Madras High Court
C.Bakkiam vs The Deputy Director on 25 April, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M. Dhandapani
W.P.No.7113 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.7113 of 2020
C.Bakkiam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Officer,
Directorate of Town Planning Office,
Coimbatore.
2.The Commissioner,
Pollachi Municipality,
Pollachi-642 001 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to
consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2019 and to return
back regularization amount of Rs.57,600/- to her.
For Petitioner : Ms.Jepamary
for M/s.S.Nagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Additional Government Pleader [R1]
M/s.A.S.Thambuswamy [R2]
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7113 of 2020
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2019 and to return back regularization amount of Rs.57,600/- to him.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner's son puruchased a plot No.5, situated at T.S.No.76/1, Block No.5, Town Survey Ward No.4, Subbaiya Gounder Layout, Pollachi Town, Coimabtore District measuring about 2000 sq.ft. on 08.02.2006. The said layout was approved by the Deputy Director of Town Planning officer vide proceedings dated 09.01.1963. While so, on 13.12.2007, petitioner's son settled the property in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the second respondent published a news in the year 2017 stating that they are regularizing the unapproved plot if the individual pays the regularization fees and the petitioner was at the impression that her plot was unapproved layout and in order to regularize her plot, the petitioner made the payment to the respondents to the tune of Rs.57,600/-. Thereafter, the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7113 of 2020 second respondent regularized her unapproved plot vide order dated 13.07.2018. However, the petitioner came to know through an order dated 22.10.2018, that her plot in the said layout was already approved by the respondents. In the approved layout, the petitioner made application for regularization mistakenly and hence, the petitioner made representation 12.12.2019 seeking refund the regularization fees, which was paid by the petitioner on the ground of unapproved plot. However, the said representation has not been considered till date. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the entire layout has been approved by the DTCP Commissioner of Town Planning Chennai, there is no need for regularizing the petitioner's plot by paying the regularization fees. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to seek refund of the said amount.
4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the second respondent has followed the directions issued by the first respondent. He also submits that, since the petitioner's plot is situated in 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7113 of 2020 an unapproved layout, the second respondent has directed the petitioner to remit the necessary fees for regularization of plot. The application filed by the adjacent plot owner was returned, since the said layout was only technically sanctioned at that time. Hence, the amount paid by the petitioner for regularization of her plot could not be returned.
5. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on records.
6. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid the regularization fees on the ground that the petitioner's land is in unapproved layout and subsequently, she came to know that the layout was approved. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that the said layout was approved, however, only produced a letter dated 22.10.2018, in which, only technical layout approval was granted in T.S.No.76/6 to an extent of 4.15 acres, whereas the petitioner claims that she purchased property in Subbaiya Gounder Layout in T.S.No.76/1. Hence, the prayer sought by the petitioner is 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7113 of 2020 misconceived and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. This writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. No Costs.
25.04.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
sp
To
1.The Deputy Director,
Town Planning Officer,
Directorate of Town Planning Office,
Coimbatore.
2.The Commissioner,
Pollachi Municipality,
Pollachi-642 001
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7113 of 2020
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
sp
W.P.No.7113 of 2020
25.04.2023
6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis