[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Aibea Nagar(Paravai) vs (R1 Deleted-Vide Court Order on 17 February, 2026
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A(md)No.1837 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 06.02.2026
Pronounced on : 17.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD)No.1837 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.10411 and 10413 of 2025
AIBEA Nagar(Paravai)
Resident's Welfare Association
Rep by its Secretary,
Mr.V.Pitchai,
S/o.A.Veeran,
Plot No.396, 3rd Street,
“B” Colony, AIBEA Nagar,
Paravai, Madurai District. Appellant/
Petitioner
Vs
(R1 Deleted-vide Court order
dated 14.11.2024)
1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
W.A(md)No.1837 of 2025
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Town & Country Planning,
Urban Administrative Office Complex,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-600 028.
4.The Chairman,
Madurai Local Planning Authority,
Inspector of Panchayats & District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai-625 020.
5.The Member Secretary,
Madurai Local Planning Authority,
Sector 6, Anayur – Mudakathan Main Road,
Koodal Nagar,
Madurai-625 017.
6.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
District Collectorate Complex,
Madurai-625 020.
7.The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayats,
Paravai,
Madurai District-625 402.
8.The Sub Registrar,
Church Road,
Vilangudi,
Madurai District.
9.Mr.Selvakumar
10.Mr.P.Venkatesan
11.K.Muniyandi
12.R.Marithangam Respondents/
Respondents 2 to 13
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
W.A(md)No.1837 of 2025
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to
prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal to set aside the order
passed in W.P(MD)No.27265 of 2024 dated 28.04.2025.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.B.Saravanan Associates
For R1 to R8 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Govt. Pleader
For R11 : Mr.M.Kannan
For R10 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai,
For R12 : Mr.L.Shajichellan
For R9 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.)
The appellant is All India Bank Employee Association(AIBEA),
residential Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary. The Writ of
Mandamus was filed by the appellant to cancel the regularization of
unapproved layout accorded to the neighbouring layout by name Sivathanya
promoted by the 11th respondent Venkatesan. Further it was prayed to re-
fence the OSR property falling in petitioner's residential area.
2.The prayer in the said writ petition as couched by the appellant
herein is extracted below for better appreciation:
“For issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 8 to cancel the in-principle regularisation of
unapproved lay out accorded in 6th respondent's proceedings in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
Na.Ka.No.3663/2019/Mathi2 dated 03.03.2020 and the final
approval granted in 8th respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
66/2019 dated 13.05.2020 and re-fence the OSR property falling
in the petitioner's residential area duly cordoning of and
restoring the position, which had been in existence fro the years.
3.After considering the counter filed by the official respondents and
the 11th respondent as well as the respondents 12 and 13, were got impleaded
being the purchasers of the plots from the 11th respondent. They got
themselves impleaded and placed the facts and submitted that why the writ
petition should not be allowed.
4.The learned Single Judge, after due appreciation of the pleadings
and documents on record, primarily observed that the writ petitioner had not
come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed vital facts and the
Court also noted that the petitioner Association had misled the District
Collector to pass order for fencing the disputed area by suppressing the fact
that the disputed land not belong to the Association and the fact that an
injunction decree had already been granted against the Association by the
District Munsif Court, Madurai, in O.S. No. 4 of 2009. Further the learned
single Judge, after analysing the documents and making an elaborate
discussion, observed in tune with the Act and G.O passed for regularising
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
unapproved layouts that the regularisation of the layout plan of the 11th
respondent accorded by the sixth respondent vide proceedings dated
03.03.2020 and the final approval granted by the eight respondent, vide
proceedings dated 13.05.2020. If at all the said proceedings were to be
challenged, the appropriate remedy is to invoke Section 80 of the Tamil
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and prefer a Revision Petition before
the Government.
