A3, 116/2B2, 115/lB, 116/lAlB, 116/lAlD, 116/2B1B and l16/2BlD Vilangudi Bit-II, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and to approve a revised plan for the Paravai Market, without impleading affected parties. This Court, by an order dated 08.12.2023, conditionally directed that the revised plan could be considered only if the road portions were properly donated and free from encroachments. Although donation deeds were subsequently executed, encroachments persisted.
2.5.Nevertheless, the first respondent granted revised planning permission manually, bypassing legal protocols and without addressing the encroachments or securing necessary approvals for the OSR land exchange. Valuable Corporation land was exchanged for low-value Panchayat land, undermining previous Court orders and infringing upon the petitioner's rights.
2.6.The petitioner asserts that the revised planning permission dated 8/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 04.03.2024 is illegal, manipulated and violative of statutory procedures and judicial directives. The petitioner seeks intervention to ensure removal of encroachments, restore access and prevent further misuse of public land, including a vigilance inquiry against involved officials.
3.The facts of the case in W.P(MD)No.18730 of 2024 are as follows:
3.1.This Writ Petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, challenges the order dated 23.02.2024 in Na.Ka.No.18941/2023/TCP-1 passed by the first respondent, along with the site plan, and the consequential order dated 07.03.2024 in E2/002626/2024 passed by the fourth respondent. The petitioner seeks to restrain the fifth respondent from undertaking construction on areas originally designated as OSR and roads under the year 2007 planning approval.
3.2.The fifth respondent obtained planning permission in 2007 for land in Survey Nos. 115, 116/1, and 116/2 in Vilangudi Village. As per the approved layout, specific portions were designated as open space reservation (OSR) and roads. However, these areas were later encroached upon by the fifth respondent, who constructed commercial shops on them. The road portions, although donated to the public only in 2023, had already been used for 9/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 unauthorized construction.
3.3.In an attempt to regularize the encroachments, the fifth respondent submitted a revised plan, altering the originally earmarked road and OSR areas to show shops instead. A Writ Petition in W.P(MD) No.26793 of 2023 was filed by the fifth respondent, seeking restoration of patta and approval of the revised plan. This Court, while directing the consideration of the revised plan, emphasized that the road portions (40 feet and 60 feet) must remain unaltered and any encroachment thereon must be removed.
3.4.Subsequently, the first respondent approved the revised plan on 23.02.2024, and the fourth respondent granted planning permission on 07.03.2024. The revised site plan included construction of new blocks and commercial structures within the market premises, replacing the OSR and road areas with shops. A new OSR area was instead earmarked in R.S.No.174/1A in Paravai Village, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent (Madurai Corporation) and is under Paravai Town Panchayat.
3.5.The petitioner contends that this replacement of OSR land undermines the statutory objective of public open space, particularly since the 10/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 new OSR land is of significantly lower value and in a different jurisdiction. Moreover, the revised plan was manually processed despite a standing circular mandating online submission to prevent irregularities. The petitioner also alleges that the land used in the revised plan belongs to the Corporation and that no government approval was obtained to authorize the exchange.
3.6.The petitioner further points out that as per the original DTCP approval dated 26.11.2007, approval was granted for construction over 18,032.80 sq.m out of a total 61,715 sq.m layout. However, the fifth respondent has constructed in 20,766.82 sq.m, thereby exceeding the approved limit by 2,734.02 sq.m without authorization. Despite judicial directions, no demolition or corrective action has been taken for these excess constructions.
3.7.Following the impugned approval, the fifth respondent has commenced new construction in the previously designated OSR and road areas. The petitioner submitted a representation on 19.06.2024 to the respondents 1 to 4 requesting intervention and cessation of construction activities, but no action has been taken.
3.8.The petitioner alleges that the revised planning approval is 11/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 contrary to statutory norms, violates standing Government Orders and judicial precedents, and facilitates misappropriation of valuable public land. It is further alleged that respondents 1 to 4 have colluded to facilitate these irregularities for the benefit of the fifth respondent.
4.The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.2774 of 2024 are as follows:
4.1.The Writ Appeal is filed by the third party, namely an PNR Nagar Housing Plots Owners Welfare Association, challenging the order passed by the writ Court in W.P(MD)No.26739 of 2023, dated 08.12.2023. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner for the relief of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai to restore the patta in the name of the writ petitioner qua the lands comprised in Survey Nos.115/2, 115/3, 116/1A2, 116/1A3, 116/2B2, 115/lB, 116/lAlB, 116/lAlD, 116/2B1B and 116/2B1D Vilangudi Bit-II, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and consequently, to direct the first respondent/Director of Town and Country Planning to approve the revised plan qua the Paravai Market, Vilangudi, Madurai submitted by the petitioner Association vide application dated 04.08.2023.
12/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 4.2.The learned Single Judge, after accepting and recording the fact that the first respondent/writ petitioned executed gift deed dated 27.11.2023 vide Document Nos.6273 and 6101 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Vilangudi, in respect of 40 feet road and 60 feet road, had disposed of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent/the Director of Town and Country Planning to consider the proposal of the revised plan approval. Challenging the same, the appellant as third party has filed the Writ Appeal.
5.Facts leading to the filing of the Contempt Petition in Cont.P(MD) No.141 of 2020 are as follows:
5.1.The Contempt Petition was filed by one N. Meyappan, alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD) No.1567 of 2014, dated 12.12.2018. The second respondent in the Contempt Petition is the fifth respondent in the Writ Petition and is the President of the Madurai Central Market Vegetables Perishable Commodities Merchants Co-ordination Association (hereinafter referred to as "the Association").
5.2.The Association had obtained an approved plan for constructing 13/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 the market in 2007, which included conditions mandating the settlement of roads inside the market premises in favor of the local body. As the Association failed to comply with this condition, N. Meyappan filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD) No. 1567 of 2014, seeking a direction to the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, to take over the 60-feet and 40-feet roads formed inside the Madurai Central Market Campus, Vilangudi.
5.3.The Writ Petition was disposed of by a common order dated 12.12.2018, directing that the 60-feet and 40-feet roads lying within the market premises be donated to the local body, i.e., the Corporation of Madurai, and that any encroachments therein be removed. Alleging disobedience of this Court’s order, the Contempt Petition was filed.
5.4.During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the necessary registered settlement deeds were executed in favour of the Madurai Corporation, and the alleged encroachments on the said roads were removed. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court closed the Contempt Petition by an order dated 14.10.2022.
5.5.Subsequently, N.Meyappan filed Sub Application (MD) No.150 14/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 of 2020, seeking to re-open the Contempt Petition in Cont.P(MD) No.141 of 2020, stating that the respondents had not taken adequate steps to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD) No.1567 of 2014 etc., batch dated 12.12.2018. By order dated 02.12.2022, this Court re-opened the Contempt Petition.
6. The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.16730 of 2024 are as follows:
6.1. The petitioner is one among 146 purchasers who acquired land in Survey No.116/2 of Vilangudi Village, Madurai, based on assurances and representations made by the fifth respondent association regarding access through 40- and 60-feet roads, which were part of the approved layout and essential for accessing the petitioner’s land.
6.2. The fifth respondent association, after purchasing 61 acres from the Sethuraman Chettiar family, resolved to retain 15 acres for market use and sell the rest. To facilitate access, the association passed resolutions in 2005 to designate and donate 40- and 60-feet roads for public use. This was a condition of the planning permission granted by the authorities in 2007, which required that 15/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 the roads and OSR (Open Space Reservation) be handed over to the local authority (now the fourth respondent).
6.3. Despite obtaining planning approval, the fifth respondent association failed to donate the full extent of the roads. Instead, they constructed a compound wall and encroached upon the 40- and 60-feet roads and the OSR area, thereby denying access to the petitioner and other purchasers, including access to a nearby temple.
