Madras High Court
K.P.Arumugam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 August, 2022
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.30331 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 19.07.2022
Pronounced On 03.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.30331 of 2018
K.P.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
807, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
3.The Member Secretary /
Assistant Director,
Kurichi New Town Development Scheme,
Corporation Complex 2nd Floor,
Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore - 641 018. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.4713/2018/LA2, dated
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 24
W.P.No.30331 of 2018
16.10.2018 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and
consequently direct the first and second respondents to re-consider my
applications dated 05.03.2018, 29.05.2018, 11.06.2018 and 22.06.2018
made for removal of B1-B1 Scheme Road, on basis of the Field
Inspection Report dated 25.04.2018 submitted by the third respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Tamilnidhi,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to:-
i. call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.4713/2018/LA2, ii. quash the same, and iii. consequently direct the first and second respondents to re-consider the petitioner's applications dated 05.03.2018, 29.05.2018, 11.06.2018 and 22.06.2018 made for removal of B1-B1 Scheme Road, on the basis of the Field Inspection Report dated 25.04.2018 submitted by the third respondent.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 2 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018
2. The petitioner had formed an un-approved lay out way back in the year 2011. During the interregnum, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court in the case of M.Ramakrishnan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary, 2016 (8) MLJ 257 : 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 23269 had directed the respondents Government not to allow any development in any un-approved lay out in the State.
3. Pursuant to the above directions in M.Ramakrishnan case referred to supra, vide G.O.(MS).No.78, Home and Urban Development (UD4) Department dated 04.05.2017, “The Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017” was framed. Rule 4(5) of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017, contains certain restriction for regularization of unapproved plots and layouts. Rule 4(5) of the Rules reads as under:-
4. Restrictions for regularization of unapproved plots and layouts. – (5) No plot or layout in part or whole, lying in the lands affected by the alignments of proposed road or rail corridors and street alignments specified in the development plans shall be regularised. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 3 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018
4. The petitioner thus approached the third respondent for regularizing the un-approved plots in S.F.Nos.305/2A to 2I, 306/1A to 1G, 306/2A to 2G, 307/2A to 2G, 316/1A (Pt), 316/2B to 2E, measuring an extent of 21.38 Acres. The third respondent vide order dated 08.02.2018 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1177/2017/KNTDA granted an approval for all the plots except for 26 plots in S.F.Nos.204, 203, 32B, 62, 192, 88A, 88, 87, 190, 89, 188, 187, 185, 120, 197, 219, 155, 220, 156, 221, 157, 222, 217, 223, 218 & 224, which were covered by a Scheme Road under G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department dated 14.03.1995.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.02.2018 of the third respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent under Section 76 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and Rules made there under on 05.03.2018.
6. While considering the appeal of the petitioner under Section 76 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 4 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent. The third respondent, in turn, has given a detailed report dated 25.04.2018, wherein, it has been opined that the Scheme Road may no longer feasible / viable in view of the heavy development and that a portion of land through which the scheme road was to pass through had already been gifted to the local authority for construction of over head tank and that the transmission lines are criss-crossing the land.
7. The report further states that a recommendation has already been sent by the second respondent to the Government on 13.06.2014 for scrapping the B1-B1 scheme road in G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department dated 14.03.1995.
8. Since there was no response from the second respondent, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.17863 of 2018. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2018 with the following directions:-
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 5 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 “7. Taking note of the facts of the case and the submissions of the learned counsels on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the case directs the second respondent to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 05.03.2018, 29.05.2018, 11.06.2018 and 22.06.2018 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, on the basis of the report submitted by the third respondent on 25.04.2018, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.”
9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 20.07.2018 of this Court in W.P.No.17863 of 2018, the second respondent has now passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2018 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.4713/2018/LA2 and has rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of approval for the portion where the Scheme Road was to be implemented in terms of G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department dated 14.03.1995. In the impugned order, a reference is made to G.O.(Ms).No.172, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 13.07.2006.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 6 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 32(2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder.
11. It is submitted that in the teeth of the report of the third respondent dated 25.04.2018, the impugned order rejecting approval for 26 plots stating that the scheme road as per G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department, 14.03.1995 was still in force cannot be countenanced.
12. It is submitted that the second respondent is bound by Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, as per which after ten years there has to be a revision of the approved plan. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is therefore liable to be quashed with a consequential direction in favour of the petitioner for approving 26 plots which were not approved earlier by order dated 08.02.2018 of the third respondent.
13. Opposing the prayer, the learned Additional Government ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 7 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 Pleader for the respondents submits that the impugned order of the second respondent passed under Section 76 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is well reasoned and requires no interference.
14. The writ petition is objected by the learned counsel for the respondents primarily on the ground that an alternative remedy exists before the first respondent under Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and therefore, the petitioner should be directed to work out the alternative remedy before the Government.
15. It is further submitted that G.O.(Ms).No.41 Housing and Urban Development [UD4(2)] Department dated 26.02.2014 has been issued, wherein, the Government of Tamil Nadu has expressed its intention to add certain villages in Non Plan area and villages covered under the Kurichi New Town Development area were to be included in the Coimbatore local planning area under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Therefore, the second respondent has taken a categorical stand that the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 8 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 request of the petitioner cannot be acceded.
16. That apart, it is submitted that as per G.O.(Ms).No.78 of the Housing and Urban Development Department dated 04.05.2017, it is clear that “No Plot or Layout in part of the whole, lying in the Lands affected by the alignments of proposed road or rail corridors and street alignments specified in the development plans shall be regularized.” Thus, the layout sites falling over the 80 Feet B1-B1 Scheme Road cannot be regularized.
17. That apart, it is submitted that the third respondent has not at any point of time recommended for deletion of the 80 feet B1-B1 Scheme Road. It is submitted that a report was called for and sent to the second respondent by the third respondent and there is no recommendation made for deleting the 80 feet B1-B1 Scheme Road.
18. It is submitted that any variation or revocation in the Detailed Development Plan can be effected only under Section 32(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and that the said procedure has not been ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 9 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 followed. Indeed the petitioner, has short circuited the entire procedure under the aforesaid Act and has approached the second respondent for revision and regularization. It is therefore submitted that there is no merits in the present writ petition.
19. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision is only an option under the Section 80 Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and therefore the petitioner cannot be forced to approach either the Director or the Government. It is further submitted that under the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the land is deemed to have been released in favour of the owner where there is no acquisition of land. It is submitted that the plan was prepared as early as 1995. However, it has not been impleaded. Since there is no acquisition, no useful purpose will be served by not giving permission or approval to the petitioner for the portion of the lands which was excluded from the approval dated 08.02.2018.
20. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 10 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondents.
21. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 16.10.2018 of the second respondent reads as follows:
ghh;it 7y; fhz; murhizapd;go Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rp jpl;lj;jpw;F murhy; kWMa;t[ ,zf;fk; mspf;fg;gl;oUe;jhYk;. jpl;lj;jpw;F kWMa;t[ xg;g[jy; tH';fg;gLk; tiu ghh;it 6y; fhz; murhizapd; Kyk; m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rpj; jpl;lk; ehsJ njjpapy; eilKiwapy; cs;sjhy; kDjhuhpd; nky;KiwaPL nfhupf;ifia epuhfupg;gJld;. m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rpf; FGk jpl;l cj;njr rhiyapy; mika[k; mDkjpaw;w kidfSf;F cjtp ,af;Feh;-cWg;gpdh; brayh;. Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rpf; FGkk; mth;fspd; fojk; ehs;/ 24/09/2018 kw;Wk; 11/10/2018 ghpe;Jiu kw;Wk; murhiz vz;/79.
tPlL
; trjp kw;Wk; efh;g[w tsh;r;rpj; Jiw.
ehs;/04/05/2017d; tpjp vz;/4(5)d;goa[k;
tud;Kiwg;gLj;j ,ayhJ vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”
22. Relevant portion of the report of the third respondent dated 25.04.2018 are reproduced below:
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 11 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 tud;Kiwg;gLj;jg;glhj kidfs;
I. B1-B1 KGikj;jpl;l 204, 203, 32B, 62, 192,
rhiyapy; mika[k; 88A, 88, 87, 190, 89,
188, 187, 185, 120, 197,
kidfs; 219, 155, 220,156, 221,
157, 222, 217, 223, 218,
224.
