[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
P.Jeyakumar vs The Director on 6 March, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 30.01.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 06.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.25812 & 30373 of 2025
and WMP(MD).Nos.20201, 20202, 23541, 23543 & 23548 of 2025
WP(MD).No.25812 of 2025
P.Jeyakumar ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director
Directorate of Town and Country Planning
Koyembedu
Chennai 600 107
2.The Assistant Director
Madurai Local Planning Authority
Madurai District Town and Country Planning Office
Section 6, Aanaiyur-Mudakathan Main Road
Koodal Pudur, Madurai 625 017.
3.The Special Officer /Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayat)
Thiruparankundram
Madurai District
4.Mrs.I.Bhavani .....Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the first respondent in
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.316/2024/TCP-1 dated 03.09.2025 and quash the
same.
WP(MD).No.30373 of 2025
1.Subbaiah
2.Rajeev
3.Revathi
4.Karthigaiselvi .....Petitioners
Vs
1.The Director
Directorate of Town and Country Planning
Koyembedu
Chennai 600 107
2.The Assistant Director
Madurai Local Planning Authority
Madurai District Town and Country Planning Office
Section 6, Aanaiyur-Mudakathan Main Road
Koodal Pudur, Madurai 625 017.
3.The Special Officer /Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayat)
Thiruparankundram
Madurai District
4.P.Jeyakumar
5.Mrs.I.Bhavani .....Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the first and second
respondents in their proceeding in Na.Ka.No.316/2024/TCP-1 dated
03.09.2025 and Na.Ka.No.1008/2024/Mathi 5 dated 11.09.2025 respectively
and quash the same.
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
(In WP(MD).No.25812 of 2025)
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Mr.N.Sathish Babu
For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangadharan
Government Advocate for R1 to R3
:M/s.Chithra Sampath
Assisted by Mr.J.Hariharan
For Mr.S.Vidhyasagar for R4
(In WP(MD).No.30373 of 2025)
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan
For Respondents : M/s.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
:Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Mr.N.Sathish Babu for R4
:M/s.Chithra Sampath
Assisted by Mr.J.Hariharan
For Mr.S.Vidhyasagar for R5
COMMON ORDER
WP(MD).No.25812 of 2025 has been filed by the layout promoter
challenging the order of the Director of Town and Country Planning dated
03.09.2025 wherein the layout approval already granted in favour of the
petitioner company on 27.12.2017 has been cancelled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
2.W.P(MD).No.30373 of 2025 has been filed by four plot owners
challenging the above said order and the the consequential order of the
Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning, Madurai dated 11.09.2025
wherein he had communicated the order of the Director dated 03.09.2025.
(A).Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions are as
follows:
3.The petitioner company had initially created an unapproved layout
under the name and style of “Classic City” and constructed 134 houses and
handed over the same to the purchasers. The Government of Tamil Nadu
introduced Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter called as 'Rules') with effect from 04.05.2017. In
order to get regularisation of the unapproved layouts, the petitioner company
had made an application to the Director of Town and Country Planning and
the same was granted on 27.12.2017. A consequential technical approval was
granted by the Assistant Director on 18.01.2018.
4.The fourth respondent in WP(MD).No.25812 of 2025 and fifth
respondent in WP(MD).No.30373 of 2025 namely Mrs.I.Bhavani claimed
title over a portion of the land in the unapproved layout by virtue of a gift
settlement deed in her favour dated 24.08.2017. She had filed WP(MD).No.
15943 of 2021 seeking a mandamus directing the official to cancel the layout
approval granted in favour of the petitioner company. The said writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
was disposed of on 27.09.2023 directing the petitioner therein to file an
appeal before the Director of Town and Country Planning within a period of
four weeks and Director was directed to dispose of the same within a period
of 12 weeks. In compliance with the order of the Court, the first respondent
has passed the impugned proceedings on 03.09.2025 cancelling the approval
granted to the layout and a consequential order has been passed by the second
respondent on 11.09.2025 intimating the same to the writ petitioner. These
orders are put to challenge in the present writ petitions.
(B).Reasons assigned in the impugned orders for cancellation of the
layout approval are as follows:
5(a).Though there is a registered pathway agreement in favour of the
petitioner company, the same has been gifted in favour of Mrs.I.Bhavani
under a settlement deed dated 24.08.2017. Therefore, the survey number in
dispute, namely 18/3A2 does not belong to the petitioner company which is
included in the layout plan.
b)Survey Nos.13/3 and 14/12 in Achampathu Village and Survey No.
103/1 in Kochadai Village belongs to Sri Lala Sri Rengachatram as per order
of the District Munsif Court in O.S.No.109 of 2016. These survey numbers
are also forming part of the layout approval.
c)The Deputy Block Development Officer has pointed out that the
lands that are earmarked for the road in the layout approval have not been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
handed over to the local body by executing a gift deed and therefore, the
same is not reflected in the Road Register of Thiruparankundram Panchayat
Union.
d)The layout promoter Mr.P.Jeyakumar owns only an extent of 4.2725
acres. However, an extent of 5.23 acres are shown as layout area in the
technical approval granted.
e)As per Rule 4(6) of the Rules, if the applicant does not possess
ownership right on lands, he cannot make an application for regularisation of
unapproved plots or layouts.
d)As per Rule 5(8), any application made by any person for
regularisation of plot or layout who does not have any right over the land has
to be summarily rejected. In the present case, only based upon the registered
pathway agreement, the layout approval has been granted. However, the said
document does not confer full rights upon the layout developer and therefore,
the regularisation of the layout already granted has to be cancelled.
(C).Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side are as
follows:
6.According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners,
he had purchased two pockets of land from the fourth respondent's father
namely Thiyagarajan. In between these two pockets of land, certain portion
of the land was retained by the vendor. Therefore, in order to have access
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
from one pocket of land to other pocket of land, a registered pathway
agreement was executed by him on 11.08.2014. As per the said agreement, it
can be used as a pathway by all the plot owners and for the purpose of
drawing pipelines and erection of street lights. He further submitted that
relying upon the said pathway agreement, the petitioner company had made
an application for regularisation of the layout. After being convinced with the
availability of access to the public road, the authorities were pleased to grant
regularisation of the layout.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per
pathway agreement, neither the petitioner company nor the original owner of
the land could put up any construction and the same is retained only as a
pathway. According to him, the said pathway agreement is also reflected in
the settlement deed executed by the legal heirs of the deceased vendor. He
had further pointed out that in the counter filed by the private respondent, he
had specifically admitted that she will retain it as a pathway. She did not have
any objection whatsoever for using it as pathway. In such circumstances,
there is no reason whatsoever for cancellation of the layout alleging that there
is no pathway access to the public road.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that
when the petitioner as well as the private respondent could use the land in
dispute only as a pathway, the private respondent cannot claim any exclusive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
right over the said disputed survey number because she cannot also put up
any construction therein. In case, if they are developing a layout in the land
retained by them, the present disputed pathway could be an access to them.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that
when the private respondent could not point out any legal grievance over the
usage of the land as a pathway access to reach the public road, especially in
the light of the registered document, does not have any locus whatsoever to
approach the authorities for cancellation of the regularisation of the layout.
The learned counsel relying upon Rule 19 of Development Control Rules for
Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2004, submitted that all streets shall become
public and therefore, even if a gift deed is not executed for streets, they would
continue to be a public street. He also relied upon Rule 47 of Tamil Nadu
Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that
the right of pathway is an immovable property as per decision of this Court
reported in 2019 7 MLJ 692 (Revathi Vs. Kathan) and therefore, the
petitioner company would be entitled to execute a gift deed in favour of the
local body. He further pointed out that the private respondent in WP(MD).No.
30373 of 2025 has filed a counter affidavit, clearly admitting that she has no
intention to restrain this petitioner from using the said portion as a pathway.
In such circumstances, irrespective of the fact, whether any consideration has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
passed under registered pathway agreement or not, the inclusion of Survey
No.18/3A2 would not in any way affect the rights of the private respondent or
affect the validity of the regularisation of layout granted in favour of the
petitioner company.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that as
far as Survey No.13/3, 13/12, in Achampathu Village and Survey No.103/1 in
Kochadai Village (belonging to one Lala Sri Rengachatram) are concerned, a
compromise has been entered into between the parties and the judgment had
been delivered on 22.04.2018. As per the said judgment, the trust has pointed
out that they have no objection whatsoever for using the said property as
pathway. Though the said judgment was produced before the first respondent,
the same has not been taken into consideration and an order has been passed
in an illegal manner.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that in
the light of the counter affidavit filed by the private respondent, it is clear that
the private respondent is not claiming any absolute owner over the property
and she does not have any objection whatsoever for using the same as
pathway either by the petitioner company or by the plot owners. In such
circumstances, merely to satisfy the ego of the private respondent, the
regularisation already granted to the layout cannot be cancelled. He further
pointed out that even the private respondent enjoyed only limited rights over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
the said property, in view of the registered pathway agreement executed in
favour of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the orders
impugned in the writ petitions and to allow the same.
13.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent
had submitted that as per pathway agreement, the petitioner has only got a
limited right of usage and does not have any ownership. In such
circumstances, as per Rule 4(6) and 5(8) of the Rules, the petitioner would
not be entitled to show this survey number as an access to reach the public
road, because they do not have any title over the survey number.
14.The learned counsel for the private respondent had further
submitted that by falsely claiming that Survey No.18/3A2 is their private
property, had made an application before the first respondent for
regularisation of the layout. When no consideration had passed under
registered pathway agreement, it has been erroneously mentioned in the writ
affidavit as if consideration is passed.
15.The learned counsel for the private respondent had further stated
that the fourth respondent is the absolute owner of the pathway through
registered settlement deed after death of her father. However, the petitioner
company had misled the Court that the registered settlement deed in favour of
the fourth respondent does not mention about right of the pathway. He had
further submitted that the activity of the petitioner company is nothing but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
land grabbing. He further stated that they already sold the plots to 134
individuals without owning pathway. The petitioner has gifted only 11 cents
and rest of the land is not gifted in favour of the local body. When the land
earmarked for the road has not been gifted in favour of the local body, the
regularisation order becomes invalid and the lands are returned in favour of
the original owner.
16.The learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon the
definition of layout promoters in Rule 2(10) and also Rule 5(9)(c) of the
Rules and contended that the petitioner company having not produced
encumbrance certificate for all the survey numbers to establish the title over
the property, cannot now contend that they have sold those plots to third
parties and therefore, the layout has to be regularised. He had further
contended that the petitioner is attempting to convert private access road into
public road without consent of the respondents.
17.The learned counsel for the private respondent had further
submitted that the petitioner is always at liberty to file a fresh layout plan
excluding the pathway owned by the respondent subject to the other
conditions imposed by the authorities. The respondent had no intention to
obstruct the free ingress and egress of the purchasers of the lands covered
under the layout as per the pathway agreement which was entered into
between the private respondent's father and the petitioner company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
18.The learned counsel for the private respondent further submitted
that though the petitioner is the owner of only an extent of 4.2725 acres, the
layout submitted covering an ares of 5.23 acres which would clearly indicate
that the approval application is in violation of the regularisation Rules and
suffers from illegality and the same is invalid in the eye of law. Therefore, the
learned counsel prayed for sustaining the order impugned in the writ petition.
19.The learned counsel appearing for the official respondents
submitted that though the petitioner company owns an extent of only 4.2725
acres, the layout approval was initially granted to 5.23 acres including the
pathway which is disputed. As per Rule 4(6) and Rule 5(8) of the Rules,
unless the applicant is the owner of the entire land, such an regularisation
cannot be granted. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner company is
not the owner of the land which is shown as access road except they got some
agreement to use the disputed land as a pathway.
20. The learned counsel for the official respondent had further pointed
out that when regularisation of the layout has been obtained by suppression
of material fact and by playing fraud upon the authorities, it is nothing but
natural that the authorities have chosen to cancel the layout approval. Hence,
he prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
21.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the
material records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
(D).Discussion:
22.The petitioner company has purchased two pockets of land from the
father of the private respondent. In between these two pockets of land, a
portion of the land was retained by the father of the private respondent.
Therefore, in order to connect these two pockets of land, the petitioner
company has approached the vendor seeking right of access which has
resulted in execution of a registered pathway agreement on 11.08.2014 in
favour of the petitioner company with regard to Survey No.18/3A2.
23.A perusal of the said registered agreement reveals that the private
respondent's father namely Mr.C.Thiyagarajan has executed the said
document in favour of the Managing Director of the petitioner company. The
said document reveals that the purchasers from the petitioner company have
been granted right to use the said Survey Number as a common pathway.
Further, the rights have been given to the petitioner company to erect
electrical posts, underground drainage and draw water pipelines.
24.After the death of Mr.C.Thiyagarajan, his legal heirs have executed
a settlement deed to their sister (private respondent in the writ petition) on
24.08.2017. In Page No.9 of the document, it is specifically pointed out that
the donee, namely the private respondent herein is entitled to use the pathway
as per Document No.2646/2014 dated 24.08.2017. Therefore, it is clear that
what is conveyed in favour of the private respondent under the settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
deed is also only a right of pathway with regard to Survey No.18/3A2.
Therefore, it is clear that both the petitioner company as well as the fifth
respondent herein have got only a right of pathway over Survey No.18/3A2
and none of them would have a better right over the above said survey
number. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the private
respondent that she retains absolute ownership over the property and what is
conveyed to the petitioner company on 24.08.2017 is only a pathway access
right is not legally sustainable.
25.Under the pathway agreement dated 11.08.2014, executed by the
private respondent's father not only pathway rights have been granted, but the
right to erect street lights, draw drainage and water pipelines have also been
granted. Therefore, it is clear that the private respondent's father namely
Mr.C.Thiyagarajan had not retained any better right than what he had
conveyed. In case, if it is construed that Thiyagarajan has retained absolute
title, it would only mean that he will be able to block the road or put up
construction in the said survey number namely Survey No.18/3A2. Therefore,
it is clear that both the parties under pathway agreement dated 11.08.2014
have agreed that they would retain Survey No.18/3A2 only as a pathway.
Only subject to this pathway agreement, the legal heirs of Thiyagarajan have
executed a settlement deed in favour of the private respondent on 24.08.2017.
The said gift deed also reflects the pathway agreement and the right of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
private respondent to use it only as a pathway. Therefore, the contention of
the learned counsel for the private respondent that she is retaining the
absolute ownership over the property is not legally sustainable.
26.This Court has called for the records from the official respondents
to find out whether the pathway agreement was placed before the authorities
while considering the request for regularisation of layout. In fact, the pathway
agreement dated 11.08.2014 has been placed on record. Only relying upon the
said document, treating it as an access road to reach the public road,
regularisation of layout has been granted.
27.Rule 7 of Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and
Plots Rules, 2017 deals with guidelines for regularisation. Rules 7(c) is
extracted as follows:
“7.Guidelines for Regularisation: -----
(c).Any plot for regularisation shall abut a public street
or gain access from a public street through a private street over
which the applicant has the “right to access.”
28.A perusal of the said rules indicates if any application is filed for
regularisation of a plot or a layout, it should abut a public road or gain access
from a public street through a private street over which the application has
the right to access. The work 'right to access' assumes significance. Mere
right to access over a private street is enough. It does not mandate ownership.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
In the present case, the applicant has obtained right to access under a
registered document. In such circumstances, the absence of ownership over
Survey No.18/3A2 will not be a legal impediment for seeking regularisation
of unapproved individual plot or a layout. Therefore, the contention raised by
the respondent herein that the petitioner not being the absolute owner of
Survey No.18/3A2, would not be entitled to make an application for
regularisation cannot be accepted.
29.The learned counsel appearing for the official respondents had
pointed out that Rule 4(6) which states that if plot has been created on a
public road or street or any other land over which the applicant does not
possess ownership, the same cannot be considered for regularisation. This
clause is applicable only when the plot is created over that land over which
the applicant does not possess ownership. However, as far as access road is
concerned, the ownership is not mandatory in view of the Rule 7(c) as cited
supra.
30.The learned counsel for the respondents had also relied upon Rule
5(8) wherein the application for regularisation of any plot or layout cannot be
entertained if the applicant does not have any right over the land. The word
'any right' assumes significance and the same has to be read in the light of
Rule 7(c) as cited supra. When the petitioner is having right of access under a
registered document, Rule 5(8) cannot be invoked as if the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
company does not have any right whatsoever.
