D.Chandrasekaran Vs the Executive Engineer I

Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 10.09.2025 for re-classification of vacant lands situated at Plot No.R79 at Muthamizh Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai-118, comprised in T.S.No.100/3B1 measuring an extent of 6 grounds and 1586 sq.ft from institutional use to primary residential use and pass appropriate orders on it within a time frame which may be fixed by this Court.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.E.C.Ramesh for R1 Standing Counsel Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandar for R2 Standing Counsel for (CMDA) Mr.V.Gunasekar for R3 & R6 Standing Counsel Mr.M.Sivavarthanan for R4 Government Counsel Mr.P.Siddarth for R5 Government Counsel

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

W.P.No.1804 of 2026

¶29

The petitioners purchased property bearing T.S.No.100/3B1, Plot No.R-79, Perambur–Purasawakkam Taluk, Chennai, measuring 6 grounds and 1,586 sq.ft., under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.2005 (Doc. No.7283/2005). Their vendor had originally purchased the property from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for running a primary school. However, since the Government did not provide grants to Tamil-medium schools, the vendor was unable to continue the school.

¶30

After purchasing the property, the petitioners applied to the first respondent seeking reclassification of the land use from institutional to primary residential. They submitted a representation dated 10.09.2025, but no decision has been taken so far.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has already forwarded a proposal to the second respondent stating that the property is predominantly surrounded by residential developments. The proposal recommends changing the land use from institutional to primary residential. However, despite receiving the proposal, the second respondent has not taken any decision. 3/6

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.1804 of 2026

¶34

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 10.09.2025, along with the proposal bearing No.Z.O.I.C.No.D1/RC/00009/2010 submitted by the first respondent, and pass appropriate orders on their own merits and in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall also keep in view the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.265 of 2024, decided on 28.02.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

16.07.2026

¶36

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No dna

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.1804 of 2026

¶40

To