Disposed

A.Arumugam, v. The Director of Town and

Madras HC5 Sept 2024WP/23439/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner's representation, filed in 2016 regarding a layout plan approval from 1992, could not be considered due to the lapse of time. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh representation, directing the authorities to consider it with a hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed liberty to submit fresh representation; respondents directed to consider it with hearing and pass orders within eight weeks.

A.Arumugam, Vs The Director of Town and — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.09.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶7

A.Arumugam ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Director of Town Country Planning, O/o. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

¶10

2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem Region, No.6, Sannathi Street, Subramaniya Nagar, Sooramangalam, Salem 636 005

¶11

3.The Commissioner, Gobichettipalayam Municipality, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District 4.P.M.Sainathan 5.P.M.Udhayakumar 6.G.S.Arumugam ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to forthwith consider and pass orders on the representation dated 18.02.2016 submitted by the Petitioner to confirm the Original Layout

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶17

Plan Approval in Ma. Va./ Na. U.E. No.306/ 92 dated 11.03.1992 insofar as the north to south 40 feet road starts from Sathyamangalam-Erode Highways and leading to the property of the petitioner namely the land in S.No.174 of Veerapandi Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk in view of the recommendations of the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem Region in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4711/97, Se.Ma.3 dated 22.12.1997 and Na.Ka.No.4711/97, Se.Ma.3 dated 13.03.1998 as well as the Commissioner of Gobichettipalayam Municipality in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.11956/93-F2 dated 17.05.1995 to enable the petitioner to continue to have access to his above mentioned property.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan

¶19

For Respondents For R1 to 3 : Mr.V.Manoharan, Additional Government Pleader

¶20

For R6 : Mr.K.V.Muthuvisakaran

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed for direction to the

¶23

respondents 1 to 3 herein to forthwith consider and pass orders on the representation dated 18.02.2016 submitted by the Petitioner to confirm the Original Layout Plan Approval in Ma. Va./ Na. U.E. No.306/ 92 dated 11.03.1992 insofar as the north to south 40 feet road starts from Sathyamangalam-Erode Highways and leading to the property of the

¶24

2/7

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶27

petitioner namely the land in S.No.174 of Veerapandi Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk in view of the recommendations of the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem Region in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4711/97, Se.Ma.3 dated 22.12.1997 and Na.Ka.No.4711/97, Se.Ma.3 dated 13.03.1998 as well as the Commissioner of Gobichettipalayam Municipality in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.11956/93-F2 dated 17.05.1995 to enable the petitioner to continue to have access to his above mentioned property.

¶28

However, after so many years, the representation of the petitioner cannot be considered now. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to consider the request made by the petitioner after issuance of notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 herein and giving them opportunity of hearing, and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the fresh representation, if not already considered.

¶29

3/7

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶32

With the above direction, this writ petition is dispoed of.

¶33

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

05.09.2024

¶35

Neutral Citation:Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶36

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶38

¶39

1.The Director of Town Country Planning, O/o. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

¶40

2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem Region, No.6, Sannathi Street, Subramaniya Nagar, Sooramangalam, Salem 636 005

¶41

3.The Commissioner, Gobichettipalayam Municipality, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District

¶42

5/7

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶45

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶46

lok

¶47

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶48

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.23439 of 2016

¶50

05.09.2024

¶51

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Arumugam, v. The Director of Town and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Arumugam, v. The Director of Town and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Vasanth Vs The District Collector

M/S. Oriental Lotus Hospitality Solutions Private Limited Vs the Joint Director

M/S. Abc Fruits, Vs the General Manager

E.Nilavarasan, Vs Chennai Metropolitan

M.Ranganathan Vs The State Rep. by its

S.Pandiaraj Vs The Commissioner