J U D G M E N T:-The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with 18% interest p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation and for costs. 2. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows : (a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 owned dry lands, comprised in SF.No.13/2B measuring an extent of 2.17 ½ acres and SF.No.13/5B measuring an extent of 1.06 acres, situated at Kumilampparapu Village, Suriyampalayam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Erode District. The first plaintiff wanted to establish and run an Edible Oil Mill Plant under the name and style of M/s.Pankajam Oil Mills, using coconut as a raw material and accordingly, she submitted a blue print sketch for the proposed building for the Edible Oil Mill Building Plan to the Suriyampalayam Selection Grade Town Panchayat in the month of February 1986. After collecting developmental charge of Rs.5,000/-, the Town Panchayat granted sanction and approval by Order No.Mu.Mu./49/86, dated 14.02.1986 for the building to be constructed for the Edible Oil Mill. Then, the plaintiffs applied to the Erode District Industrial Centre, which approved the starting of the Edible Oil Plant, by its Order No.18/16/04282/PROV/SSI, dated 31.03.1986, a Registration Certificate for Small Scale Industry was also issued in the name of the first plaintiff by the Department of Industries and Commerce to run the oil mill under the name and style of M/s.Pankajam Oil Mills for the extraction of edible oil (coconut). (b) The plaintiffs started the construction of the edible oil mill building in SF.No.13/2B. The first plaintiff entered into an agreement for the construction of oil plant building and executed agreement dated 03.04.1986 between herself and one Duraian alias Ramasamy, a building contractor, and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance to the said building contractor on 03.04.1986. Total labour charges of Rs.75,000/- was fixed as per agreement. The contractor dug up pit for the foundation level up to a depth of 7 feet from the surface to a length of 708 feet and the foundation and basement made consisted of Blue Metals, Cement and sand with 1 ½ feet width up to a length of 708 feet, for which the plaintiffs had spent more than Rs.85,000/-. The contractor dug up pit for the foundation level up to a depth of 7 feet from the surface to a length of 708 feet and the foundation and basement made consisted of Blue Metals, Cement and sand with 1 ½ feet width up to a length of 708 feet, for which the plaintiffs had spent more than Rs.85,000/-. The plaintiffs paid Rs.4,000/- towards development fees to Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat for the said oil mill building to be constructed in the month of February 1986 and the building plan was renewed every year from 1986 till 1991. (c) According to the plaintiffs, they incurred a sum of Rs.2,05,256/- towards the construction of the plant for the edible oil mill, by way of developmental charges, incidental and miscellaneous expenses, for purchasing building materials, labour charges etc., and further the plaintiffs arranged necessary funds to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- by way of bank loan. Suddenly, the fourth defendant, Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, issued G.O.Ms.No.33, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.01.1988 and the same was published in the Tamil Newspaper "Dinamalar" dated 06.03.1989, under which the Chittode New Town Development Authority was created and established for the first time and the area in which plaintiffs had taken steps to start the edible oil mill, was declared as residential zone. The plaintiffs lands in SF.No.13/2B and SF.No.13/5B in Kumilampparapu Village, Erode District were classified as residential area, hence, no industry shall be established or started in the said area. (d) According to the plaintiffs, the area relating to the building of the oil mill, including its compound wall was classified as a residential area by the defendants, detrimental to the rights of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiffs, G.O.Ms.33, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 25.01.1988 is illegal and the defendants 1 to 4 had deliberately stopped the construction of the oil mill building in SF.No.13/2B belongs to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, one Mr.Gopalan, Assistant Director, first defendant, accompanied by his subordinates inspected the building under construction for the oil mill and issued orders orally to the plaintiffs, not to construct the building for the oil mill, since the said area had been classified as residential area by G.O.Ms.33, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 25.01.1988. According to the plaintiffs, one Mr.Gopalan, Assistant Director, first defendant, accompanied by his subordinates inspected the building under construction for the oil mill and issued orders orally to the plaintiffs, not to construct the building for the oil mill, since the said area had been classified as residential area by G.O.Ms.33, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 25.01.1988. With the above pleadings, the plaintiffs sought for a Judgment and Decree directing the defendants 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, as damages with 18% interest p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation and also the cost of the suit. 3. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the defendants: (i) According to the defendants, under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Plan Act 1971, the Chittode New Town Development Plan was prepared and approved by the authorities. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.33, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 25.01.1988, as envisaged under Section 24 of the said Act, issued Notification in No.36, Part VI, Section-1, dated 14.09.1988 in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Under the New Town Development Plan, the plaintiffs land had been classified as a residential zone. The plan had been formulated to relieve congestion and for a proper layout of the Chittode Town. The said plan came into operation from the date of publication of the said notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Under the Act, original plan, master plan or new town development plan approved, may at any time be varied or revoked by the Government, subsequently, even the original plan, master plan or new town development plan as the case may be prepared and approved under the Act. (ii) Under Sections 101 and 102 of the Act, a suit or any other proceedings shall not lie against the Government or any planning authority or other authority or officer-in-person for any act done or purported to be done under or in pursuance of the Act, Rules or Regulations made thereunder. The defendants have further stated that as per the plaint averments, cause of action arose for filing the suit on 25.01.1988, hence, the suit seeking for damages for the act done in 25.01.1988, ought to have been filed within three years therefrom. The defendants have further stated that as per the plaint averments, cause of action arose for filing the suit on 25.01.1988, hence, the suit seeking for damages for the act done in 25.01.1988, ought to have been filed within three years therefrom. The present suit was instituted only on 10.06.2002 and hence, barred by limitation and ought to be dismissed on the ground. (iii) Admittedly, the suit is pertaining to immovable property and therefore, ought to have been filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction the immovable property situates. The landed property where the building for the alleged edible oil mill has to be constructed, for which the plaintiffs seeking damages is admittedly situated in Kumilampparapu Village, Suriyampalayam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Erode District and therefore, the suit ought to have been instituted in the Erode District and not in the original side jurisdiction of the High Court and hence the suit has to be dismissed on the ground also. (iv) According to the defendants, they did not know anything about the alleged agreement of the plaintiffs with third parties towards the construction of the building to run edible oil mill. The defendants have further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned G.O. and that the action of the defendants were perfectly in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and are bonafide for the development of the area, as per the new town development plan. The other allegations raised by the plaintiffs in the plaint are also denied by the defendants and prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost. 4. Based on the pleading of the both parties to the suit, the following issues are framed for the disposal of the suit. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation as claimed on account of the reclassification of the plaintiff's land as residential area? 2. Whether the plaintiffs had incurred the expenses and costs as claimed in the plaint for putting up Edible Oil Mill Plant construction? 3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try suit? 4. Whether the suit is not barred by Limitation? 5. To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled? 5. 2. Whether the plaintiffs had incurred the expenses and costs as claimed in the plaint for putting up Edible Oil Mill Plant construction? 3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try suit? 4. Whether the suit is not barred by Limitation? 5. To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled? 5. Issue No.1 and 4 : It is not in dispute that the area of the dry lands comprised in SF.Nos.13/2B, 13/5B and other lands in Kumilampparapu Village, Suriyampalayam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Erode District was classified as residential area, as per G.O.Ms.33, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 25.01.1988 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, for which the notification was published in the Government Gazette and in various news papers. According to the plaintiffs, they owned dry lands comprised in SF.No.13/2B measuring an extent of 2.17 ½ acres and SF.No.13/5B measuring an extent of 1.06 acres situated at Kumilampparapu Village, Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat, Erode District and they wanted to establish and run an edible oil mill plant there under the name and style of M/s.Pankajam Oil Mills, using the plenty of coconuts available there as a raw-material. 