6.4. The petitioner and others have been involved in multiple rounds of litigation since 2008, culminating in W.P.(MD) No.15668 of 2013, which was allowed by this Court, directing the fifth respondent to hand over the roads and OSR to the Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the fifth respondent in 2021, thereby confirming the High Court’s order. The patta has since been mutated in the name of the Corporation, but the encroachments remain. Despite these binding directions, the fifth respondent submitted a revised plan seeking to alter the alignment of the 40- and 60-feet roads and to exchange OSR lands. The petitioner challenges this revised plan, approved under proceedings dated 04.03.2024 (Na.Ka.No.2537/2023/Mathi2), stating that the roads continue to be encroached upon in violation of the Court’s directions. 16/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 Furthermore, the revised plan was processed manually in violation of the mandatory online procedure prescribed by the circular dated 12.09.2022. The land offered in exchange for the OSR is of significantly lower value and is located in a Panchayat area, unlike the prime Corporation land at Vilangudi. No proper government authorization or land reclassification was obtained for the exchange.
6.5. The revised plan was granted in blatant disregard of judicial directions and statutory town planning norms. Despite clear orders from the Supreme Court and High Court that the roads and OSR lands must remain encroachment-free and available for public use, the revised plan attempts to legalize encroachments and nullify the prior binding orders.
6.6. The actions of respondents 2 to 4, in facilitating this fraudulent planning permission without verifying compliance with previous orders, revenue records, and land classifications, not only violate planning norms but also constitute a gross abuse of power and a denial of the petitioner’s right to access. The learned counsel asserts that this is a case of collusion and seeks appropriate directions to cancel the impugned planning approval and to enforce the earlier judicial orders. The petitioner prays for the quashing of the revised planning 17/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 permission, the removal of all encroachments on the 40- and 60-feet roads and OSR, and the restoration of access rights in accordance with the original planning approval and court orders.
7.The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.18730 of 2024 are as follows:
7.1.The original layout approval granted in 2007 (Planning Permission No. 40/2007) earmarked certain areas in S.Nos. 115, 116/1, and 116/2 as open space and roads. However, the fifth respondent has encroached upon these reserved areas and constructed shops. To regularize these encroachments, the fifth respondent submitted a revised plan, which has now been approved by the first and fourth respondents, altering the open space and road areas. The revised plan shifts the OSR (Open Space Reservation) to an unrelated land parcel in Paravai Village, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Madurai Corporation.
7.2.The newly earmarked OSR land is under the Paravai Town Panchayat, whereas the original market area and OSR land fall within the Madurai Corporation limits. The land exchange violates planning norms and defeats the very purpose of OSR meant to serve the local population. Approval 18/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 for the revised plan was granted manually, despite a specific circular (Na.Ka.No. 17602/2022/TCP9 dated 12.09.2022) mandating online processing of planning applications to prevent irregularities. Furthermore, the land used for exchange was not authorized under Government norms, nor was the land classification modified.
7.3.The Corporation-owned OSR land is valued at Rs. 700 per sq.ft., amounting to several crores, while the substituted land in Paravai Village is far less valuable, leading to a significant financial loss to the public and indicating an act of misappropriation. Though the Court in W.P(MD)No.26793 of 2023 directed that the original road areas (40 ft and 60 ft) must remain as such and that encroachments must be removed, these directions were flouted. Construction is ongoing in the originally reserved OSR and road areas. The fifth respondent has also constructed buildings in excess of the originally approved area by 2,734.02 sq.mt without any sanction, in clear violation of planning regulations, which remain unaddressed by the authorities. Despite a representation dated 19.06.2024 requesting action to stop construction in OSR and road areas, the respondents failed to take any remedial measures.
7.4. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for quashing the impugned 19/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 revised approvals and to restrain the fifth respondent from continuing construction on land originally earmarked as open space and roads, asserting that the approvals are illegal, arbitrary, and against public interest and binding judicial precedents.
8.The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 are as follows:
8.1.Once land is earmarked for specific public purposes such as Open Space Reservation (OSR), road, or park in an approved layout plan, as was done through the original planning approval dated 26.11.2007, no change can be permitted in the use or classification of such land. The writ petitioner’s association has attempted to construct commercial structures in the OSR without proper approval or building permission, and in clear violation of the original layout plan.
8.2.It was contended that the revenue records have already been mutated in favour of the local body, and any attempt to revise the original layout plan after 17 years is not only illegal but also contrary to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, which does not permit such reclassification or exchange of OSR.
20/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 8.3.The learned Judge failed to consider that the writ petitioner’s association had not donated the roads (40 ft. and 60 ft.) as per the approved plan. Instead, they conveyed a deviated 60 ft. road, thereby misleading the Court and failing to approach it with clean hands. The appellant emphasized that any revised plan is in direct violation of various statutory circulars, including Circular No. 12843/2022/TP2 dated 09.11.2023, and the orders of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which clearly hold that earmarked lands like OSR or roads cannot be altered or utilized for any other purpose.
8.4.Further, the learned Judge erred in entertaining the revised plan application despite prior proceedings in W.P.(MD).No.9047 of 2015, which was withdrawn by the writ petitioner stating no further representation would be made, thereby attracting the principle of res judicata.
8.5.It was also submitted that the revised plan fails to disclose existing constructions on OSR land measuring 2,734.02 sq.mt., and the petitioner lacks required statutory clearances such as the Pollution Control Board consent, especially since the construction area exceeds 2 lakh sq.ft., making it a clear statutory violation. Any consideration of a revised plan without statutory approval for exchange of land vested with the local body is impermissible and the 21/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 direction to consider the same is contrary to law and the same are liable to be set aside.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner would submit that there is no proceedings to take over the roads under the control of the first respondent as well as there is no proceedings about the handing over of the roads as per lay out from the second respondent. The respondents have not taken any steps to comply with the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.1567 of 2014 etc., batch dated 12.12.2018.
10.The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/the District Town and Country Planning, Madurai, are as follows:
10.1.The fifth respondent Association obtained planning permission and layout approval for lands in Survey Nos. 115, 116/1, and 116/2, Vilangudi Village, in 2007. The approved plan earmarked certain areas for roads and Open Space Reservation (OSR). However, the writ petitioner alleged that these designated areas were not properly maintained and had been encroached upon.
Contrary to the petitioner's claim, the full donation of road portions and OSR lands did not occur in 2007. Instead, part of the roads was donated in 2023, and 22/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 the OSR lands, along with associated roads, were donated only in 2024. This delay and the revised timeline were not accurately represented by the writ petitioner.
10.2.Due to disputes over the OSR lands, multiple litigations ensued. In W.P.(MD) No.26793 of 2023, the Court directed the first respondent to consider a revised layout plan and to ensure that there were no encroachments on the donated road portions. Following this, technical clearance was granted on 23.02.2024, planning permission on 04.03.2024, and final approval on 07.03.2024 for construction of additional blocks in the market area. Earlier, partial road areas had been donated via registered deeds in 2008, but no lands were donated to the Madurai Corporation until 07.12.2023, when 11,351.26 square meters were donated. The road widths of 60 feet and 40 feet remained consistent across both old and revised plans. Subdivisions were later introduced in some areas, such as R.S.No.116/IAID and R.S.No.116/2B1B.
10.3.The revised plan features improvements including three link roads and better connectivity to the main Madurai-Dindigul road. While an old bridge near Uttukal is no longer usable, an alternate route exists nearby. As per revised inspections and reports from local authorities, there are no encroachments 23/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 in the OSR and road portions. The Court’s prior directive to verify the status of roads and OSR was complied with, and permissions were granted based on reports confirming no encroachments. A specific order was also issued that any encroachments, if found, should be removed. Notably, the OSR lands were officially donated only in 2024, with 5520.16 square meters and 246 square meters being transferred via Document No.140/2024. The Madurai Corporation confirmed the absence of encroachments in its letter dated 28.12.2023, and field inspections supported that the revised plan aligns with existing site conditions.
11.The submissions of the learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in W.P(MD)No.18730 of 2024 are as follows:
11.1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, approved a revised plan for the construction of a commercial building (Vegetable Market) located in Vilangudi 2nd Bit Village and Paravai 1 Bit Village, Madurai North, through Roc No.18941/2023/TCP dated 23.02.2024. This revised approval, given under the Director's discretionary power, supersedes the earlier approval granted via letter No.22779/2007/PA1 dated 26.11.2007. Based on this revised plan, the Madurai Local Planning Authority passed a resolution on 29.02.2024, and the Assistant Director, LPA Madurai, issued Planning Permission 24/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 No.2537/2023/FP2 on 06.03.2024. Subsequently, Madurai Corporation granted building permission via Roc No.E2/002626/2024 dated 07.03.2024.
11.2.In compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.26739 of 2023 dated 08.12.2023, the 60 feet and 40 feet roads involved in the project were gifted and legally handed over to the Madurai Corporation. The land identified for the Open Space Reservation (OSR) in the revised plan, measuring 5467.70 sqm in R.S.No.174/1A, is currently vacant and has been registered through a gift deed (Doc No.1140/2024 dated 28.02.2024) to Paravai Town Panchayat, as confirmed in the letter from AD/Member Secretary, Madurai, dated 27.02.2024.
11.3.It was clarified that the OSR areas shown in the original plan have been modified in the revised plan, and there are no encroachments on those sites as of now. The petitioner’s allegations of encroachment are thus unfounded.
Furthermore, since the fifth respondent holds no authority over the OSR area at present, the area cannot be considered encroached. The Madurai Corporation has requested the relevant authorities to instruct Paravai Panchayat to transfer the OSR land to them for better administration. The revised plan approval had to be processed offline due to technical limitations of the online portal concerning 25/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 large built-up areas. The earlier plan approval (Roc No.470/07/mathi3 dated 31.12.2007) stands invalid, and all construction henceforth will proceed as per the revised plan approved on 23.02.2024.
12.The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent/the Madurai Central Market Vegetables Perishable Commodities Merchants Co-ordinated Association are as follows:
12.1.The fifth respondent purchased a land extent of 15 acres and 25 cents in 2007 for the construction of a private wholesale market. As part of the original plan approval for this market, a condition was imposed requiring the roads within the market to be handed over to the local body. This condition was litigated up to the Supreme Court, which confirmed the requirement. The fifth respondent subsequently complied by executing registered settlement deeds (Document Nos. 6273/2023 and 6101/2023) transferring the roads to the fourth respondent. This issue is now settled and no longer in dispute.
12.2.In 2024, the fifth respondent applied for approval of a revised market plan. While the original 2007 plan earmarked six separate pieces of land as Open Space Reservation (OSR), the revised plan consolidated the OSR into a 26/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 single location, repurposing the previously designated OSR plots for new construction. Due to delays in processing the revised plan, the fifth respondent filed W.P.(MD) No. 26739 of 2023, seeking a direction to the authorities to consider the revised plan. This petition was allowed on 08.12.2023, and the revised plan was subsequently approved.
12.3.The writ petitions challenge this revised plan, particularly the relocation of the OSR. However, the affidavits in support of the petitions fail to explain how the petitioners are personally affected by the change. The fifth respondent argues that the petitioners lack locus standi and that there is no public interest in the petitions. As a result of an ex parte stay order obtained by the petitioners, construction has been stalled for eight months, allegedly causing financial losses to the fifth respondent.
12.4.On the merits, the petitioners’ arguments mainly concern the internal market roads, an issue already settled. Regarding the OSR, it is asserted that the original OSR was never acted upon, no deeds were executed, and the spaces remained unused. As such, modification of the OSR is permissible under Section 54(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The authorities have thus lawfully approved the revised plan, and the fifth respondent has executed a settlement deed for the new OSR location (Document No. 27/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 1140/2024). Therefore, it is contended that the writ petitions lack merit and should be dismissed.
13. Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Mr.H.Moahmmed Imran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
14. Based on the facts set out in Writ petitions in W.P(MD).No. 16730 of 2024, W.P(MD).No.18730 of 2024 & Writ appeal in W.A(MD).No.2474 of 2024, it is pertinent to note that, it is not the disputed fact that the fifth respondent association purchased 15 acres of land from one Chettiyar family and resolved to purchase entire extent with the intention to relocate its market and resell the remaining 46 acres of land. In order to facilitate such resale and provide access to these plots, the association through its resolution in the year 2005, declared 60 and 40 feet wide roads for public access roads and the sketches were also annexed in the sale deeds which is attested by its president. While this being the case, based on these assurances, petitioner's and approximately 146 others purchased southern lands of Vilangudi VIllage, Madurai Taluk. Planning permissions were also obtained from local authorities in the year 2007 subject to 28/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 the condition that 60 and 40 feet roads and OSR(Open Space Reservation) must be handed over to the local body, Vilangudi Panchayat(now within the corporation limits), but the fifth respondent failed to do so and the said portion of the road remained encroached by the fifth respondent association constructing unauthorised shops and structures in violation of planning approvals.
15. From the facts narrated above, this court is of the view that a revised plan which purports to sanction prior illegal encroachments upon lands specifically earmarked as Open Space Reservation (OSR) and public roads is inherently contrary to the public interest and settled legal principles. Those spaces, which was earmarked for public use as per the records, more specifically vide planning permission No.40/2007 dated 31.12.2007 at Villangudi Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai and based on the undertaking given by the fifth respondent association, the said earmarked portion must be fully restored to their original purpose, free from any unauthorised occupation or construction. No Fait Accompli arising from illegal construction or occupation can be permitted to legitimize a revised plan, as this would amount to profound derogation from the fundamental principles of planned development and public welfare. In view of the same, the areas designated as OSR and public roads as earmarked in 2007 constitute public assets. Any attempt to alter or reclassify these areas would 29/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 contravene established planning norms and also the public trust doctrine arising from the original undertaking. Such actions are legally unsustainable and must be set aside.
16. Therefore, on account of the reasons stated above, the connected writ petition's in W.P(MD).No.16730 of 2024, W.P(MD).No.18730 of 2024 along with writ appeal W.A(MD).No.2474 of 2024 are hereby allowed for the reasons state supra. The respective respondent-authorities herein are directed to ensure removal of encroachments, restore access and prevent further misuse of public land in that area earmarked as OSR and roads as per original planning permission dated 31.12.2007. Consequently the Impugned revised planning permission dated 04.03.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent in W.P(MD).No.16730 of 2024, and the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent along with the planning permission dated 07.03.2024 passed by the fourth respondent in W.P(MD).No.18730 of 2024 are considered inappropriate and illegal and are hereby set aside. Conversely, the third party writ appeal, W.A(MD).No.2774 of 2024 filed against the writ petition in W.P.(MD).NO. 26739 of 2023, is hereby allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the 1st respondent to consider the proposal of the revised planning approval.
30/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
17. In the light of the above discussion, in so far as Cont.P.No.141 of 2020, filed by one Meyappan regarding non compliance with order of W.P(MD). 1567 of 2024 dated 12.12.2018, is concerned, we have no hesitation to hold that contempt is made out. Since the order passed in the writ petition is a direction to 5th respondent-Market Merchants Association to donate the said OSR lands and Road to the local body and remove encroachment in those areas, it is clear that the act of the fifth respondent association's failure to remove encroachments in the earmarked OSR and public access roads amounts to contempt of court.
18. Despite numerous orders from both this Honourable Court and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in SLP.No.5727 of 2020 dated 08.10.2021, against this respondent Association, directing removal of encroachments and the donation of earmarked OSR lands and roads to local body, the same has not been complied with. Although gift deeds were executed vide Document nos. 6273 of 2023 and 6101 of 2023, the 5 th respondent still continues to encroach upon the earmarked place.
19. Therefore, this court directs the respondents to remove those unauthorised constructions put up by the fifth respondent association within the 31/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024, W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020 period of four weeks.
20. Post the matter "for reporting compliance", on 10.09.2025.
[J.N.B.,J.] [S.S.Y.J.,]
13.08.2025
ps/nvsri
32/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024,
W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024 & Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
ps/nvsri
Pre-Delivery Judgment Made in
W.P(MD)Nos.16730 & 18730 of 2024,
W.A(MD)No.2474 of 2024
& Cont.P(MD)No.141 of 2020
13.08.2025
33/33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 05:07:26 pm )