Judgment : 1. The writ petition is directed against the proceedings stated to have been pending before the second and third respondents, viz., the Director and the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, in respect of granting layout approval in favour of the 9th respondent in LP/DDT/CP(CR) No. 182/2007 and it is also prayed for a direction against the respondents to grant layout approval in favour of the petitioners in respect of the property bearing S.F.46/1 to an extent of 70 cents and S.F. No. 46/2 to an extent of 73 cents in Panambakkam village, Kadambathur Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. 2. The petitioners are the son and daughters of late Y. Rajaratnam, who is stated to be the exclusive owner of the above said properties having purchased under a registered sale deed dated 1. 1963 and after purchase, necessary changes were made in the Revenue Records. It is the case of the petitioners that on 9. 1982, their father created an encumbrance over the properties by creating a simple mortgage by having obtained loan from one Mithra Sbenezan under a mortgage deed registered as document No.595/82 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Perambakkam. Subsequently,. The father of the petitioners dies on 111. 2006 leaving behind him his wife and the petitioners as his legal heirs and his wife also died on 3. 2007. 2(a) It is the case of the petitioners, that the first petitioner came to know through 7th respondent that the above said properties were sold to one Sasidaran, 9th respondent submitted some papers for approval to the layout of plots in the lands. It is the case of the petitioners that in the encumbrance certificate, the father of petitioners Y. Rajaratnam was shown as owner from 1963 and in the year 1982 in the said capacity he has mortgaged the property and the said mortgage was also discharged on 30.4.1987 and he did not execute any sale deed in favour of either the 8th respondent or the 9th respondent and therefore, according to the petitioners, the transaction stated to have taken place on 2. 2007 and subsequent entries made in the Revenue Records are fabricated one and the encumbrance certificate has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, etc. 2007 and subsequent entries made in the Revenue Records are fabricated one and the encumbrance certificate has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, etc. 2(b) It is the case of the petitioners that when the said 9th respondent has attempted to change the patta in his name, the same has been defeated by the Tahsildar by order dated 210. 2007 and the patta stands in the name of father of the petitioners, Y. Rajaratnam. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Y. Rajarathnam having purchased the properties under registered sale deed in the year 1963 from one Thiruburasundari, leased out the property in S.F.No.46/2 under a registered lease deed to one Sundaram refused to vacate the land, which resulted in filing of a suit in O.S.No.1016 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruvallur by the father of the petitioners and the trial Court passed a decree on 212. 1981 and the lessee has been evicted. The very fact that the father of petitioners mortgaged the properties to Mithra Ebenezan and discharged the same on 30.4.1987 shows that the father of petitioners was the absolute owner of the properties and he was in possession. Therefore, the sale said to have been effected by 8th respondent in favour of the 9th respondent is fraudulent one. 2(c) It is also stated that when the neighbour Subramani attempted to interfere with the possession, the father of the petitioners lodged a police complaint and filed a suit O.S.No.545 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruvallur and obtained an order of injunction and the said suit was decreed on 30.7.1983, as against which the said Subramani filed an appeal in A.S. No.8 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Tiruvallur and the Sub Court allowed the appeal on 26. 1996 by reversing the trial Court judgment. It was an against the judgment of the first appellate Court, the father of the petitioners filed S.A.No. 1770 of 1997 before this Court and during the pendency of the said second appeal, he died on 111. 2006. 1996 by reversing the trial Court judgment. It was an against the judgment of the first appellate Court, the father of the petitioners filed S.A.No. 1770 of 1997 before this Court and during the pendency of the said second appeal, he died on 111. 2006. 2(d) It is the case of the petitioners that the particulars about the second appeal and the suit were not known to the petitioners and the second appeal was dismissed for default and the petitioners later filed petitions for restoration and also to implead the legal representatives along with a petition to condone the delay of about 1053 days. The said condone-the-delay petition is said to have been allowed on 310. 2007 and the second appeal was restored to file and the same is pending. It was, thereafter, when the petitioners approached the Village Administrative Officer for payment of kist, the petitioners came to know that the 9th respondent along with Karunakaran, Kempu, Maganathan, Natarajan, Ramu, Mani who had no right, sold the properties to the 9th respondent on 2. 2007. It is based on the said fraudulent sale, the 9th respondent is stated to have obtained the layout approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning. 2(e) It is stated that the petitioners had lodged a police complaint on 5. 2007 and the same was not registered by the 6th respondent, the Inspector of Police. There was a complaint made to the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning on 5. 2007 and to the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning on 8. 2007 and 18. 2087 raising objections in respect of grant DTP approval to the 9th respondent in respect of the plots which belong to the petitioners. There was a complaint made to the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning on 5. 2007 and to the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning on 8. 2007 and 18. 2087 raising objections in respect of grant DTP approval to the 9th respondent in respect of the plots which belong to the petitioners. 