Disposed

T.Subramanian v. the Commissioner

Madras HC23 Oct 2024WP/1294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation to grant layout approval for their land. Since technical planning approval had already been issued and forwarded to the Corporation, the court disposed of the writ petition directing the first respondent to pass orders after enquiry within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to consider petitioners' layout approval application and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks; W.M.P.No.1339 of 2024 ordered on payment of separate court fee.

T.Subramanian Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.1294 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.1294 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.1339 of 2024

¶8

1.T.Subramanian

¶9

2.Tmt.Malathi Subbu

¶10

3.T.Radhakrishnan

4.T.R.Pappa

.. Petitioners

1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore-1.

¶15

2.The Member Secretary / Joint Director, Coimbatore District Town Planning, Coimbatore.

¶16

3.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai – 2. .. Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue layout approval by taking note of the consent order issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.19422/2017/DP2-TCP-3, dated 18.10.2019 to the petitioners' land situated in S.No.216/2A1A to

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

1/4

¶20

W.P.No.1294 of 2024

¶21

the extent of 0.45 acres, S.No.217/1A1 to the extent of 0.72 ½ acres, S.No.217/1A3 to the extent of 0.36 acres, S.No.363/2 to the extent of 0.56 acres and S.No.364/1A2 to the extent of 0.15 ¼ acres, totally 2.24 ¾ acres, Veerakeralam Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶22

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Hemalatha

¶23

For R1 : Mr.D.Ferdinand, Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.C.Kathiravan, Spl.GP

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the first respondent to grant layout approval by taking note of the consent order issued by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.19422/2017/DP2-TCP-3, dated 18.10.2019 to the petitioners' land situated in S.No.216/2A1A to the extent of 0.45 acres, S.No.217/1A1 to the extent of 0.72 ½ acres, S.No.217/1A3 to the extent of 0.36 acres, S.No.363/2 to the extent of 0.56 acres and S.No.364/1A2 to the extent of 0.15 ¼ acres, totally 2.24 ¾ acres, Veerakeralam Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District.

¶26

It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second

¶27

respondent that the second respondent has already granted technical

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/4

¶30

W.P.No.1294 of 2024

¶31

planning approval vide DTCP No.210/2022, Na.Ka.No.4045/2021, dated 24.06.2022, and the same was also forwarded to the first respondent for final approval. Therefore, this Court, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, directs the first respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners seeking layout approval for S.No.216/2A1A to the extent of 0.45 acres, S.No.217/1A1 to the extent of 0.72 ½ acres, S.No.217/1A3 to the extent of 0.36 acres, S.No.363/2 to the extent of 0.56 acres and S.No.364/1A2 to the extent of 0.15 ¼ acres, totally 2.24 ¾ acres, situate at Veerakeralam Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after conducting enquiry and taking note of the objections raised by the adjacent land owners and also taking note of the technical planning approval granted by the second respondent. The first respondent is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed. No Costs. W.M.P.No.1339 of 2024 is ordered on payment of separate court fee.

¶32

23.10.2024

¶33

rkm

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.P.No.1294 of 2024

¶37

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. rkm

¶38

¶39

1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore-1.

¶40

2.The Member Secretary / Joint Director, Coimbatore District Town Planning, Coimbatore.

¶41

3.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai – 2.

¶42

W.P.No.1294 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.1339 of 2024

¶43

23.10.2024

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

4/4

T.Subramanian v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Subramanian v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Mala Vs the Director of Town and Country

M/S.Komos Automotive India Private Limited Vs the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (Msme)

M/s.Shri Skanda Poultry Farm Vs The District Collector

Sithapathy G Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Sithapathy G Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M/s.Bajrangbali Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu