Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.