IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.09.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K. VASUKI W.P.No.9090 of 2010 in MP.No.1 of 2010 Mr.A.Kirubakaran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.480, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35. 2.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Salem Housing Unit, Ayyanthirumaligai Main Road, Salem-8. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner in respect of the land situated in Survey Nos.12/5E, 13/6, 13/7, 13/8, 13/9, 13/11, 13/12, 13/14, 13/15, 13/17, 13/19 in Kandampatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District. For Petitioner ... M/s.P.Nethaji for M/s.Dass and Bose Associates For R1 and R2 ... M/s.A.Vijayakumar for TNEB. ORDER On consent, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to issue NOC to the petitioner in respect of the lands in question situated in various survey numbers in Kandampatti Village, Salem Taluk, Salem District. 3. According to the petitioner, the lands were originally covered under acquisition proceedings for Salem neighborhood scheme and acquisition proceedings was at the instance of the land owners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ set aside and the order setting aside the acquisition proceedings was also confirmed in the appeal as early as on 12.07.2010 and no further appeal is preferred by the respondents herein. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner as the owner of the property approached Salem Corporation, Revenue department and Salem local planning Authority for getting building plan and layout approval for construction of building and to sell certain portion of the lands by converting the same into approved layouts. But the authorities did not grant approval, by insisting the petitioner to get NOC from the second respondent and though the petitioner repeatedly approached the second respondent he received, no response from the respondent and the same compelled the petitioner to approach this court for the relief as stated supra. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the cancellation of the acquisition proceedings, the land in question can be dealt with by the petitioner who is the owner of the land, in the manner as he intends to do and as the petitioner can neither put up any construction nor sell certain portion, without layouts approval, the action of the respondent in insisting for NOC which is not required for granting approval is totally erroneous and arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the claim on the ground that some of the lands are already covered in acquisition proceedings and the order of the learned single judge against the same is challenged before Hon'ble Division Bench and pending the same the question of granting NOC does not at all arise herein. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition in WP.No.34916 of 2007 filed along with the condone delay petition is dismissed as early as on 18.12.2007 and the same is enclosed at pages 30 and 31 of the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner. The similar writ petition filed by other land owners for identical relief is disposed of by recording the admission made by the learned standing counsel for the Housing Board in this regard. 9. Our High Court has disposed of similar writ petition by observing that as the land acquisition proceedings are already quashed, the question of getting NOC from Tamil Nadu Housing Board for the approval of building plan and permission is not at all necessary and Commissioner, Salem Municipal Corporation, Salem; the Member Secretary, Salem Local Planning Authority, Salem and the Tahsildar, Salem Taluk Office, Salem who were arrayed as the respondents 3 to 5 therein are hence directed to consider the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's application for planning permission without insisting NOC from the Housing Board and the similar order is also passed by the Division Bench of this court on 12.04.2006 in WP.No.15956 of 2004 in K.Nalliappan Vs. The Managing Director, TNHB, Nandanam, Chennai-35 wherein similar direction was issued to the Town and Country planning authority to consider approval of layout without insisting for NOC from the Housing Board. 10. That being the factual and legal position, the question of insisting for NOC from the Housing Board for the purpose of processing layout approval by the respondents 1 and 2 does not arise herein. 11. With these observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar tsh To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, No.480, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35. 2.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Salem Housing Unit, Ayyanthirumaligai Main Road, Salem-8. 1 cc To M/s.Dass and Bose Associates, Advocate, SR.69861 1 cc To Mr.A.Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR.69790 W.P.No.9090 of 2010 TRM(CO) sra 20/10/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/