Judgment : The petitioner is a Trust owning large extent of land in Tallakulam village within the erstwhile Town Panchayat of Tallakulam. With a view to augment the income of the Trust, the lands bearing Survey Nos.92, 94, 120 to 126, 130 133, 176/1 and 178 were divided into house plots and the area was known as ‘Karpaga Nagar. ‘A detailed lay -out plan was prepared for the total extent of 76.12 acres and an extent of 21 acres was set apart for the formation of roads. The lay-out plan was approved by the Tallakulam Town Panchayat by its resolution dated 30.2.1972 and 15. 1972. Pursuant to the said resolution, the Executive Officer of the Tallakulam Town Panchayat issued an order in P.R.No.2172 dated 15. 1972 approving the plan. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the approval of the plan, roads, were formed in accordance with a sanctioned plan and handed over to the Panchayat as evidenced by a deed of gift dated 15. 1972. 2. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation was formed under the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, and the same had come into force on 5. 1971. Though the area coming under the Tallakulam Town Panchayat did not form part of Madurai City Municipal Corporation by the Notification in G.O.Ms.No.169, R.D.L.A., dated 30.1.1974 and published in the Gazette of the same date, the area coming under the Tallakulam Town Panchayat was included in the Madurai City Municipal Corporation. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though a plan was duly approved by the Tallakulam Town Panchayat, the 1st respondent insisted that the petitioner should once again obtain their sanction. Therefore, with a view to purchase peace, the petitioner sent the plan for the approval of the 1st respondent, even though they were not legally obliged to do so. it is also significant to notice that the petitioner’s specific case is, that pursuant to the approval accorded by the Panchayat, roads were formed and handed over to the Panchayat. The 1st respondent, under the communication dated 14. 1979 demanded the sum of Rs.7,59,000 for laying the road as a condition for approval of the lay-out. This was followed by a similar demands on 21. 1980, and 13. 1986. Finally on 6. The 1st respondent, under the communication dated 14. 1979 demanded the sum of Rs.7,59,000 for laying the road as a condition for approval of the lay-out. This was followed by a similar demands on 21. 1980, and 13. 1986. Finally on 6. 1988, the 1st respondent claimed a sum of Rs.80,69,768 being the total cost of laying road, drainage and providing electricity, it was also mentioned in the said notification that the petitioner had obtained permission from the Director of Town and Country Planning, Madras, in M.R.No.1/75. Out of the total cost of Rs.80,69,76S, the 1st respondent demanded a sum of Rs.40,34,S84 being the 50% thereof. This demand is purported to be made under Sec.250(2) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act. By the very same communication, the 1st respondent has also requested the petitioner to execute a gift deed as per the format enclosed by them. Challenging the said communication dated 6. 1988, the writ petition has been filed. .4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter. It is admitted in the said counter that the lands totalling 73 acres and odd in Tallakulam village belongs to the petitioner and that the said lands were sub-divided and sold for the construction of houses. According to the 1st respondent, the details of layout plan approved by the Panchayat were not available with them. It is their further case that the gift deed dated 15. 1972 evidencing the handing over of the roads is also not available with the 1st respondent. However, they would admit the position that the detailed development plan as consented by the Director of Town and Country Planning discloses the existence of roads. Notwithstanding the above pleadings, what is stated by the 1st respondent is that actually no roads are in existence as per the provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act. In yet another place in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner did not make any step to develop the road space as indicated in the approved lay-out. 5. Mr.V.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the provisions of Sec.250(2) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act cannot be invoked by the 1st respondent for sustaining the amounts demanded by them because the said provision would apply only when a lay-out is made and not a lay-out which had already been approved. 5. Mr.V.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the provisions of Sec.250(2) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act cannot be invoked by the 1st respondent for sustaining the amounts demanded by them because the said provision would apply only when a lay-out is made and not a lay-out which had already been approved. According to him, the aforesaid provi-sion can be invoked only at the time of sanctioning the lay-out plan or approving the same. Elaborating his submission, it is contended that a reading of the provisions of Secs.250 and 251 of the Act would make it clear that the 1st respondent can demand the cost of improvement only at the time of approval of lay out plan. The learned counsel would also contend that by viture of Sec.236 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, all public streets have vested in the Corporation consequent upon the inclusion of Tallakulam Town Panchayat within Madurai City Municipal Corporation limit under G.O.Ms.No.169, R.D.L.A., dated 30.1.1974, and therefore, it is not open to the 1st respondent to make the impugned demand. He also invited my attention to the corresponding provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and the relevant rules pertaining to vesting of public roads, etc. .6. Per contra, Mr.J.Raja Kalifullah, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, would contend that once the petitioner has made an application to the 1st respondent for approval of the layout plain, it is not open to them to rely on the approval granted by the authorities concerned to the lay-out plan. Incidentally, he would also invite my attention to the speed with which the plan submitted by the petitioner has been sanctioned by the Tallakulam Town Panchayat. He would further submit that the 1st respondent is not in possession of either the lay-out plan approved by the Tallakulam Town Panchayat or the gift deed evidencing the handing over of the roads to the Panchayat by the petitioner. 7. I have be stowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. Even in the impugned communication dated 6. 1988, the sanction accorded by the Director of Town and Country Planning Madras, to the lay-out under Ref.M.R.No.1/75 is referred to. 7. I have be stowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. Even in the impugned communication dated 6. 1988, the sanction accorded by the Director of Town and Country Planning Madras, to the lay-out under Ref.M.R.No.1/75 is referred to. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Tallakulam Town Panchayat passed a resolution approving the lay-out and pursuant to the said resolution, the Executive Officer of the said Panchayat approved the layout plan submitted by the petitioner in P.R.No.21/72 dated 15. 