Madras High Court
K.Noor Mohamed vs The Director Of Town And Country ... on 27 June, 2023
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.17714 of 2021
K.Noor Mohamed ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
2nd 3rd and 4th floor, C&E Market Road,
Koyembedu,
Chennai-600 107.
2.The District Collector,
Collector Office,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning Authority,
2nd Street, Ganapathy Nagar,
M.C Road,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Ayyempettai Town Panchayat,
Thanjavur District.
5.Muhammadhupaisal
6.G.D.Badhurudheen Ahmed ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/22
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to Na.Ka.2752/2020 TM/2 dated
12.11.2021 granting technical approval vide
Ko.O.Ma.Va/Na.Vuu.Yv.E(Tha.Maa) No.37/2021 to regularize the unapproval
layout called “IBN BATTUTA CITY” formed by the respondents 5 and 6 in
Survey Nos.356/8,9A, 359/1B2pt,3B2, 360/3pt, 361/1pt,2pt, 362/1,2, 363/2B,
365/1, 370/1, 3A,3B,4,5pt, 372/1,2,3, 375/1,2, 376/1A,1B,2,2,4A,4B,5A,5B,
5C, 376/6, 380/2A,2B situated in the revenue village Soolamangalam-II sethi,
Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District, as the regularization is based on the false
certification made by the 4th respondent vide his communication Na.Ka.No.
812/2019 A2 dated 20.11.2019 quash the same and to direct the 2 nd respondent
to restore all the water bodies including the KanniVaikkals (distributary
Channels) running through the above layout.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R5&R6 : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
for Mr.K.Balu
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified
mandamus seeking records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.2752/2020 TM/2
dated 12.11.2021 by which proceeding technical approval was granted vide
Ko.O.Ma.Va/Na.Vuu.Yv.E(Tha.Maa) No.37/2021 and regularization was
granted for what is termed as unapproved layout called “IBN BATTUTA CITY”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
formed by the fifth and sixth respondents in Survey Nos.356/8,9A, 359/1B2pt,
3B2, 360/3pt, 361/1pt,2pt, 362/1,2, 363/2B, 365/1, 370/1, 3A,3B,4,5pt,
372/1,2,3, 375/1,2, 376/1A,1B,2,2,4A,4B,5A,5B,5C, 376/6, 380/2A,2B,
situated in the revenue village of Soolamangalam-II Sethi, Papanasam Taluk,
Thanjavur District. It is claimed that such regularization was obtained on the
basis of a false certification made by the fourth respondent, by his
communication Na.Ka.No.812/2019 A2, dated 20.11.2019. A Consequent
direction is sought against the second respondent to restore all the water bodies,
including KanniVaikkals (distributary Channels) running through the above
layout.
2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner,
Noor Mohamed, S/o.Kamal Batcha, had stated that he had earlier filed W.P.No.
14737 of 2020 seeking a mandamus against the respondents 1 to 7 in that writ
petition to consider a representation dated 01.10.2020 by which he sought
restroation of Serumaakkanallur Water Channel and distributaries canal
(SR.No.363/1) and to restrain the fifth and sixth respondents in the present writ
petition from converting agricultural lands into layout based on G.O.Ms.No.79,
dated 04.05.2017. It had been stated that there were two other writ petitions
filed questioning the same layout and a Government Order was passed on
27.07.2021. It had been stated that the Court in thise writ petition was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
inclined to pass any order regarding the lands except for the lands in S.Nos.
363/1, 2a, 3, 4 & 5. A direction was issued that the first and second respondents
should inspect the property in the layout and take necessary action. It had been
stated that the approval granted for the lands in S.Nos.363/2A,3,4 & 5 were
cancelled consequent to the findings that they were water channels.