2(f) In spite of the objections, it is stated that the second and third respondents have granted approval and it is against the said approval, the present writ petition is filed on various grounds including that the sale stated to have been effected in favour of the 9th respondent is fraudulent and does not confer any title on him; that the entire transaction created by various persons including the 8th respondent transferring the properties in the name of 9th respondent is fraudulent and the approval of layout is illegal since the same should not have been granted to the non-owners and that patta stands in the name of father of the petitioners, apart from raising other legal grounds. 3. The 9th respondent, Sasidaran, has filed a counter affidavit along with the petition to vacate injunction. While stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, the 9th respondent has denied various allegations made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is the case of the 9th respondent that the ancestors of 8th respondent viz., late Murugan, late. Gnanaprakasam and late Subramani were owners of the properties in Punja Survey Nos. 46/1 consisting of 0.28.5 acres, 46/2 consisting of 0.29.5 acres and 46/3 consisting of 0.20.0 acres, all in total 0.78.0 acres viz., 1.95 acres of land in Panambakkam village, Kadambathur Panchayat Union, Tiruvallur taluk. 3(a) It is stand that the 8th respondent, along with one S.Mohan, S. Sundarrajan and S.Rajesh Kumar through their Power Agent V.G.Munusamy sold the properties to the 9th respondent under a sale deed dated 2. 2007 registered on the file of Sub Registrar, Tiruvallur as document No.530 of 2007. It is also the case of 9th respondent that even assuming that the sale obtained by him on 2. 2007 is not valid, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. 2007 registered on the file of Sub Registrar, Tiruvallur as document No.530 of 2007. It is also the case of 9th respondent that even assuming that the sale obtained by him on 2. 2007 is not valid, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. It is admitted that the father of the petitioners has filed a suit for bare injunction against one Subramani before the District Munsif’s Court, Tiruvallur and the same was decreed and the appeal filed against the said judgment was allowed, against which the father of the petitioners filed S.A. No.1770 of 1997, which was disposed of on 2. 2002 itself. According to the 9th respondent, till his lifetime, Rajaratnam has not taken any steps to restore the second appeal and according to him, till date no notice has been received by the 9th respondent either in the condone-the-delay petition or in the restoration petition. 3(b) It is also stated that the 9th respondent is the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and only after satisfying about the title of his vendors, the 9th respondent purchased the properties. It is also stated that the third respondent has granted approval for layout only after considering the objections raised by the petitioners. It is stated that even if the petitioners are aggrieved by the layout approval granted by the authorities under the Municipality Act, it is for them to avail the alternative remedy and file an appeal before the appropriate forum. It is also stated that the suit filled by the petitioners’ father itself is only for a bare injunction and not for substantial relief and even if the petitioners claim that they are the owners of the properties after the death of their father, they have to seek remedy in the manner known to law. 4. On the face of it, the relief claimed by the petitioners, challenging the layout approval granted by the second and third respondents in favour of the 9th respondent is not maintainable, since the petitioners have adequate alternative remedy available under the relevant law. On appreciation of the facts as given in the affidavits filed by the parties, it is seen that the issue involved is purely civil in nature. On appreciation of the facts as given in the affidavits filed by the parties, it is seen that the issue involved is purely civil in nature. De hors the remedy which may be available to the petitioners under the Municipality Act or Town and Country Planning Act, the ultimate relief claimed by the petitioners is for a declaration that they are the owners of the properties. On the factual situation, as it is seen in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, admittedly, the petitioners have stated that the 9th respondent has purchased the properties under a registered sale deed dated 2. 2007. Even assuming that such sale deed is effected by fraud or misrepresentation, etc., it is not for this Court to make such declaration in this writ petition. 5. The ultimate intention of the petitioners in seeking remedy from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the sale deed dated 2. 2007 executed in favour of the 9th respondent is void is patent from the affidavit filed byh the petitioners especially with reference to Ground-7 of the affidavit which is as follows: “7. The Sub-Registrar before registering a document, ought to have verified whether the original land owner has brought any documents for registration. Non consideration of the same vitiates the entire proceedings of the registration and the sale deed dated 2. 2007 is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.” 6. In such circumstances, it is clear that the intention of the petitioners is only to have their civil right in respect of the properties in question to be declared in their favour which cannot be done by this Court by exchange of affidavits under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If really the case of the petitioners is correct that after the death of their father, they have moved an application for the purpose of restoring the second appeal in S.A.No. 1770 of 1997 along with an application for condonation of delay of 1053 days in bringing the legal representatives on record and that the said applications have been allowed and the second appeal got restored to file, nothing prevented the petitioners from approaching this Court in the second appeal to get any appropriate relief. 7. 