5.Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the intra Court
appeal is filed by the appellant contending that the approval granted by the
eight respondent on 13.05.2020 was a conditional order and therefore, the
learned single Judge should not have given effect to the approval without
complying the condition. Further, it is contended that a high-tension
transformer line runs through the disputed land, which is recognized as OSR
land for the appellant's layout. The Writ Court ought not to have gone
beyond the scope of the writ petition and permitted shifting of the high-
tension transformer. It is further contended that the regularisation of the
unapproved layout of Sivathanya Nagar was not carried out under Section 48
of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and therefore, the revision
remedy under Section 80 of the Act, referred to as an alternative remedy is
incorrect. Submitting that the OSR land on which the high-tension
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
transformer line runs cannot be utilised for any other purpose, but by
granting approval of a road to access the said layout is candidly permitting
utilisation of OSR land meant for the appellant AIBEA layout. Despite the
fact that the disputed area has been fenced pursuant to the order passed by
the District Collector. The Civil Court decree of injunction has no relevance
for adjudication of the lis and the observation of the learned single Judge
regarding omission to disclose the civil Court decree is uncalled.
6.Heard the submissions made by the respective learned Counsels. The
records were carefully perused.
7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant repeatedly
emphasised that the appellant's layout is an approved layout and approval
obtained in the year 1985-1986. The OSR land identified as Plot No.116B
cannot be utilised for any other purpose, however contrary to law the same
has now been permitted to lay a road and to shift the high-tension
transformer line passing through the OSR land. Hence, the order of the
learned single Judge needs interference.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents
submitted that the appellant's layout is not an approved layout. During the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
year 1985 – 1986, for certain portion of the layout alone, approval was
obtained showing about 27 pieces of lands for OSR. Out of which, only 17
areas were gifted to the local authority and balance 10 areas were not handed
over to the local body for getting their layout approval in full. The disputed
plot identified as 116B is one among the ten areas, which never been handed
over to the local body by the promoters of AIBEA Nagar layout. The reason
for not handing over the said area is obvious. The promoter of the AIBEA
Nagar layout is not the owner of the property and the Association is already
suffered an injunction decree in the suit filed by one Tmt.Manonmani. From
the said Manonmani, 11th respondent, has promoted the said land and has
gifted the road portion to the local body for providing inter connectivity. The
learned single Judge has analysed the records and held as below:
“84.Having not preferred an appeal for more than 15
years, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned
Senior Counsel that only pending this writ petition, the
petitioner association has preferred an appeal and the same is
pending in delay condonation stage. The petitioner association
have suppressed the factum of suffering a judgment and decree
in O.S.No.4 of 2009 all through from the very instance of
impleading themselves as respondents in W.P.(MD)No.7245 of
2013 filed by the promoter of AIBEA Nagar layout, challenging
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
the proceeding of the 8th respondent Panchayat bearing
Na.Ka.No.25/2011 dated 09.11.2012, requiring the promoter to
hand over the properties allocated for OSR purposes in AIBEA
Nagar, till date, the petitioner association had suppressed the
factum of having suffered the said civil decree.
“.......
85.Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner
association did not approach this Court with clean hands and it
is only under the background of having not informed about the
decree and judgment suffered by the petitioner association in
O.S.No.4 of 2009 dated 23.12.2010, on the file of the learned
District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk, the 5th respondent
District Collector had conducted an inquiry in an application
dated 09.09.2020, made by the petitioner association directed
the 8th respondent Town Panchayat to fence those properties
pertaining to the OSR area of AIBEA Nagar, which are already
handed over to the 8th respondent Panchayat. Had he been
informed of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4 of 2009 on
the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Madurai taluk, the
question of passing such an order directing the 8th respondent
to fence up the so called alleged OSR area of AIBEA Nagar
layout would not have arisen and for the mistake and
suppression played by the petitioner association, the 5th
respondent Collector could not be faulted with.
86.......
87.In the instant case as elaborated supra, the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
association all through its proceedings in the various Writ
Petitions before this Court and even before the enquiry
conducted by the 5th respondent Collector had wantonly
suppressed the material fact of having suffered a civil decree in
O.S.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif
Court, Madurai Taluk, dated 23.12.2010, including the instant
Writ Petition. Having not taken any steps positively to comply
with the conditions of the Government Order bearing G.O.
(2Pa)No.141 dated 30.11.2000 and also to the directions of the
8th respondent Town Panchayat vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
25/2011 dated 09.11.2012, for more than nearly 15 years, the
writ petitioner association has filed this petition on the premise
that the AIBEA Nagar layout is an approved layout and on the
contrary, the same is not in terms of the Tamilnadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971, as already elaborated supra.