3.It had been further stated in the affidavit that the first respondent, the
Director of Town and Country Planning at Koyembedu in Chennai, had
inspected the layout formed by the fifth and sixth respondents and had
forwarded a communication dated 27.09.2021 to the second and third
respondents. It had been further stated that the first respondent had pointed that
the land gained access through 5F number 359/2pt, which was a water channel,
which had been filled up with mud materials and had been encroached. He had
directed the third respondent to delete S.F.Nos.360/4, 363/5, 363/2A, 363/3,
363/4 and 363/5 in Soolamangalam-II Sethi revenue village and to maintain
S.F.Nos.359/2 and 363/1 as water channels and thereafter to issue a revised
layout approval after obtaining application from the applicants therein. A
further direction was given to the second respondent to clear the encroachments
in the lands in S.No.359/2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
4.It must be kept in mind that in the relief sought in this writ petition the
lands in aforementioned survey numbers which have been categorized as water
channel do not find place. The layout as it stands is with respect to other lands,
which had been cleared by the first respondent and for which, a revised layout
approval had been given.
5.The writ petitioner further stated that though directions were given by
this Court on 27.07.2021 to clear the encroachments in the water channels, it
had not been done and the petitioner herein and the fifth and sixth respondents
herein had encroached into the water channels. This appears to be the main
grievance of the writ petitioner herein.
6.It had also been stated that the applications given by the fifth and sixth
respondents for approval of their layout had been processed by the first to third
respondents 1 to 3 on the basis of a certificate given by the fourth respondent.
This certificate given by the fourth respondent had been very seriously assailed
in the course of the arguments advanced in the writ petition. The fourth
respondent in his certificate had stated that the fifth and sixth respondents had
formed a layout in S.F.Nos.353/9, 356/7,8,9A; 359/1B2pt, 3B2; 360/3pt,4;
361/1pt,2pt; 362/1,2; 363/2A,2B,3,4,5; 365/1; 370/1,3A,3B,4,5pt; 372/1,2,3;
375/1,2; 376/1A, 1B,2,3,4A,4B,5A,5C,6; 380/1, 2A and 2B totally measuring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
27.17 acres and had formed about 633 house sites prior to 20.10.2016 and had
sold 68 house-sites.
7.According to the petitioner, this particular certificate did not convey the
true information and it was a certificate issued with the knowledge that the
statements made therein were false. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner
that prior to 2019, the fifth and sixth respondents did not own any property in
Sollamangalam Village and consequently the assertion that they had sold 68
house sites prior to 2016 is a false statement.
8.It had also been stated that Musthoora Banu had formed a layout called
K.S.K Nagar and had sold 68 house sites in the above layout and another
individual Abdhul Kasim had formed yet another lay out called Annai Fathima
Nagar and had also sold out plots. It had been stated that the fifth and sixth
respondents however, who had purchased the property through a power of
attorney in December 2019, had formed an unapproved layout called “IBM
BATTUTA CITY”. It is claimed that the fifth and sixth respondents had fallen
back on the layouts formed by Masthoora Banu and claimed that they had
formed a layout prior to 20.06.2016 and had sold 68 house-sites. The petitioner
has also claimed that he had produced encumbrance certificate in respect of the
sales.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
9.This in effect is the crux of the writ petition. He claimed that the fifth
and sixth respondents did not own plots prior to 2019 but still the fourth
respondent had issued a certificate that 68 house-sites or plots were sold prior
to 20.06.2016. This date assumes importance owing to G.O.Ms.No.79, dated
04.05.2017 which provided formation of layouts by converting agricultural
lands for such purpose and a cut off date was given and the said cut off date
was 20.06.2016. It is under those circumstances, the writ petition had been
filed.
10.Incidentally, though it had not been stated in the affidavit and
sufficient reasons had not been disclosed subsequently, it also transpires that
the writ petitioner herein had an indirect interest in the lands in two of the
survey numbers, namely in S.Nos.370/3B and 372/3. He claimed that those
lands had been given by way of an oral Hiba and that he was a beneficiary and
therefore, was also directly interested since his lands in the aforementioned two
survey numbers were also included in the lay out plan submitted by the fifth
and sixth respondents. It must also be stated that the said oral Hiba had not
been proved in manner known to law and still the subject matter of an Original
Suit which is pending. As on date, one aspect which is clear that the writ
petitioner has no direct interest in the lands in which the layout has been
formed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
11.In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, the Executive
Officer, Ayyampettai Town Panchayat, Thanjavur District, whose certificate has
been very seriously assailed by the petitioner herein, it had been stated that the
certificate, dated 20.11.2019 which indicated that 68 plots had been sold in the
subject survey number prior to 20.10.2016, does not contain the names of the
fifth and sixth respondents and it is only the petitioner, who had inferred that it
was the fifth and sixth respondents, who had sold the land prior to 20.10.2016.
It had also been stated that what was stated was that 68 house sites have been
sold prior to 20.10.2016 in the survey numbers mentioned therein.
12.The fourth respondent denied the allegation that the certificate was a
false certificate. The allegation that the fifth and sixth respondents had fallen
back to the layout formed by Masthoora Banu was also denied by the fourth
respondent. It was stated that the petitioner apparently had possession of an
internal communication sent by the fourth respondent to the Government
counsel. It was consistently denied that the allegation that the certificate dated
20.11.2019 was false. It had been further stated that the fifth and sixth
respondents, with a view to regularize the unapproved layout in the survey
numbers mentioned in the writ petition in Soolamangalam 2nd Sethi Village, had
submitted their application by enclosing all the required documents as
stipulated under the Tamil Nadu Regularization of Unapproved Layouts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
Plots Rules, 2017 and as notified in G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 04.05.2017 and the
subsequent G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 13.10.2017. It had been further stated that
the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Thanjavur District, on
being satisfied that the fifth and sixth respondents possessed clear marketable
title over the lands, had granted technical sanction and had forwarded the same
for granting planning permission to the fourth respondent.
13.The conditions which were imposed where that areas should be kept
aside for public purposes like park, connecting roads and such other facilities.
It had been stated that such lands should be surrendered to the local-body. It
had also been stated that a joint inspection was conducted and it was found that
there was no encroachment in the distributory channel passing through S.Nos.
386, 353K/7, 356/6, 358/3 and 359/2. It was also stated that the channel which
was vested with the Public Works Department in S.Nos.363/1 passed through
the land measuring 0.04.0 acres which was classified as Government
poromboke and that the channels passes through the lands in S.Nos.363/2A, 3,
4, 5 and 360/4.
14.It had also been stated that G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 04.05.2017 which
provided for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose
was prospective in nature. It had been stated that the petitioner is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
stranger/third party and has no locus to question the approval granted. It had
been further stated that care had been taken to ensure that approval was not
granted to the lands which contained water channels.
15.The fifth respondent also filed a counter affidavit wherein all the
allegations stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been
denied. It had been stated that the plots had been developed with prior approval
from the respondents. There was no violation of rules or procedures. It had
been stated that the writ petitioner has no locus to maintain the writ petition.
16.An additional affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner enclosing a
copy of the amendment application filed in O.S.No.133 of 2020. It must be
stated that the pendency of this particular suit in O.S.No.133 of 2020 had not
been disclosed at the time when the writ petition was filed. The prayer sought
in the writ petition was that the approval had been granted for formation of
layout on the basis of a false certificate issued by the fourth respondent and also
that the lands for which approval was granted contained water channels.
However, as is always the case, facts can never be suppressed and they always
surface. It had been contended by the respondents that a suit is pending in
O.S.No.133 of 2020. After much deliberation a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.
133 of 2020 had been filed before this Court by way of an additional document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
presented on 23.06.2023. It had not been presented on the date of filing of the
writ petition and at least for a year from that particular date. The reason for not
producing the same is best known to the writ petitioner. A perusal of that plaint
shows that four individuals had filed the suit. The writ petitioner is the third
plaintiff. It had also been filed against the Tahsildar, Papanasam, Sub-Registrar,
Ayyampettai, District Collector, Thanjavur and against three other private
individuals who were shown as the first to third defendants.
17.The relief sought in the said plaint was for a declaration of title of the
scheduled mentioned lands in favour of the plaintiffs and the third defendant,
and that the first and second defendants have no right or title over the said
lands. Consequential reliefs restraining the official defendants from mutating
the patta in the name of the first and second defendant and that encumbrances
should not be registered by the fifth defendant were also sought. Subsequently
by way of an additional document, it had been disclosed that in the said suit
I.A.No.409 of 2022 had been filed to implead as further defendants, the
Director, Town and Country Planning at Chennai, the Assistant Director of
Town and Country Planning Authority, Thanjavur and the Executive Officer,
Ayyampettai, Thanjavur. They are as the first, third and fourth respondents in
the writ petition. However, the reasons or the necessity for impleading them in
the suit had not been disclosed. The only reason that they could be impleaded is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
to questioning the approval granted to the fifth and sixth respondents over the
the lands which were mentioned in the suit in viz., S.Nos. 370/3B, 372/3 to that
extent. In view of the fact that the petitioner had not voluntarily come forward
to disclose the facts, it has to be only inferred that the petitioner is questioning
the grant of approval of atleast those lands in S.Nos.370/3B, 372/3 both in the
suit and in this writ petition. There cannot be two parallel authorities or judicial
authorities examining the same issue.
18.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.Lakshmi Sankar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the first to third respondents and
Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the fifth and sixth
respondents.
19.It had been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
certificate issued by the fourth respondent did not contain the correct details
and more particularly, indicated and projected an impression that plots had been
sold prior to 2016. The inference was that such plots had been sold by the fifth
and sixth respondents. The learned counsel stated that this was a false statement
and the fifth and sixth respondents did not own any lands in the aforementioned
Survey Numbers prior to the year 2019. It had been contended that on the basis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
of such certificate issued by the fourth respondent, the processing of the grant
for approval of the layout, commenced and flowed through the offices of the
first and second respondents and it was therefore, contended that the fifth and
sixth respondents stood benefited by the approval being granted.
20.The learned Additional Advocate General however questioned the
locus of the petitioner herein to maintain the writ petition. It is contended that
he is only an outsider, who is not directly or indirectly connected with the
lands. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the
petitioner should resort to filing a suit to first establish his right and thereafter
establish the fact that approval for the lands covered under the layout had been
obtained by a false certificate. It is therefore contended that filing of the writ
petition is not the proper avenue to address the grievances of the petitioner.
21.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth and sixth
respondents also questioned the locus of the petitioner herein to maintain the
writ petition. The learned counsel stated that the writ petitioner had filed a suit
as one among three other plaintiffs seek declaration on the basis of an oral Hiba
which had not yet been tested by any Court of Law. It is contended that the
petitioner therefore, cannot claim any right title or interest even with respect to
the lands in the two survey numbers mentioned in the said suit. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
counsel therefore stated that the petitioner, not having any right over any of the
lands for which approval was granted, has no locus to question the orders
passed by the respondents. The learned counsel further stated that the petitioner
himself had admitted in his affidavit that the layout had been formed and 68
plots had been sold and yet another layout had been formed and other
individuals have also sold plots. The learned counsel also asserted that the
petitioner should file a suit to establish his right and then question the sale
deeds and then seek to establish that the statement in the certificate issued by
the fourth respondent is a false statement.
22.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and also perused
the materials on record.
