Petitioner challenged planning approval granted to respondent 2 via writ petition. Court held lis pendens safeguards interests. Disposed writ, directing Sub-Court to decide pending suit within three months. No costs.
Writ petition dismissed; Sub-Court directed to dispose of pending O.S.No.888 of 2018 within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.15183 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.15183 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.14186 of 2023
Kamalam
…. Petitioner
-Vs-
1 The Deputy Director Town and Country Planning O/o.District Town and Country Planning Chennimalai Road Erode- 9.
2 S.Sri Pradeep …. Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the Petitioner on 07.04.2023 within a stipulated time as this Honble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai Government Advocate – for R1 Mr.D.Balachander – for R2
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 07.04.2023, wherein the petitioner has requested the 1st respondent not to process
1 / 5
W.P.No.15183 of 2023
the application submitted by the 2nd respondent for planning approval to develop the subject property.
2 / 5
W.P.No.15183 of 2023
planning approval has been granted by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 26.05.2023. In any event, the petitioner is only an agreement holder. The Trial Court has made it clear while passing the interim order that any transfer will be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. This sufficiently safeguards the interest of the petitioner. Therefore, if the 2nd respondent enters into any transaction during the pendency of the suit, he is doing it at his own risk and the same will also be subject to the result of the suit. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner.
08.06.2023
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No KST To
Town and Country Planning O/o.District Town and Country Planning Chennimalai Road Erode- 9.
3 / 5
W.P.No.15183 of 2023
4 / 5
W.P.No.15183 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
kst
W.P.No.15183 of 2023
08.06.2023
5 / 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the authority to consider a representation opposing processing of a planning approval application amidst a lis pendens.
Whether the doctrine of lis pendens adequately safeguards the petitioner's interest in a pending specific performance suit.
Whether the Sub-Court should dispose of the pending specific performance suit within a stipulated time.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamalam
Deputy Director Town and Country Planning, Chennimalai Road, Erode
S. Sri Pradeep
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
