WP No. 28524 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA WP No. 28524 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 31253 OF 2026 1. Meena Muthurama Villa 13, Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 2. Kannan Kailasamoni Villa 16, Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 3. Rangasamy H Villa 15, Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 4. Prateek Kumar Villa 55, Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 5. Balajee Padmanabhan Villa 19, Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 6. Sathyanarayanan P Villa 24, Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 7. Abirami nandhagopal Villa 25 Sobha Gardenia, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28524 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 8. Ramji Moni Villa 4, Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 9. Narayanan Ramakrishnan Villa 3 Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner Punitha Thomaiyar Malai Panchayat Union, Chitlapakkam, Chennai-600 064 2. Sobha Gardenia Villa Owners Welfare assosciaiton Rep. by the President, Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Venkgaivasal Chennai-600 126 3. Menakshinathan Krishnan, Villa 69 Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Vengaivasal, Chennai-600 126 4. Ramalakshmi Durairaj, Villa 69 Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Vengaivasal, Chennai-600 126 5. P. Jovin Villa 71 Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Vengaivasal, Chennai-600 126 6. L. Livya Villa 71 Sobha Gardenia, Kanniamman Kovil Street, Vengaivasal, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28524 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 Chennai-600 126 ..Respondent(s) Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners representations dated 11.04.2026 and 14.05.2026 afford a proper opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, examine the legality of the approvals granted under Application Nos.SWP/BPA/0617331/2025 and SWP/BPA/622358/2025. WP No. 28524 of 2026 For Petitioner(s): M/s. Thomas T.Jacob Davidson Devashish-MS/1200/2020 Stella Monoharan Krishna Kaushik P. Kabilan S. Papitha Rc. Sharmitha Rajeev Amruth.M.V.S. For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Surendar, GA for R1 Order (Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) (1) Mr.K.Surendar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. Since no adverse order is passed as against the respondents 2 to 6, notice to the respondents 2 to 6 is dispensed with. (2) By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. (3) Some of the owners of the Villas, being aggrieved by the Planning Permission granted by the Commissioner, St.Thomas Mount Panchayat https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28524 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 Union, are before us, seeking mandamus in the form of a direction to the 1st respondent to consider their representations dated 11.04.2026 and 14.05.2026 respectively, questioning the Planning Permission granted for putting up construction in the land allegedly sold to them as UDS. (4) The communication of the Commissioner, St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union, dated 05.06.2026, is brought to our notice by the learned Government Advocate. The representations of the writ petitioners have been considered and responded by the Commissioner in the following words:- ‘’In the reference we have granted approval based on the provisions of TNCDBR 2019, for the EWS plot and the ownership of the Patta standing in the applicant’s name. During scrutiny, out verification was limited solely to the ownership of the plot. The applicant remains fully responsible for the validity and execution of any agreement related to the property...’’ (5) The above communication of the 1st respondent, is self explanatory. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner, the ownership of the plot in terms of the Agreement, through which they claim ownership, it is open to them to agitate their title dispute before the appropriate Civil Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28524 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 (6) Since the writ petition is not maintainable to adjudicate the title dispute / terms of the Agreement, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.J.,J.) (N.M.,J.) 23-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AP To The Commissioner Punitha Thomaiyar Malai Panchayat Union, Chitlapakkam, Chennai-600 064 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 28524 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. AND N.MALA J. AP WP No. 28524 of 2026 23-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis