Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :31.07.2013 C O R A M : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.3313 of 2012 S.Selvakumar .Petitioner versus 1.The Director, Govt.
Country Planning, Chennai-2.
2.The Deputy Director, Govt.
Country Planning Dept., Coimbatore-8.
3.The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi.Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st respondent, dated 6.6.2011, in Na.Ka.No.11623/ 2011 LA2, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to cancel the technical approval in respect of the layout in H Block No.4, T.S.No.13/2, measuring 1.10 acres situated at Kotampatty, Pollachi, Kovai District.
----- For petitioner : Mr.M.Naraayanaswamy For respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran, AGP for R1 & R2 Mr.P.Karthikeyan, G.A.for R.3.
------ ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 6.6.2011.
The petitioner has also prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent, to cancel the technical approval granted, in respect of the property, in T.S.No.13/2, Kotampatty Village, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
2.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents are compelling the petitioner to gift the lands belonging to him, when he had clearly stated that he does not want to proceed with the formation of the layout, as proposed by him, earlier.
It has also been stated that the petitioner is using the land in question, for agricultural purposes.
Hence, the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to part with the land in question, as it would interfere with his right to enjoy the land, which belongs to him.
3.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had prayed for approval of the layout in the land in question.
After having obtained the permission for the formation of the layout, the petitioner has prayed for the cancellation of the technical approval granted by the authorities concerned, without having sufficient reasons to do so.
Even otherwise, the 1st respondent had not rejected the request of the petitioner, in toto, by his proceedings, dated 6.6.2011.
The 1st respondent has stated that the request of the petitioner would be considered, after getting the necessary instructions from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning.
As such, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person, at this stage.
4.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had prayed for the grant of layout approval in the land said to be belonging to him, in T.S.No.13/2, Kotampatty Village, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
Based on the request of the petitioner, the authorities concerned had granted the necessary technical approval.
However, the petitioner had made a request for the cancellation of the technical approval granted by the authorities concerned.
The 1st respondent, by his impugned proceedings, dated 6.6.2011, had stated that the request of the petitioner could be considered only after obtaining the necessary instructions from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, since, the Detailed Development Plan Scheme, for the formation of the road, had been proposed across the petitioner's land.
Therefore, considering the interest of the public, appropriate orders would be passed only after getting the required information from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning.
5.
In these circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be said to an aggrieved party, at this stage.
It is for the petitioner to establish his right, in respect of the property in question, before the appropriate Civil Court, in the manner known to law, if he could establish that the authorities concerned are compelling him to gift the land in question.
Having obtained the layout approval, it may not be open to the petitioner to seek cancellation of the technical approval granted, in respect of the land in question, at this stage.
However, it would be open to the petitioner to move the appropriate forum, or authority, to establish his rights, in the manner known to law.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the relief prayed for, by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
gs.
31st July, 2013.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No.M.JAICHANDREN, J.
To 1.The Director, Govt.
Country Planning, Chennai-2.
2.The Deputy Director, Govt.
Country Planning Dept., Coimbatore-8.
3.The Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi.
WP No.3313 of 2012 31.7.2013