R.Velu Vs The Deputy Director of

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 made in File No.G9L1ZZAB/2026/TCP and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent to grant Layout Approval to the petitioner’s property measuring 57 cents in S.F.No.967/4A1, Adhiyamankottai Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District, by

¶16

Page Nos.1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.25516 of 2026

¶19

considering his Online application No.G9L1ZZAB dated 25.05.2026.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.P.Siddarth Government Counsel, for R1 and R2 *********

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Mr. P. Siddarth, learned Government Counsel, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without affecting the rights of the third respondent, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

¶23

The petitioner challenges the communication dated 15.06.2026 issued by the first respondent, by which he was called upon to furnish certain particulars, submit a revised layout plan rectifying the defects pointed out, and provide the details of O.S. No.73 of 2026 within seven days.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶25

The petitioner claims to be the owner of 57 cents of land in Survey No.967/4A1, Adhiyamankottai Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District, by virtue of a sale deed dated 31.07.2019 registered as Document Page Nos.2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.25516 of 2026

¶28

No.3228 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Dharmapuri West. The petitioner intends to form a residential layout and has accordingly applied to the first respondent for layout approval. By the impugned communication, the petitioner has been asked to furnish certain particulars, submit a revised layout plan rectifying the defects, and provide the details of O.S. No.73 of 2026.

¶29

The petitioner’s apprehension is that his application may be rejected solely because O.S. No.73 of 2026, filed by the third respondent seeking permanent injunction, is pending. Such an apprehension is unfounded. The first respondent is required to consider the petitioner’s application on its own merits, based on the materials placed on record and in accordance with the statutory provisions governing approval of residential layouts. In the absence of any interim order restraining the petitioner from dealing with the property, the mere pendency of the civil suit cannot be a ground to reject the application. However, the petitioner is required to furnish the particulars sought for in the impugned communication.

¶30

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to furnish the particulars sought by the first respondent in the communication dated 15.06.2026. On receipt of the required particulars, the Page Nos.3/5

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.25516 of 2026

¶33

first respondent shall consider the petitioner’s application on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks. It is made clear that the application shall not be rejected solely on the ground of the pendency of O.S. No.73 of 2026, in the absence of any order of restraint passed by the competent civil Court.

¶34