2. OSR Mf 163, 164, 195, 198, 199,
khw;wpaikf;fg;gl;l 196,207, 211, 212.
kidfs;
II. kDjhuuhy; Vw;fdnt. tud;Kiw xg;g[jy; tH';fg;gLk; Kd;dnu. Jhdkhf cs;shl;rpf;F gj;jpu vz;/3445-2011d; Kyk; bgUk;ghyhd kidg;gphpt[ rhiyfs; kw;Wk; OSR jhdkhf xg;gilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go jhdgj;jpu efy; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ III. B1B1 80'00" mo mfy cj;njr KGikj;jpl;l rhiy epiyapy; mike;Js;s kDjhuupd; mDkjpaw;w kidg;gphptpd; Cnl f/r/vz;fs;/308, 309/1F. kw;Wk; 310 gFjpapy; mika[k; tifapy; cj;njrpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go cj;njrpf;fg;gl;l ,lj;jpy; jw;nghJ epiyapy; mDkjpaw;w kidg;gphpt[fs;. Xg;g[jy; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;s kidg;gphpt[ LP/R (CPN) No.397/1986-y; mika[k; kidfs; kw;Wk; bjhHpw;rhiy fl;olk; Mfpad tsh;r;rp mile;J fhzg;gLfpwJ/ nkYk; kDjhuhpd; mDkjpaw;w kidg;gphptpy;
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 12 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 mike;Js;s cah; mGj;j kpd; fk;gp nfhg[u ghijf;fhf 70 mo mfy rhiy kw;Wk; 65 mo mfy rhiy cj;njrpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go 70 mo mfy rhiy cs;shl;rpf;F jhdkhf xg;gilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ epiyapy; cs;s nky;epiy FoePh; bjhl;o kw;Wk; ,lk; cs;shl;rpf;F xg;gilg;g[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. nkw;go cs;shl;rpf;F xg;gilg;g[ bra;ag;gl;l ,lj;jpy; KGikj;jpl;l rhiy gFjp mike;Js;sJ/ IV kW Ma;t[ ,zf;fk; mspf;fg;gl;l Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rp FGk gFjp KGikj;jpl;lj;jpy; B1B1 80 mo mfy KGikj;jpl; rhiy cj;njrpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ //////////////////////// efh; Cuikg;g[ Mizah; brd;id mth;fs; fojk; e/f/vz;/ 35194/2014/ Kjp-2 ehs;/ 24.05.2016 -d ;go Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rp FGkk;. bghs;shr;rp jdpj;j cs;Sh; jpll; FGkk;. nkl;Lg;ghisak; jdpj;j cs;Sh; jpll; FGkk; kw;Wk; rpy ngUuhl;rp. Cuhl;rp gFjpfis ,izj;J nfhit cs;Sh; jpl;l FGkk; kw;Wk; rpy ngUuhl;rp. Cuhl;rp gFjpfis ,izj;J nfhit cs;Sh; jpl;l FGkk; gFjp tphpthf;fj;jpy; nrh;f;fg;gl;L murhiz btspaplg;gl;L. Kgikj;jpl;lj;jpw;fhd tiuglk; jahhpf;Fk; gzp nfhit cs;Sh; jpl;l FGkk; mYtyfj;jpy; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;L tUfpwJ/ ,e;epiyapy; Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rp FGk kWMa;t[ xg;g[jy; bra;a ntz;oa mtrpak; vHtpy;iy/ vdnt Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rp FGk kWMa;t[ xg;g[jy; tH';Fk; KGikj;jpl;lk; iftplg;glyhk; vd ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 13 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 bjhptpj;J muRf;F 13.06.2014 ehspl;l fojk; mDg;gg;lL; . murplkpUe;J cj;jut[ vjph; nehf;fg;gLfpwJ vd efh; Cuikg;g[ Mizah;
brd;id mth;fs; fojk;
e/f/vz;/35194/2014-Kjp/-2 ehs; 24.05.2016y;
bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
////////////////////////
m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l Fwpr;rp g[Jefh; tsh;r;rp FGkk; KGikj;jpl;lj;jpy; mika[k; B1B1 80'0” mo mfy rhiy murhy; ,zf;fk; mspf;fg;gl;l kW Ma;t[ KGikj;jpl;lj;jpy; ,lk; bgwtpy;iy/
23. A reading of the above report dated 25.04.2018 indicates that there is no recommendation of the third respondent to the second respondent to scrap the scheme. It merely gives a report that there were several obstructions for implementing the 80 feet B1-B1 Scheme Road as was originally envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department dated 14.03.1995.
24. Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 provides for “variation”, “revocation” and “modification” of “Regional Plan (RP)”, “Master Plan (MP)” and “New Town Development Plan (NTDP)”. Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Town and ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 14 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 Country Planning Act, 1971 reads as under:
“32. Variation, revocation and modification of regional plans, master plans and new town development plan-
(1) A regional plan, master plan or new town development plan approved under Section 28 may, at any time, be varied or revoked by a subsequent regional plan, master plan or new town development plan, as the case may be, prepared and approved under this Act.
(2) (a) Once in every ten years after the date on which the regional plan for an area comes into operation, the regional planning authority may, and if so directed by the Government shall, after carrying out such fresh surveys as may be considered necessary and in consultation with the Director, review the regional plan and make such modifications in such plan wherever necessary and submit the modified regional plan for the approval of the Government.
(b) Once in every five years after the date on which the master plan for an area comes into operation, the local planning authority may, and if so directed by the Government shall, after carrying out such fresh surveys as may be considered necessary and in consultation with the regional planning authority and the local authorities concerned, review the master plan and make such modifications in such plan wherever necessary and submit the modified master plan for the approval of the Government.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 15 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 (3) The provisions of Sections, 26, 28 and 30 with such modifications as may be necessary shall apply to such modified regional plan or the master plan, as the case may be.
(4) The Government may, at any time by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, vary or revoke the regional plan, a master plan or a new town development plan, as the case may be, prepared and approved under this Act.”
25. A Regional Plan (RP), Master Plan (MP) and New Town Development Plan (NTDP) are approved under Section 28 of the Act. Such Plan may, at any time, be varied or revoked by a subsequent Regional Plan (RP), Master Plan (MP) and New Town Development Plan (NTDP) prepared and approved under the Act, as the case may be.
26. Apart from the above, as per Sub-Section 2(a) to Section 32 of the Act, once in every ten years after the Regional Plan (RP) for an area comes into operation, the Regional Planning Authority may, and if so directed by the Government shall, after carrying out such fresh surveys as may be considered necessary and in consultation with the Director, review the Regional Plan (RP) and make such modifications in such plan ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 16 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 wherever necessary and submit the modified Regional Plan (RP) for the approval of the Government.
27. As per Sub-Section 2(b) to Section 32 of the Act, once in every five years after the the Master Plan (MP) for an area comes into operation, the Local Planning Authority may, and if so directed by the Government shall, after carrying out such fresh surveys as may be considered necessary and in consultation with the Regional Planning Authority and the Local Authorities concerned, review the Master Plan (MP) and make such modifications in such plan wherever necessary and submit the modified Master Plan (MP) for the approval of the Government.
28. In other words, it is made clear that after carrying out the fresh surveys, the Regional Plan (RP) can be reviewed or modified once in every ten years after it comes into operation, whereas, the Master Plan (MP) is to be reviewed or modified once in every five years after it comes into operation and thereafter is submitted for the approval of the Government.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 17 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018
29. Sub-Section 3 to Section 32 of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of Sections 26, 28 and 30 of the Act with such modifications as may be necessary shall apply to such modified Regional Plan (RP) or the Master Plan (MP), as the case may be.