31.As discussed supra, it is clear that both the petitioner as well as the
private respondent can use Survey No.18/3A2 only as a pathway and not for
any other purpose. What has been granted in favour of the private respondent
is only right of pathway under a gift deed dated 24.08.2017. In such
circumstances, it is clear that the private respondent cannot block the pathway
or put up any construction over Survey No.18/3A2. The right of the private
respondent is also restricted. Therefore, the contention of the private
respondent that she is the absolute owner of the property and the petitioner
company has got only a limited right of using the same as a pathway is not
factually correct and in fact, both of them have equal rights to use Survey No.
18/3A2 only as a pathway. In such circumstances, the private respondent is
not able to establish the legal grievance for granting layout approval based
upon the pathway agreement dated 11.08.2014, especially in the light of the
fact that when right of access is enough for considering a request for
regularisation and the ownership is not mandated under Rule 7(c). In fact,
when a layout is created by the private respondent, Survey No.18/3A2 will
operate as an access road to her layout also.
32.The impugned order further refers to the fact that some of the
survey numbers belong to Lala Sri Rengachatram wherein the parties have
agreed to use those survey numbers as pathway. Therefore, even in the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
touching upon Lala Sri Rengachatram property is concerned, Rule 7(c) would
get attracted wherein the right of access has been conferred upon the
petitioner company based upon a compromise entered into the civil Court.
33.The private respondent has filed a counter in WP(MD).No.30373 of
2025. Paragraph No.4 of the said counter is extracted as follows:
“4.I respectively submit that the writ petitioners have
mislead this Hon'ble Court by stating that I tried to interfere with
the peaceful usage of the subject pathway by the petitioners which
is blatantly false and without any semblance of evidence. The
petitioners are called to prove the same. I affirm that I have no
intention to restrain the 4th respondent or his buyers including the
petitioners from usage of the subject pathway. I abide by the deed
of pathway agreement dated 11.08.2014 in Document No.
2646/2014 and hence, the 4th respondent and his buyers of the
western of Survey No.18/3A2 an extent of 90 cents will be
permitted to use the subject pathway and they will not be
restrained by me in any manner. “
34.As far as gifting of the land earmarked for road portion is
concerned, the petitioner company as well as the private respondent are
having only limited rights over Survey No.18/3A2. As held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1955) 2 SCC 303 (Ananda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
Behera and another Vs. State of Orissa and another) right of way is an
immovable property. Therefore, the same has been conferred in favour of the
petitioner company by way of a registered document. In such circumstances,
there may not be any legal impediment for the petitioner company to gift
away the said right of way to the local authorities concerned especially in the
light of the fact that the private respondents does not have any better right
over Survey No.18/3A2 as stated supra.
35.Another ground raised in the impugned order for cancellation of
regularisation is that when the petitioner company owned just 4.2725 acres,
approval has been granted for 5.23 acres indicating to the effect that pathway
area has been included. This Court has already pointed out that in view of
Rule 7(c) of the Rules, inclusion of the land over which the pathway access
has been obtained as contemplated under Rule 7(c) of the Rules cannot be
found fault with.
36.In view of the above said deliberations, the reasons assigned in the
orders impugned in the writ petitions for cancellation of the regularisation
order granted to the unapproved layout is clearly unsustainable in the eye of
law, especially when the private respondent is not able to establish any better
right than that of the petitioner company over the disputed survey number in
Survey No.18/3A2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
(E).Conclusion:
37.In view of the above said deliberations, the orders impugned in
both the writ petitions are hereby set aside and the writ petitions stand
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
06.03.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
To
1.The Director
Directorate of Town and Country Planning
Koyembedu
Chennai 600 107
2.The Assistant Director
Madurai Local Planning Authority
Madurai District Town and Country Planning Office
Section 6, Aanaiyur-Mudakathan Main Road
Koodal Pudur, Madurai 625 017.
3.The Special Officer /Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayat)
Thiruparankundram
Madurai District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
W.P(MD).Nos.25812 & 20373 of 2025
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.(MD).Nos.25812 & 30373 of 2025
and WMP(MD).Nos.20201, 20202, 23541, 23543 & 23548 of 2025
06.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 02:33:24 pm )
