IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:08.07.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.30574 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007 .. 1.A.Rangasamy 2.R.Sasikala 3.S.Brindha Lakshmi 4.N.Girija 5.M.Sujini 6.R.Vishnuvarthan .. Petitioners vs. The Executive Officer Thudiyalur Town Panchayat Thuidyalur Coimbatore 34. .. Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For respondent : Mr.V.R.Thangavelu .. ORDER The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 10.09.2007, by which the respondent has refused to grant approval for the construction of housing sites on the ground that the said space has been ear-marked for children play park and therefore, it cannot be used for any other purpose. 2. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that they are the promoters of the land in Survey No.50/2 Part in Thudiyalur village, Coimbatore District to the extent of 71 ¼ cents and they have purchased 40 cents of vacant land along with water tank and service connection, which is stated to be standing in the name of petitioners. As stated by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the said 40 cents were originally ear-marked for children play park in the year 1987 and inasmuch as it was subsequently not utilised for the said purpose, they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchased it for the purpose of plotting out. The petitioners claim the right only on the ground that some other persons had approached the Consumer Court and also the Civil court relating to the purchase of 40 cents ear-marked for children play park but they failed and therefore the petitioners are entitled for regularisation of the said place for the purpose of construction. The petitioners also relied upon G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 30.04.2007, wherein the Government regularised the unapproved layout by way of paying Re.1/- per sq.ft. and the said Government Order was periodically extended the time for getting benefit and finally on 30.04.2007, the time was extended upto 31.12.2007. It is on that basis the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the respondent has clearly stated that the first petitioner was one of the promoters of the lay out in the year 1987 and one of the executors of the agreement dated 28.04.1987 in favour of the respondent. He along with his wife, the second petitioner and third petitioner had purchased an extent of 5940 sq.ft. by sale deed dated 01.06.2007 from one P.Balakrishnan, who was also one of the promoter of the approved layout as well as the executor of the agreement in favour of the respondent. It is further stated that one other promoter of the said layout is the fourth petitioner and he is also one of the executors of the agreement referred to above along with the 5th and 6th petitioners, who is the son of first petitioner, and they purchased an extent of 11842 sq.ft. by sale deed dated 01.06.2007 from P.Balakrishnan. Therefore, according to the respondent, the petitioners, being the promoters, in their commercial avocation with an intention of converting the place ear- marked for children play park and public utility for their commercial purpose, have played fraud on the respondent. 4. The reliance placed by the petitioners, on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 30.04.2007 is actually mis-quoted by them in their affidavit. A reference to the said Government Order shows that, in respect of the approval of lay out which was unapproved till the date of granting of approval by the Government, viz., 31.12.2006, the Government took a decision that for granting such approval if there is delay, such delay can be condoned by extending the period of approval upto 31.12.2007. The said Government Order has no application to the facts of the present case at all. The Government Order, which has been heavily relied upon by the petitioners has not stated anything about the conversion of any place ear-marked in the approved lay out for public purpose to private use, and therefore, the said Government Order is not of any use to the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, it is admitted and as it is seen in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the said 40 cents of lands, stated to have been purchased by the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under various sale deeds, till date remain as a place ear-marked for children play park. While so, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the order of the respondent. As a matter of right the petitioners cannot claim the place ear-marked for public purpose as their private property simply because they have subsequently purchased it for valuable consideration. In such view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the respondent. The action of the petitioners is a total abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-, payable by the petitioners to the State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Kh Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To The Executive Officer Thudiyalur Town Panchayat Thuidyalur Coimbatore 34. Copy to: The State Legal Services Authority, Chennai 104. + 1 cc to Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate SR No.40739 + 1 cc to Mr. V.R. Thangavelu, Advocate SR No.40495 VS(CO) SR/18.7.2011 Order in W.P.No.30574 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/