R.Ponnusamy, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

ORDER The petitioners have purchased a property situated in S.Nos.411 and 415 of Vadavalli Village, Perur Taluk and Coimbatore District. The petitioners, Page3 of 6 along with the owners of the property situated in S.Nos.409 and 410, developed a lay-out to the extent of 17.27 acres. They had applied and obtained lay-out approval from the fourth respondent. The total number of plots in the lay-out is

¶173As required for development of the lay-out, the petitioners have to execute a gift deed for area demarcated for roads, Open Space Reserve, etc., over the property purchased by them in S.Nos.411 and 415. The extent occupied road is 1 acre 46 cents. The petitioners had executed a gift deed for this extent in favour of Vadavalli Village Panchayat on 20.04.1988.

¶2The property being adjacent to a reserve forest, it led to frequent man-animal conflicts. Hence, the plots abutting this area, could not be alienated. Consequently, the petitioners started agricultural activities over the area for which they have executed the gift deed in favour of the Vadavalli Village. On coming to know of the same, the Panchayat called upon them to remove the encroachments over the areas considered as road. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.35931 if 2015 challenging the notice. This Court deferred the proceedings till the petitioners' appeal before the State Government seeking revision of layout plan, is disposed of.

¶3By the order impugned in this Writ Petition, the petitioners' appeal seeking revision of the lay out, has been rejected. The ground for rejection being the other purchasers in the lay-out, had acquired right over the road portion and hence, the request of the petitioners for modification of the approved plan, cannot be entertained. Challenging the same, the present Writ Page4 of 6 Petition is filed.

¶4Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the materials available on record.

¶5On a reading and perusing the papers, it reveals that the petitioner has executed a gift deed for the roads laid over S.Nos.411 and 415 in favour of the Vadavalli Panchayat. This was as early as in 1988. On the date the petitioners sought revision of the lay out plan, the petitioners were not the owners of the property. The petitioners cannot seek revision of the layout with respect to the area for which they are not the owners. When the petitioners do not have title to the road ,to seek modification of the lay out plan, which they have obtained in the year 1986, after a lapse of 24 years, certainly, cannot be entertained. As pointed out in the impugned order, the third parties have purchased certain extents of lands in the layout. They are already in possession of those plots. They have also secured vested right over the same. Without their consent, the layout cannot be revised to their detriment.

¶6For all the above reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order cs Page5 of 6 To

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Chennai-9

¶2The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9

¶3The Commissioner Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore-641 001

¶4The Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority, Coimbatore-641 012

¶5The District Forest Officer, Coimbatore. WPoNo.o33114oofo2016 V.oLAKSHMINARAYANAN,oJ. cs WPoNo.o33114oofo2016 17-02-2026o Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P.No.28600 of 2016 1. R.Ponnusamy 2. P.Subbathal 3. C.R.P.Manoharan ..Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 2. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 3. The Commissioner Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore- 641 001 4. The Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority, Page2 of 6 Coimbatore- 641 012 5. The District Forest Officer, Coimbatore. (R-5 is suo-motu impleaded as per Order Dated:21.09.2016 in WP No.33114/2016). ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.356 dated 12.08.2016 quash the same and direct the respondents to modify the layout plan in LP/ R (CPN) No.329/86 and consequentially cancel the Gift Deeds dated 20.04.1988 bearing Document No.1293/ 1988, 1294/ 1988, 1295/ 1988, 1296/ 1988, 1297/1988 and 1298/ 1988 relating to the road portions in Sruvey Nos.411 and 415 part of Vadavalli Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.ASundara Vadhanan For Respondent(s): Dr.T.Seenivasan, Spl.G.P. for RR-1 and 5 Mr.LS.M.Hasan Fizal, Addl.G.P. for RR-2 and 4 Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan for R-3