23.The petitioner is one among the three individuals who had filed a suit
in O.S.No.133 of 2020 before the Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur. He had
asserted rights over the lands in S.Nos.370/3B and 370/3 Soolamangalam – II
Sethi Revenue Village, but his title has not yet been affirmed by any Court of
Law. He does not have any document to assert such right. He claims right by
way of oral Hiba. Even though it can be stated that oral Hiba conveys title, still
it should also be mentioned that there should be a donor, there should be a
donee and there should be acceptance of the gift. If there is an acceptance of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
gift that the petitioner herein should be in physical possession of the
aforementioned lands.
24.That is not the case in his writ affidavit. He has never mentioned
about the pendency of the suit or about the institution of the suit. He had not
asserted that the approved layout had been formed by including his lands. If at
all there is any bonafide in his assertion then that should be the first statement
made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The fact that the suit
was instituted came out much later after it had been disclosed by the
respondents herein. It is very strange that the petitioner had not disclosed about
the institution of the suit in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It
may be a fraction of land but still they are lands and if he claims any right, title
or interest, he should assert the same in every legal forum.
25.The petitioner cannot claim that merely because the suit is still under
adjudication before the Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur, he need not disclose
the fact that he had actually filed such suit. His title has not been declared. He
is an outsider to the lands mentioned in the writ petition for which approval was
granted. Suppression of this material fact, in this case, is an attempt to fraud on
the Court. Non-disclosure of the suit which had been filed by the petitioner as
one of three other plaintiffs, is a direct attempt to screen a material fact from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
purview of the Court. Anybody who seeks any relief in any Court should
disclose all the material facts and thereafter, should state that such facts may
not be necessary for adjudication of the issue before the Court. But disclosure is
the primary aspect. Non-disclosure gives the right to raise an inference that non
disclosure was to screen a fact, which fact if disclosed would be to the
disadvantage to the petitioner herein.
26.I am not able to comprehend why the suit instituted in the year 2020
was consciously omitted to be even whispered in the affidavit filed in the year
2021. The petitioner who claims that the fourth respondent had issued a
certificate with false details should first establish that he had come to Court
with clean hands. He should first come to the Court by disclosing all necessary
facts. He should not face an allegation of screening of facts from the purview
of the Court.
27.It has also transpired that the first, third and fourth respondents herein
have also been sought to be impleaded in the said suit. They have nothing to do
with the relief as seen from the plaint as originally drafted. In the plaint as
originally drafted a restraint was sought on the Sub-Registrar from registering
any document presented for registration. A restraint was similarly sought
against the Tahsildar from transferring patta for the said lands.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
28.The Director of Town and Country Planning or the Assistant Director
of Town and Country Planing or the Executive Officer of the Panchayat have
no say or role in registering the documents or in grant of patta. If they are to be
impleaded as further defendants in the suit, the only purpose is to question the
approval granted for formation of layout. If that be so, then it is clear that the
same relief is sought atleast to a fraction of the lands both in the suit and in this
writ petition. This is the only reason why there has been suppression of the fact
of filing of the suit and the further suppression of the fact of filing an
application to implead the respondents in the writ petition as defendants in the
suit.
29.Even if it is to be noted that the petitioner is an interested person and
can question the grant of approval, the fourth respondent had filed a counter
affidavit wherein he had stated in very clear terms that in the certificate issued
he had not disclosed the names of the fifth and sixth respondents or disclosed
the survey numbers. It was an inference created by the petitioner herein. The
first and second respondents or the officials who have independently verified
the genuineness of the certificate presented before them had examined the
records. They examined the records on the basis of the entire file and not on the
basis of a certificate issued by the fourth respondent. They had taken a
conscious decision to grant approval for the plots for formation of layout. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
petitioner being a stranger to all the transactions cannot now turn around and
urge this Court to re-examine the entire issue once again. It does not lie on the
mouth of the petitioner to seek such a relief.
30.The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Air 1974 SC 2177, in
K.Ramadas Shenoy-vs-Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and Ors.
The judgment was delivered on 09.08.1974. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had
taken up on itself an examination of the construction of a cinema building in a
residential area. It examined the difficulties to which the residents would be put
to, if they were to suddenly find a cinema hall in the mist of their residences.
Taking into consideration the fact that therefore, the voices of those residents
must be heard, the Supreme Court adjudicated the issue.
31.The facts in this case are distinguishable. The petitioner is a neighbour
or at the most a resident. His right over the lands in the two survey numbers
mentioned above have not yet been crystallized. The fifth and sixth respondents
are not the defendants in the suit where declaration of title is sought. He has
claimed reliefs against a stranger and he claims that an oral Hiba had been
executed and that consequent to such oral Hiba with right flowing down to
another generation, claims right over the lands. That fact has to be established
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
independently, and till that is done, he remains a stranger to the lands for which
the approval had been granted.
32.The scope of the writ petition cannot be permitted to expand to permit
a third party stranger to question official acts. This is all the most so when such
a third party had himself suppressed a material information. In view of these
reasonings I hold that though, the ratio laid down in the judgment
aforementioned is binding, the facts in this case are distinguishable.
33.The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that this aspect of
the locus standi had not been taken as a stand in the earlier writ petition. The
locus standi of the writ petitioner goes to the very root of his authority and right
to maintain the writ petition. It is not open to a stranger to come forward and
file a writ petition questioning an official act in which he has not direct right.
This is not a public interest litigation could not be since by filing the suit the
petitioner claims a right in person and therefore, could not maintain the writ as
a public interest litigation. Eitherway the petitioner will first have to a set his
house in order.
34.There has been reference to a judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 2421
in S.J.S Bunsiness Enterprises (P) Ltd.,-vs-State of Bihar and Ors. The Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
Supreme Court had examined whether suppression of filing of a suit would be
fatal to seeking a declaration in a writ petition. It had been stated that the suit
should be material and suppression could then play upon the adjudication of the
writ petition. Even in that case, the fact of filing of the suit was not disclosed in
the writ petition. It had been stated that the suit was also withdrawn two weeks
after it had been instituted. The plaintiff therein then consciously pursued the
writ petition.
35.That is not the fact here. A suit had been filed. It is a suit on land.
The writ petition is also primarily on approval granted for a layout and could be
termed as a writ petition on land. Alteast when the survey number of a portion
of the land overlaps, the filing of the suit is a material fact and should have
been disclosed by the writ petitioner at the earliest instance.
36.My attention had also been drawn to Section 76 of the Tamil Nadu
Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which has an appeal provision.
37.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated when the locus of the
petitioner to file a writ petition itself is questioned then even if an appeal is
filed then also the locus also be questioned. It is for that reason I have stated
earlier that locus goes to the root of the institution of any judicial proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
If the petitioner or the plaintiff had no locus to institute a proceedings before
any judicial forum then, he becomes a third party stranger to the proceedings.
38.The order which is now questioned is appealable in nature. If the
petitioner makes out a case for locus to maintain the writ petition, there is no
reason as to why he did not file an appeal against the respondent. When there is
an efficacious alternate remedy available in the Act, the petitioner should
exhaust such remedy. The writ Court cannot sift through documents and decide
title. The writ Court cannot sift through an affidavit to examine whether the
particular certificate issued is based on false facfs. The writ Court can never
come to any conclusion on the basis of an affidavit and documents which have
not passed the tests of proof of admissibility and of relevancy.
39.These are issues which can be adjudicated only before a civil Court.
The petitioner should work out his remedy elsewhere, but unfortunately he has
knocked the doors of a wrong forum.
40.With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Ns
To
1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
2nd 3rd and 4th floor, C&E Market Road,
Koyembedu,
Chennai-600 107.
2.The District Collector,
Collector Office,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning Authority,
2nd Street, Ganapathy Nagar,
M.C Road,
Thanjavur District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Ayyempettai Town Panchayat,
Thanjavur District.
W.P(MD)No.21145 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.17714 of 2021
27.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