1972. Admittedly, the Town Panchayat area was included with in the limits of Madurai Corporation under G.O.Ms.No.169, R.D.L.A., dated 30.1.1974. 8. The roads were formed by the petitioner pursuant to the approved lav-out and handed over to the Panchayat long prior to 30.1.1974, as evidenced by the gift deed dated 15. 1972. It is seen that the gift deed specifically recites that the duly laid roads have been handed over to Tallakulam Town Panchayat for the purpose of maintenance. The petitioners have also produced the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Tallakulam Town Panchayat approving the lay-out plan. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the lay-out plan submitted by the petitioner could not have been approved because they are not in possession of the relevant records or the details of the plan. 9. On the materials placed before me by the petitioner and on the basis of the records produced, I am fully satisfied that the Tallakulam Town Panchayat has approved the lay-out plan by duly passing a resolution to that effect by the Panchayat. Merely because the details of the layout plan arc not available with the 1st respondent, it does not mean that the lay-out plan submitted by the petitioner was not approved by the concerned authorities. At the time of hearing Plan No.12/80 prepared and duly signed by the Senior Deputy Director of Town Planning. Madurai Region, was shown to me and that discloses the existence of duly laid roads in the sites of the petitioner. .10. Coming to the question of the existence of the roads, I have to say that the 1st respondent has no consistent case in its counter affidavit. Madurai Region, was shown to me and that discloses the existence of duly laid roads in the sites of the petitioner. .10. Coming to the question of the existence of the roads, I have to say that the 1st respondent has no consistent case in its counter affidavit. At one place the 1st respondent would state in the counter affidavit that ‘in actual existence no roads as per the provisions of the Act were laid by the petitioners Trust’. In yet another place, the 1st respondent would state ‘that only spaces for roads have been demarcated in the layout, but actually no effort was made to develop the road space’. In yet another place, the 1st respondent has staled that the records of the Panchayat handed over to them did not contain the records pertaining to the details of Karpaga Nagar lay-out roads’. Thus, the 1st respondent is not very sure of its stand. 11. The petitioners has produced the gift deed dated 15. 1972, which clearly shows that well laid roads have been handed over to the Tallakulam Panchayat for the purpose of maintenance. Admittedly, the detailed development plan also shows the existence of the roads. Even the plan prepared by the Senior Deputy Director of Town Planning also proves the existence of roads. Therefore, I accept the case of the petitioner-trust that the roads were laid as per the approved lay-out plan and handed over to the Panchayat. Thus, I hold that the roads have already vested with the Madurai Corporation consequent on the inclusion of Tallakulam area within Madurai City Municipal Corporation on limits. 12. In view of my above finding, I have to necessarily hold that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 250 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act and raise the impugned demand, as rightly contended by Mr.V.Krishnan, learned cousel for the petitioner, and when roads have already been laid and handed over and vested with the Tallakulam Town Panchayat and subsequently with Madurai Corporation. 13. It is needless for me to highlight that the 1st respondent Corporation being the successor-in-interest of Tallakulam Town Panchayat is bound by the actions of the latter. In this connection. 13. It is needless for me to highlight that the 1st respondent Corporation being the successor-in-interest of Tallakulam Town Panchayat is bound by the actions of the latter. In this connection. I am unable to accept, the contention of Mr.J.Raja Kalifullah that it is not open to the petitioner Trust to rely on the sanction accorded by the Panchayat for lay-out when they have submitted a plan to the 1st respondent for its approval. The 1st respondent cannot derive any jurisdiction merely because the petitioner has submitted a plan once again. Further, the petitioner has set out in detail in the writ affidavit the circumstances which forced the Trust to submit the lay-out plan for approval to the 1st respondent notwithstanding the fact that the Tallakulam Panchayat had accorded the approval as early as 1972. 14. Mr.J.Raja Kalifullah, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, argued that the Town Panchayat has acted quickly in sanctioning the lay-out. From the mere fact that Panchayat has acted quickly in granting approval to the lay-out plan, no inference can be drawn. Nowadays, everyone wants things to be done by public authorities quickly and any quickness in action should receive appreciation instead of condemnation. 15. I am also unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the 1st respondent that the respondent that the remedy of the petitioner is to go before civil court. It is well settled that when the impugned communication is without jurisdication the petitioner can certainly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I reject the submission made by the 1st respondent’s learned counsel in this regard. 16. Coming to the impugned order, I have to say that the 1st respondent has not given any indication as to the details of the demand for such a huge sum of Rs.80 lakhs and odd. It is also pertinent to notice that at the earliest point of time the 1st respondent has demanded only Rs.7,75,000 for laying the roads on 14. 1979. This was followed by another demand on 21. 1980 for Rs.7,57,000 and the same was followed by a similar demand on 13. 1986. It is ununderstandable as to how in a period of two years the aforesaid demands have swelled to a huge sum of Rs.80 lakhs and odd. The petitioner has stated that the aforesaid demand was arbitrary and unreasonable. 117. 1980 for Rs.7,57,000 and the same was followed by a similar demand on 13. 1986. It is ununderstandable as to how in a period of two years the aforesaid demands have swelled to a huge sum of Rs.80 lakhs and odd. The petitioner has stated that the aforesaid demand was arbitrary and unreasonable. 117. The 1st respondent in its counter has not chosen to justify the claim except to say merely that the same represents the expenditure for the formation of roads, drainage, etc. I hold that in any event, the impugned demand is arbitrary and unreasonable. This finding is rendered by me on account of the contention raised in this behalf even though the said finding is unnecessary having regard to the view taken by me that 1st respondent Corporation has no jurisdiction under Sec.250(2) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act to issue the impugned order. 118. I, therefore, allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 6. 1988 of the 1st respondent, as prayed for. However, there will be no as to costs.