Hence, though this Writ Petition is liable to be thrown out at its
threshold, considering the nature of the complexity involved,
which would affect the innocent purchasers of the layouts
involved in both the petitioner AIBEA Nagar layout as well as
the Sivathanya layout developed by the 11th respondent, I have
gone into the merits of this case.
88.That apart, having not able to hand over the entire
area allocated for OSR purposes and interestingly, having
handed over certain portions of property belonging to
Tmt.Manonmani, as the property allocated for the alleged OSR
purposes of AIBEA Nagar layout, suppressing all these facts
this Writ Petition is laid. In the meanwhile, the 11th respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
promoter who developed Sivathanya layout executed as many
as five road gift deeds dated 09.04.2014, 31.05.2016,
25.02.2020 and 06.10.2020 for the purpose of laying road for
Sivathanya layout in favour of the 8th respondent Town
Panchayat.
89.Pursuant to the same, the Member Secretary of Local
Planning Authority accorded in-principle approval and in
proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.3663/2019/Mathi.2 dated
03.03.2020, in terms of the road pattern approval accorded by
the 8th respondent Panchayat on 21.02.2020. Following which,
the final approval in Na.Ka.No.66/2019 dated 13.05.2020, was
also accorded by the 8th respondent panchayat. Only under
such circumstances, the petitioner association claiming that the
final approval accorded to the 11th respondent by the 8th
respondent Town Panchayat in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.66 of
2019 dated 13.05.2020, interferes and the road pattern of
approval of the same interferes with the area allocated for the
Open Space Reservation purposes by the AIBEA Nagar layout
made a complaint before the 5th respondent District Collector
and other respondents 1 to 7 by complaint dated 09.09.2020.
90.It is only in response to the aforesaid complaint made
by the petitioner association, the 1st respondent District
Collector conducted an inquiry. Following which, the inquiry
report vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 23247/2020/Vu.Va.11
dated 17.09.2020, came to be issued directing the 8 th
respondent to put a fence around those OSR area, which was
already handed over by the AIBEA Nagar to the 8th respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
Panchayat. It is necessary to mention here that even during the
said inquiry before the 5 th respondent Collector, the petitioner
association suppressed the material fact of having suffered a
civil decree of the learned District Munsif Court, Madurai, in
O.S.No.4 of 2009 dated 23.12.2010........”
(emphasis supplied)
9.On examination of records, we hold that the appellant Association is
neither the owner of 37,900 Sq.ft., land shown as plot No.116B in their
layout, not the promoter of the layout gifted it to the Paravai Selection Grade
Town Panchayat as directed by the Executive Officer of the said panchayat.
The appellant Association has not so far earmarked 10% of the land for
getting regularisation of their layout. Having lost the suit to Manonmani in
respect of this portion of the land, the appellant Association still try to claim
right over this place of land to satisfy 10% OSR. Contrarily, Tmt.Manonmani
the owner of the property had gifted a portion to the local body vide deed
dated 09.04.2014 and the layout of Sivathanya Nagar duly approved through
the proceedings impugned in the writ petition.
10.Suppressing all these facts, the writ petition has been filed with
malafide intention. The learned single Judge, after appreciating the evidence,
has rightly dismissed the writ petition making serious observation about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
conduct of the writ petitioner and rightly so. Hence, this Writ Appeal stands
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
17.02.2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
Ns
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Commissioner of Town & Country Planning,
Urban Administrative Office Complex,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-600 028.
4.The Chairman,
Madurai Local Planning Authority,
Inspector of Panchayats & District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai-625 020.
5.The Member Secretary,
Madurai Local Planning Authority,
Sector 6, Anayur – Mudakathan Main Road,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
Koodal Nagar,
Madurai-625 017.
6.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,
District Collectorate Complex,
Madurai-625 020.
7.The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayats,
Paravai,
Madurai District-625 402.
8.The Sub Registrar,
Church Road,
Vilangudi,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Ns
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.10411 and 10413 of 2025
17.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 01:24:11 pm )