30. Sub-Section 4 to Section 32 of the Act further contemplates that the Government may, at any time, by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, vary or revoke the Regional Plan (RP) a Master Plan (MP) or a New Town Development Plan (NTDP) prepared and approved under the Act, as the case may be.
31. The facts on record indicates that by G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department, dated 14.03.1995, the New Town Development Plan (NTDP) for the Kurichi New Town Development Area was approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The said approval under Section 28 of the Act vide the aforesaid G.O. was published by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the exercise of ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 18 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 the power conferred by Section 30(1) of the Act.
32. By G.O.Ms.No.172, Housing and Urban Development (UD4-2) Department, dated 13.07.2006, a revision was sought to be made to the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department, dated 14.03.1995. The exercise was for reversing the earlier G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department, dated 14.03.1995, on account of Section 32(2)(b) of the Act. The paragraph 2 of the G.O.Ms.No.172, Housing and Urban Development (UD4-2) Department, dated 13.07.2006 indicates that the Government has accorded its consent to the draft modified New Town Development Plan for the Kurichin New Town Development area. The paragraph 2 reads as under:-
2. In view of the above and by virtue of the provisions under clause (b) of the sub-section (2) of section 32 of the said Act, the Kurichi new town development authority has reviewed the existing approved plan for that planning area on its own accord and prepared a draft modified new town development plan for the Kurichi new town development area. The Director of Town and Country Planning in his letter second read above has ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 19 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 requested the Government to accord consent to the draft modified new town development plan of Kurichi new town development area.
33. The draft modified New Town Development Plan (NTDP) for Kurichi New Town Development Area as consented by the Government under Section 24(2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 was returned to the Director of Town and Country Planning. The Director of Town and Country Planning was requested to ensure that the various requirements specified in the said Act and in the New Town Development Plan (preparation, publication and sanction) Rules are strictly adhered to by the Kurichi New Town Development Authority before the modified New Town Development Plan is resubmitted to the Government for approval under Section 28 of the Act.
34. A reading of the above G.O. indicates that the power was exercised contrary to Section 32(2)(b) of the Act. Notwithstanding the above, under Section 32(1) of the Act, independently, the powers are vested to vary or revoke by a subsequent New Town Development Plan (NTDP).
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 20 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018
35. The fact on record indicates that by G.O.(Ms) No.41, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(2)] Department, dated 26.02.2014, the Government of Tamil after considering the proposal of the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning and in consultation with the Director and the Local Planning Authorities concerned, has granted permission to amalgamate the local planning area of Mettupalayam and Pollachi with Coimbatore local planning area.
36. The Government has declared that all the assets and liabilities of the Mettupalayam and Pollachi local planning authorities and Coimbatore local planning authority shall vest with the Coimbatore local planning authority. The Government has also declared its intention to add certain villages in non-plan area and villages covered under Kurichi New Town Development Area to Coimbatore local planning area under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act.
37. Considering the above, the request of the petitioner for granting approval for the 26 plots which abutt the area earmarked for ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 21 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 Scheme Road in terms of G.O.Ms.No.327, Housing and Urban Development (UD-IV) Department, dated 14.03.1995, cannot be allowed for the present. Therefore, the approval for the 26 plots cannot be sanctioned for the present.
38. Though the petitioner has an alternate remedy against the impugned order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the second respondent under Chapter X of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, I am of the view, to meet the ends of justice, a direction can be issued to the first respondent to take a final decision in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.41, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(2)] Department, dated 26.02.2014 and pass appropriate orders pursuant to the above declarations. Thereafter, the rights of the petitioner can be decided. This exercise shall be carried out by the first respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The request of the petitioner for approval may be re-visited by the second respondent thereafter.
39. This Writ Petition stands disposed with the above observations. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 22 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 No cost.
03.08.2022 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Jen To
1.The Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, The State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
3.The Member Secretary / Assistant Director, Kurichi New Town Development Scheme, Corporation Complex 2nd Floor, Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 23 of 24 W.P.No.30331 of 2018 Jen Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.30331 of 2018 03.08.2022 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 24 of 24