W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.08.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 Katheeja Barveen ... Petitioner Vs. Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Railway Feeder Road, Thirumangalam, Madurai. ... Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the proceedings of the respondent dated 29.11.2023 in Na.Ka.No.1792/thi1/2022 and quash the same as illegal and ultra-vires and consequently direct the respondent to issue demand notice for collection of charges specified under Rule 14(6) of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017 and grant approval within a period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Arun Kumar For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan Government Advocate _____________ Page No. 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 29.11.2023, bearing reference Na.Ka.No.1792/thi1/2022, issued by the respondent Block Development Officer, whereby the petitioner’s application for regularisation of unapproved plots in Plot Nos.6, 8E, 10, 11, and 12, under the provisions of the Regulation of Unapproved Plots and Layout Rules, 2017, framed under Section 113 read with Section 122 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, has been rejected. The operative portion of the impugned communication reads as under: “ghu;itapy; 1-y; fhZk; jq;fsJ fbjj;jpy; kwtd;Fsk; Cuhl;rp kwtd;Fsk; fpuhkk; 108/7A1A1- y; vz;fspy; mike;Js;s 6> 8E> 10> 11> 12 gpshl;LfSf;F mDkjpaw;w FbapUg;G kidapid tud;KiwgLj;j Nfhup kD nra;Js;shu;. mjd; mbg;gilapy; ,t;tYtyf kz;ly Jiz tl;lhu tsu;r;rp mYtyu; kid vz;fis $u;e;jha;T nra;jjpy; mjpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s (ru;Nt vz; 108/10) nghJghijapypUe;J Cuhl;rp rhiyia mDFk; ,lkhdJ jpU.ehfd; vd;gtupd; kidtp Kj;Jkhup vd;gtUf;F nrhe;jkhf tPL mikf;fg;gl;L gad;ghl;by; fle;j 22 Mz;Lfshf tPl;Ltup urPJ mspf;fg;gl;L cupa Mtzq;fSld; trpg;gjhfTk; njuptpj;Js;shu;. vdNt kidg;gpuptpd; thapyhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s nghJ ghijahdJ Vw;Wf;nfhs;s Kbahj epiyapy; cs;sjhf njuptpj;Js;shu;. nghJg;ghij ,y;yhj epiyapy; kidfs; tud;Kiw nra;a ,ayhJ. ghu;it 4y; fhZk; tl;lhl;rpaupd; fbjj;jpy; Cuhl;rp ghij ej;jk; Gy vz; 186/18 y; Mf;fpukpg;G _____________ Page No. 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 nra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhf njuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjd; mbg;gilapy; Nkw;fz;l Mf;fpukpg;gpid nrd;id cau;ePjpkd;wk; tof;F vz;. W.P (MD) No. 10297/2023 kw;Wk; W.P (MD) No. 10297/2023 ehs; : 27.04.2023 d; gbAk; jkpo;ehL Cuhl;rpfs; rl;lk; gpupT 131(2) d; gb Mf;fpukpg;Gfis mfw;w Cuhl;rpkd;w jiytUf;F mjpfhuk; ,y;iy vd njuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gjdhYk; tl;lhl;rpau; mYtyfk; %yk; Mf;fpukpg;gpid mfw;wplTk;> mfw;Wk; Neu;tpy; Cuhl;rp epu;thfk; rhu;gpy; cupa xj;Jiog;G toq;fg;gLk; vd njuptpj;J ghu;it 5 y; fhZk; fbjk; mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ. vdNt kidaplj;jpw;F nry;tjw;fhd nghJg;ghijapd; Mf;fpukpg;gpid tUtha;Jiwapd; %yk; mfw;wpa gpd; kid mq;fPfhuk; toq;fpl Nfhup ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; kD nra;jpl kDjhuUf;F njuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.” 2. It appears that in respect of the land surrounding Plot Nos.6, 8E, 10, 11, and 12, there is an encroachment, as a result of which the pathway within the unapproved layout is not available. Therefore, the petitioner has been advised to remove the encroachment and thereafter approach the respondent for regularisation of the unapproved plots in the said layout. 3. The fact on record indicates that the petitioner appears to have purchased an extent of 70 cents of land on 27.03.1997 from one Mohamed Mustafa. It appears that the petitioner plotted the same without obtaining approval and had sold approximately almost 50% of the said land. The petitioner has retained 33.80 cents of land, which has also been plotted _____________ Page No. 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 without any approval. Therefore, the petitioner approached the respondent for regularisation of the unapproved plots in accordance with the Regulation of Unapproved Plots and Layout Rules, 2017. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the land is located outside the Madurai Metropolitan Area and therefore, the petitioner had approached the Member-Secretary, Madurai Town and Country Planning Authority, for grant of “in-principle approval” of the unapproved plots, namely, Plot Nos.6, 8E, 10, 11, and 12. 5. It is submitted that in-principle approval of the aforesaid unapproved plots was also granted by the Member-Secretary, Madurai Town and Country Planning Authority on 08.07.2019. 6. It is therefore submitted that once such in-principle approval has been granted by the competent authority, as defined under Rule 2(2)(ii)(b) of the Regulation of Unapproved Plots and Layout Rules, 2017, the process of regularisation must follow in terms of Rule 14(6) of the said Rules. _____________ Page No. 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 7. It is submitted that all that is required is the payment of regularisation charges, development charges, and open space reservation charges, as demanded in the notice issued by the Competent Authority, as defined under Rule 2(2)(ii)(b) of the Regulation of Unapproved Plots and Layout Rules, 2017, if the plot is found to be regularisable. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that a report dated 02.11.2022 was sent by the Zonal Deputy Development Officer-I, Thirumangalam, to the respondent Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Thirumangalam. 9. In the said report, with reference to the request for approval of Plot Nos.6, 8E, 10, 11, and 12, it was stated that in the front, the part of the road leading to the plots curves to the right side of Plot No 6, and that a house on the left side has been demolished. It was further stated that the road does not proceed straight but curves in front of Plot No.6. The relevant portion of the aforesaid communication dated 03.10.2024 reads as under: _____________ Page No. 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 NkYk; gpshl;bw;F nry;Yk; ghijapy; Kd;gFjp kl;Lk; gpshl; vz;:6y; tyJ gf;fj;jpy; tisthfTk;> ,lJ gf;fj;jpy; cs;s xU tPL ,bf;fg;gl;L tisthf ghij nry;fpwJ. Nuhl;bd; Kd;gFjp Neuhf nry;yhky; 6ek;gH gpshl;bd; Kd;gFjpay; tisthf nry;fpwJ vd;w tpguj;jpidAk; gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd;. 10. That apart, there is a communication/letter dated 09.09.2024 from one M.Vellaiyatha, who claims to be the grandson of Vellaiyatha Rowthar and the son of said Mahamed Mustafa, addressed to the respondent, stating that, in respect of the property sold to the petitioner by Mohamed Mustafa vide registered Sale Deed dated 27.03.1997, a partition suit was filed in O.S.No.1112 of 1987, which was decreed on 09.02.2001, as per which the legal heirs of Vellaiyatha Rowthar, namely, Mohammed Mustafa, Abdul Ajees, and Sulaiha Beevi, were entitled to 2/5th, 2/5th, and 1/5th share respectively. 11. 11. It has been further stated that the said Abdul Ajees had no issues and has died, and that due to the dispute between the said Mohammed Mustafa and his legal heirs, and Sulaiha Beevi and her legal heirs, O.S. No.156 of 2013 was also filed before the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, which is still pending. It has also been stated _____________ Page No. 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 that, suppressing the above facts, Abdul Kareem’s wife, namely the petitioner herein, based on fabricated documents, i.e., the Sale Deed dated 27.03.1997 is selling the plots in Survey No.108/7. 12. That apart, it is noticed that the petitioner had also filed W.P. (MD) No.26693 of 2023 before this Court to direct the Block Development Officer, respondent herein, the Tahsildar to remove the encroachment by one Rajendran in Panchayat Road comprised in Natham S.No.186/18 in Maravankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. This Court has also directed the second respondent namely Tahsildar to remove the encroachment. 13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 14. Although the petitioner has secured in-principle approval from the competent authority under Rule 6(6) of the aforesaid Rules, it appears that the title to the property, based on the sale deed dated 27.03.1997 in Survey No.108/7, is the subject matter of dispute before the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, in O.S.No.156 of 2013. _____________ Page No. 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 15. The grant of approval to the petitioner to sell the remaining plots in future to third parties would further create third-party rights. Therefore, approval cannot be granted to the petitioner at this stage, despite the in-principle approval already granted by the competent authority under Rule 6(6) of the aforesaid Rules. 16. However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the respondent after establishing that the petitioner has a clear title to the property. Meanwhile, it is open to the petitioner to remove the encroachment said to have been made by one Muthumari, if so advised, independently. 17. In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed with the above liberty. No costs. 08.08.2025 JEN Index : Yes Internet : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes To _____________ Page No. 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Railway Feeder Road, Thirumangalam, Madurai. _____________ Page No. 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 C.SARAVANAN , J. JEN W.P.(MD) No.31107 of 2023 08.08.2025 _____________ Page No. 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis