A RANGASAMY Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER THUDIYALUR TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 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.) 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.