Judgment : 1. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent regarding Stop Work Notice and quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding further with initiating any demolition or interference with the respective petitioner’s construction at the respective premises. 2. As the facts in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, the following common order is passed. 3. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners are Private Limited Companies doing the business and in other writ petitions, the petitioners have constructed farm houses in East Coast Road. Aggrieved by the demolition notices issued by the respondents, to demolish the construction put up unauthorisedly without the required planning permission, the present writ petitions are filed to quash the demolition notices issued on different dates. 4. In all the cases, learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners did not choose to construct the houses afresh. They had only submitted the plans for extension of the present structure. In some cases, even if the constructions are fresh, they have submitted the plans for sanction. Even though a point has been raised that the respondents have not followed the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act in bringing certain areas under the jurisdiction of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel have agreed to give up that argument. Learned counsel have argued that in the impugned notices, the respondents have stated that the constructions being put up by the petitioners were found to be in violation and the ban imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 190 H & UD Department dated 22. 1980. The petitioners have been asked to submit the sanctioned plan failing which, action will be proceeded under the provisions of the Tow n & Country Planning Act treating the construction as unauthorised. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that as per G.O.Ms. No. 190 dated 22. 1990, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board while lining up contiguous neighbourhoods along the eastern sea coast have proposed to form another neighbourhood scheme contiguous to Thiruvanmiyur Scheme known as ‘Besant Nagar’ Phase II Extension Scheme. The above scheme was extended to the following villages: 1. Thiruvanmiyur 2. Palavakkam 3. Kottivakkam 4. No. 190 dated 22. 1990, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board while lining up contiguous neighbourhoods along the eastern sea coast have proposed to form another neighbourhood scheme contiguous to Thiruvanmiyur Scheme known as ‘Besant Nagar’ Phase II Extension Scheme. The above scheme was extended to the following villages: 1. Thiruvanmiyur 2. Palavakkam 3. Kottivakkam 4. Neelankarai In the above Government Order it is stated that the geology Department has suggested that a belt of land from the sealine to the Mahabalipuram Road should be left free of construction, as this area has a great potential for ground water which could be exploited to use as drinking water for the existing population. It was further cautioned that there will be lot of scarcity of drinking water if the construction is extended on the south beyond the areas already acquired. In the Government Order it is stated that the Government therefore considered that it is not proper to build up the villages contiguously south of Thiruvanmiyur and that the Housing Board should explore alternatively the possibility of forming neighbourhoods in the other directions around Madras City in future. Basing on the above Government Order, Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that certain guidelines were issued in the above Government Order regarding the acquisition of land by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board beyond the northern part of the existing scheme area i.e. Thiruvanmiyur Village Neighbourhood Schemes. The Gummidipoondi and Thiruvallur should be developed into full fledged satellite towns (as in the case of Maraimalai Nagar) as both the towns have been connected with the Madras City by electric railway line on the northern and western sides of the city respectively. Selection of compact areas around railway stations from Madras to Tambaram and Madras to Tiruvallur. Development of urban nodes like Manali already selected by the M.M.D.A. after acquisition. The Government Order further reads that the Director of Town and Country Planning, Member Secretary, M.M.D.A. are requested to ensure that for the reasons stated in the Government Order, no layout for any building construction is approved in respect of the areas beyond the limit referred to in item 1 of the said Government Order. The Government Order further reads that the Director of Town and Country Planning, Member Secretary, M.M.D.A. are requested to ensure that for the reasons stated in the Government Order, no layout for any building construction is approved in respect of the areas beyond the limit referred to in item 1 of the said Government Order. Learned Counsel have emphasised that in the Government Order, the Government has taken a decision that there should not be any appro val of lay out for any building referred to in item 1 i.e. there should not be any acquisition of land in Thiruvanmiyur Village Neighbourhood Schemes. Learned counsel have vehemently argued that in all the cases, the petitioners have not sought for the approval of the layout and the petitioners have sought permission only to take additional construction to the present buildings. Learned counsel have argued that the word ‘layout’ is not defined under the Town and Country Planning Act. They have brought to the notice of this Court, the scheme evolved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority called as ‘Building Regularisation Scheme’, wherein the Government has proposed to regularise the unauthorised constructions prescribing the regularisation fee rates. In the above scheme, the word ‘layout’ has been defined as division of land into plots exceeding eight in numbers. Relying upon the above definition, learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that as per G.O.Ms. No. 190 the respondent Auth ority has taken a decision not to approve any lay out for any building construction. They have argued that there is no ban as such for construction of the independent buildings. The ban is applicable only to the layouts where there is a large area which is divisible into plots exceeding eight in numbers . Learned counsel have argued that demolition notices have been issued with reference to the above G.O.Ms. No. 190 and there is no ban as such in G.O.Ms. No. 190 for construction of the independent buildings. The said Government Order is not applicable to the construction put up by the petitioners as the petitioners are not seeking the approval of the layouts. The impugned notices are liable to be quashed as they have been issued under the misconception of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. Advancing the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have sought for quashing of the impugned notices. 5. The impugned notices are liable to be quashed as they have been issued under the misconception of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. Advancing the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have sought for quashing of the impugned notices. 5. The respondents have filed a counter stating that the petitioners have made constructions without prior planning permission and they have contravened the statutory requirements of the planning permission. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Madras Metropolitan Development Authority has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has stated that the contention of the petitioners that the Government Order would apply only to layouts and not to the independent buildings is not sustainable as it would only defeat the very object of the ban imposed by the Government in the said Government order. the petitioner have to obtain prior planning permission for the constructions and the Government Order imposes an absolute ban for undertaking any construction work in respect of the areas beyond the limit referred to an item 1 of the Government Order. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the petitioners have no right to say that there is no ban. Learned Senior C ounsel has also argued that the petitioners have no vested right to seek the direction to consider their applications for regularisation. Learned Counsel for the respondents has tried to impress upon this court that the word ‘layout’ mentioned in the G.O.Ms.190 will include the independent buildings also. 6. In most of the cases, the petitioners have filed the Writ miscellaneous petition seeking a direction to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to receive the applications for regularisation in view of the building regularisation scheme as the Writ petitions are pending before this court. By order dated 14. 1999, this court granted an interim direction to the respondent Chennai Metropolitan development Authority to receive the applications and not to pass final orders pending disposal of the Writ Petition. 7. The only point that haws to be decided in these writ petitions at this stage is whether there is a ban as per G.O.Ms. No. 190 and if that is so, whether it applies to the case of the petitioners. A reading of the abovesaid G.O.Ms. No. 190 dated 22. 7. The only point that haws to be decided in these writ petitions at this stage is whether there is a ban as per G.O.Ms. No. 190 and if that is so, whether it applies to the case of the petitioners. A reading of the abovesaid G.O.Ms. No. 190 dated 22. 1980 makes it clear that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has proposed to form another Neighbourhood Scheme contiguous to Thiruvanmiyur Scheme known as ‘Besant Nagar’ Phase II Extension Scheme. This scheme covers Thiruvanmiyur, Palavakkam, Kottivakkam and Neelan karai. The extent of the land proposed is 96.92 acres and 175 acres respectively. Item 1 of the Government Order says that there should be no acquisition of land by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board beyond the northern part of the existing scheme area (Thiruvanmiyur village Neighbourhood schemes), on the southern side comprising S.Nos. 78 and 83 to 106 of Thiruvanmiyur Village. The Government Order further reads that the Director of Town and Country Planning, Member Secretary, MMDA were requested to ensure t hat for the reasons stated in the said Government Order, no lay out for any building construction is approved in respect of the areas beyond the limit referred to in item 1 of the Government Order. The word ‘layout’ means division of land into plots exceeding eight in numbers. If this definition is correlated to the word ‘layout’ as stated in G.O.Ms. No. 190 is not applicable to the cases of the petitioners as they have not sought for approval of layouts. They have sought approval for the construction or extension of the independent buildings. In G.O.Ms. No. 190 there is no absolute ban for the construction of the independent buildings. For the reasons stated above, it has to be held that the reasoning of the respondent that as per G.O.Ms. No. 190 there is absolute ban for the construction activities in the areas mentioned in the Government Order is misconceived. The Government Order imposes a ban for the approval of the layouts. Under the circumstances, the impugned notices which were issued in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 190 Housing & Urban Development Department dated 22. 1980 are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. The Government Order imposes a ban for the approval of the layouts. Under the circumstances, the impugned notices which were issued in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 190 Housing & Urban Development Department dated 22. 1980 are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. However it is made clear that as the petitioners have constructed the buildings without prior sanction of the Authorities, they are entitled to seek the regularisation of the constructions as per the Building Regularisation Scheme. In view of the interim orders already passed by this court on 14. 1999, the respondents are directed to pass final orders on the application of the petitioners who have applied as per the Building Regularisation Scheme.