7. It is relevant to point out at this stage that the 9th respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that he has not received any notice in respect of restoration petition, stated to have been filed by the petitioners. If the 9th respondent is not made as a party in the second appeal./ It is equally open to him to work out his remedy in the second appeal by impleading himself as a party. Therefore, this Court cannot settle the dispute between the petitioners and the 9th respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The argument vehemently advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when, on the face of it, fraud played by some of the parties has been revealed before this Court, this Court can definitely set at naught such fraud or misrepresentation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no meaning. When the case of the petitioners is that a document is stated to have been executed by third parties who are stated to be the non-owners, in favour of the 9th respondent, the question whether such document confers any title or not in favour of the 9th respondent has to be decided only by a competent Court. If it is the case of the petitioners as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sale deed which stands as on date as a registered deed in the name of 9th respondent has to be ignored while considering the approval of layout, it is for the petitioners to approach the competent authorities who have granted plan approval in favour of the 9th respondent to set aside such approval and even looking the matter in the angle of the second and third respondents, again it is not for this Court to set aside such approval. 9. It is also relevant to point out at this stage that the petitioners who have chosen to refer about the approval of plan have not even filed any such proceedings before this Court. 9. It is also relevant to point out at this stage that the petitioners who have chosen to refer about the approval of plan have not even filed any such proceedings before this Court. The various documents filed including the comparison of the lands of 9th respondent and the lands of petitioners’ father by comparing the paimash numbers and survey numbers and the attempts made by the petitioners to convince the Court that the properties which are subject matter of dispute belong to the petitioners are all of no use since the same require appreciation of evidence, especially in the circumstances that the 9th respondent denies the various averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 10. A reference to the Revenue Records on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners show that in respect of some faslis the name of predecessor-in-title of the petitioner’s father, by name, Thiruburasundari is found incorporated. If it is the case of the petitioners that a reference to the adangal extract issued on behalf of the District Collector on 27. 2007 shows that some of the petitioners have been in uninterrupted possession of the properties for more than statutory period, again, it is for the petitioners to work out their remedy to declare that they are owners having prescribed title by adverse possession. This Court is compelled to make such a statement since it is the case of the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners by long posse4ssion and uninterrupted use, have acquired title by adverse possession. The averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition also go to show that it is the main case of the petitioners that the 9th respondent has created a fictitious document to show as if he is the owner and therefore, he should be termed as a land grabber. 11. Even if it is true, it is not for this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take judicial notice of such activity and declare such document as null and void. Even then, the rule of law requires that due process has to be followed to set aside such an illegal document in the manner known to law. Even then, the rule of law requires that due process has to be followed to set aside such an illegal document in the manner known to law. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of land grabbing activities stated to have been committed by the 9th respondent and also by his vendors under the sale deed dated 2. 2007, the petitioners have given a criminal complaint and in spite of it, the 6th respondent, the Inspector of Police, has, not taken any action and therefore a direction should be given to the 6th respondent to take appropriate criminal action against the 9th respondent and his vendors is also not tenable, since the relief claimed in this writ petition is only in respect of approval of plan stated to have been granted by the second and third respondents and what is stated about the giving of criminal complaint by the petitioners against the 9th respondent and his vendors is only incidental thereto. In any event it is for the petitioners to pursue such complaint in accordance with law. 12. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 7 SCC 164 on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to the petitioners. That was a case wherein in respect of complaint on the criminal conduct of kidnapping, theft and dacoity, there was no further action and it is for the purpose of giving general guidelines, the Supreme Court has given notice to ail States as to the nature of action taken by the police and departmental proceedings initiated against such authorities who have failed to take cognizance of such criminal activities and it is, in that context, the Supreme Court has given a general direction to all the States and police to take on file all FIRs pending and registered, failing which the parties should move the Magistrates concerned, and a further direction has been given to the police to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and properties which were the subject matter of theft or dacoity and take stringent action against the police who failed to act by even initiating contempt proceedings by the Magistrates and inflict punishments. The relevant portion of the judgment is: “6. The relevant portion of the judgment is: “6. In view of the above, we feel that it is high time to give directions to the Governments of all the States and Union Territories besides their Director General of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of FIRs immediately and copies thereof are not made over to the complainants, they may move the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint petitions to give direction to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the orders and make over copy of the FIRs to the complainants, within twenty-four hours of receipt/production of copy of such orders. It may further give direction to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties which were the subject-matter of theft or dacoity. In case FIRs are not registered within the aforementioned time, and/or aforementioned steps are not taken by the police, the Magistrate concerned would be justified in initiating contempt proceeding against such delinquent officers and punish them for violation of its orders if no sufficient cause is shown and awarding stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them inasmuch as the disciplinary authority would be quite justified in initiating departmental proceeding and suspending them in contemplation of the same.” 13. In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering various circumstances in respect of properties as well as persons involved in offences like theft, dacoity, etc. and therefore, in order to maintain law and order in this country, the Apex Court has given such direction- On the factual matrix before this Court, the petitioners’ case being that the 9th respondent has obtained a sale deed fraudulently, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that unless or until such fraud has been found proved by the competent Court, there is no question of giving any direction to the authorities t this stage. At the cost of repetition, it is to be reiterated that when in respect of the same issue a second appeal is pending before this Court, whether the relief asked for in the suit was for declaration or for bare injunction, in all fairness, the petitioners should have approached the said Court instead of filing the present writ petition which is certainly an abuse of process of law. 14. 14. In Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala (2008) 2 SCC (Crl) 9, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the rights of this Court either under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, posed the following questions about the jurisdiction of the High Court observed: “46. On a careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Judge, we find that the learned Judge initiated suo motu proceeding without even examining as to whether the contents of the anonymous letter and material sent along with it disclosed any prima facie case for ordering an investigation. The question is: can investigation be ordered by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code based on such vague and indefinite allegations made in unsigned petition without even arriving at any prima facie conclusion that the contents thereof reveal commission of any cognizable offence? Whether such directions could have been issued by the High Court even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” And ultimately held as follows in respect of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: “59. Can the High Court set the law in motion against the named and unnamed individuals based on the information received by it without recording the reasons that the information prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence? Setting criminal law in motion is fraught with serious consequences, which cannot lightly be undertaken by the High Court even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the High Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by constituting a special investigation team on the strength of anonymous petitions. The High Courts cannot foe converted into station houses.” 15. In a subsequent decision, in Sakiri Vasti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409 , the Supreme Court has held that in the event of complained against authority of no proper investigation, the Magistrate is empowered to make such an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “17. In a subsequent decision, in Sakiri Vasti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409 , the Supreme Court has held that in the event of complained against authority of no proper investigation, the Magistrate is empowered to make such an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: “17. In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.PC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.” 16. Incidentally, it is relevant to point out the way in which the first petitioner has made certain statements in the rejoinder affidavit filed by her dated 17. 2008. She has stated that this Court is not justified in closing its eyes and not passing a direction to register the case exercising its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is certainly not in good taste. The statement made by the first petitioner in the said rejoinder affidavit is as follows: “9. Even ex-facie if the 8th and 9th respondent commits a fraud and totally misleads the Hon’ble Court it is not justified that, this Hon’ble Court should close its eye and not pass a direction to register a case exercising the discretionary power under Article 226 of the constitution of India. If on the face of the records flagrant violation is being done by the authority this Hon’ble Court can interfere and quash the same. The said decision referred to by the respondent at paragraph 12 is irrelevant to the present facts and circumstances of the above case with regard to the contentions set out by the respondent at paragraph 13 it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner have lodged a police complaints on 5. 2007 and again on 111. 2007. The said decision referred to by the respondent at paragraph 12 is irrelevant to the present facts and circumstances of the above case with regard to the contentions set out by the respondent at paragraph 13 it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner have lodged a police complaints on 5. 2007 and again on 111. 2007. This respondent has filed a Writ Petition No. 36700 of 2007 forbearing the Inspector of Police, Tiruvallore not to initiate any criminal action as against the 9th respondent and the same is pending.” In view of the same and looking into any angle, the writ petition as such is not maintainable, petitioners are not entitled for any relief and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Chennai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. W.P. No. 2765 of 2008 Per P. JYOTHIMANI, J. This matter has come up by way of “Being Mentioned.” 2. While dismissing the writ petition by order dated 29. 2008, this Court had directed the petitioners to pay Rs.5000/- as costs to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Chennai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. That portion of the order in the concluding paragraph regarding payment of costs atone stands deleted.