6. The second plaintiff, who was examined as P.W-1 has deposed that on 14.02.1986, he along with the first plaintiff, who is none other than his wife, prepared Blue Print of the building plan for running oil mill and submitted the same for approval before the authorities. The plan was approved and accordingly, they paid Rs.5,000/- to the Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat for the sanctioning of the plan. The approved plan has been marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 is a xerox copy of the provisional registration of Small Scale Industries for extraction of edible oil mill, issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce on 30.03.1986, which was valid up to 29.09.1986. Ex.P.3 is the renewal of provisional registration of Small Scale Industries for extraction of edible oil, issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce in the name of the first plaintiff up to 29.03.1987. Ex.P.13 is the Proceeding of the Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat, dated 26.11.2001, whereby permission was granted to construct building for the purpose of running edible oil mill, as per the sanctioned plan. It is seen that the first plaintiff, as applicant had submitted the plan for the construction of oil mill, that was approved by Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat on 14.02.1986 and the same was renewed subsequently. 7. It is seen that the first plaintiff, as applicant had submitted the plan for the construction of oil mill, that was approved by Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat on 14.02.1986 and the same was renewed subsequently. 7. Mr.A.Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs wanted to establish and run an edible oil mill plant, for which they spent money for the construction of the building. As per the sanctioned plan Ex.P.1, Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat granted permission after getting necessary fees. However, by G.O.Ms.33, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 25.01.1988, the same was classified as residential area and the plaintiffs came to know about the G.O., from the publication made in the Tamil Newspaper 'Dinamalar', dated 06.03.1989, whereby plaintiffs' lands in SF.Nos.13/2B and 13/5B and other lands in Kumilampparapu Village were classified as a residential area. According to the plaintiffs, they had spent money to the tune of Rs.2,05,256/- towards paying the developmental charges, for purchasing materials for building construction, labour charges and other incidental expenses, however, the first defendant and his subordinates, who personally visited the property, had orally instructed not to proceed with the construction of the building in the area, for the purpose of running oil mill, since it had been classified as a residential area. 8. On the aforesaid circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages from the defendants. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions : 1. The All E.L.R. 1953, Volume 7, Page No.1021, White Vs. John Warrick & Co., Ltd., 2. Law Reports 1932, Page No.563 passed by House of Lords, M'Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) Vs. Stevenson 9. A Division Bench of the Court of Appeal England, has held that though the clause in the contract relieved the owners of a carrier tricycle only from liability under the contract, that was not from the liability in tort, and hence, they would be liable for negligence, if it were established, which reads as follows: "HELD: the clause in the contract relieved the owners of the carrier tricycle only from liability under the contract, but not from liability in tort, and they would be liable for negligence if it were established." 10. The referred case relates to contract of hire of a carrier tricycle, wherein there was negligence, exclusion of contractual liability had been decided by the Court of Appeal holding that nothing in that agreement shall render the owners liable for any personal injuries to the riders of the machine hired. The machine was defective and the hirer was thrown off and was injured, however, it was held that they would be liable for negligence of tortuous liability, as if the negligence was established. I am of the view that the aforesaid ruling of the Court of Appeal is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, since there is no tortuous liability caused by the defendants herein. 11. In M'Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) Vs. Stevenson, the majority of the House of Lords of the preview counsel has held as follows: "By Scots and English law alike the manufacturer of an article of food, medicine or the like, sold by him to a distributor in circumstances which prevent the distributor or the ultimate purchaser or consumer from discovering by inspection any defect, is under a legal duty to the ultimate purchaser or consumer to take reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health." This decision, cited by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. As contented by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Plan Act 1971, the fourth defendant is empowered to notify the classified residential zone after following the procedure contemplated under the Act. In view of the various departmental activities for the benefit of the public, Government is taking steps to bifurcate and trifurcate various districts, whereby new district head quarters are being formed. Similarly, new municipal corporations are declared by the Government and therefore classification of various zones for residential and industrial areas playing vital role under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Plan Act 1971, reclassification of a particular area under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Plan Act 1971, cannot be constrained as an illegal act for which, the Court cannot impose tortuous liability on the defendants, since it is for the benefit of the people. The land owned by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in Survery Nos.SF 13/2B and 5B and other lands in Kumilamparappu Village were not classified as a residential area when the building plan was sanctioned by Chittode Town Panchayat. Subsequently, considering the development the said land and other lands were classified as a residential zone for which no malafide intention could be attributed against the defendants. Further according to the plaintiffs they came to know G.O.Ms.33, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 25.01.1988, when the same was published in the Dhinamalar newspaper dated 06.03.1989. However, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs only on 10.06.2002. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, there is no satisfied explanation on the part of the plaintiffs for filing the suit after lapse of about 13 years. 13. In order to seek compensation from the defendants, there could have been failure of contractual obligation or tortuous liability on the part of the defendants. The Government of Tamil Nadu has passed the G.O., in the larger interest of the public, under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act to develop the Town Panchyat and therefore, there is no possibility to hold that there was failure or breach of contractual obligation on the part of the defendants. Similarly, there is no tortuous liability on the ground of negligence to seek compensation or damages from them. Admittedly, in view of the G.O., referred to above, the area in which plaintiffs land is also situated has been classified as a residential area. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff cannot challenge the G.O., before the Civil Court having jurisdiction to try the suit and further, the plaintiffs have stated that they came to know about the G.O., on seeing the publication made in the Tamil Daily Dinamalar, dated 06.03.1989. According to the defendants, the G.O., was notified in the Government Gazette , even earlier on 14.09.1988. Even if it is admitted that the plaintiffs came to know about the notification of the G.O., by reading the advertisements made in Dinamalar, Tamil Daily, dated 06.03.1989, they cannot file the suit on 10.06.2002, after a lapse of 13 years and therefore, the plea of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation is also legally acceptable, therefore, the suit claim is not legally sustainable. The plaintiffs have sought a decree against the defendants for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation for which there should be contractual liability or tortuous liability on the part of the defendants. There is no contractual or tortuous liability established against the defendants to claim Rs.25,00,000/- as damages, apart from the unexplained delay of 13 years and therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any compensation as claimed on account of the re-classification of the residential area and the suit claim is also barred by limitation. Accordingly, the first and fourth issues are answered. 14. Issue No.2 : The plaintiffs have stated that they had incurred expense to the tune of Rs.2,05,256/- towards construction of the edible oil mill plant, by way of paying developmental charges, purchasing building materials, labour charges and other incidental and miscellaneous expenses. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have averred that they had paid Rs.5,000/- on 14.02.1986 to the Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat for approval of the blue print relating to the oil mill plant. The plaintiffs have produced only the approved plan for the proposed building of the oil mill, however, they have not produced any receipt for payment of the said charges, Rs.5,000/- and to show the other expenses towards the construction. In support of the claim of the plaintiffs, they have filed an unregistered agreement in a Non-Judicial stamp paper, dated 03.04.1986. As per the stamp paper, it is seen that the same had been purchased on 03.05.1985. 15. The parties to Ex.P.4, unregistered agreement were not examined to prove the allegation that the plaintiffs had paid Rs.25,000/- as advance. Ex.P.2 is a provisional certificate issued for running small scale industry and Ex.P.3 is the renewal certificate. The plaintiffs have also filed a copy of the legal notice, the publication in the newspaper as Exs.P.7 and P.9 respectively, apart from Form-3 Notice given by Member-Secretary, Chittode Town Development Authority on 23.11.2001. Though the plaintiffs have stated that they had spent totally a sum of Rs.2,05,256/- on various heads towards construction of edible oil mill plant, they have not established that they had actually spent the aforesaid amount and therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have not established that they had incurred expenses as stated in the plaint towards the establishment of edible oil mill plant. Accordingly, the second issue is answered. 16. Accordingly, the second issue is answered. 16. Issue No.3 : The defendants have stated that the suit has been filed in this Court, invoking the Original side jurisdiction. Since the claim relates to immovable properties in S.F.Nos. 13/2B and 13/5B, Kumilampparapu Village, Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat of Erode District, according to the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, the suit has been filed without jurisdiction. As per the plaint averments, the suit has been filed seeking damages relating to immovable properties situated in Erode District, hence, the suit could have been filed in the Court having jurisdiction in Erode District and hence, filing the suit in the High Court Original Side Jurisdiction is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has not disputed the fact that the immovable properties relating to the claim is within the Suriyampalayam Town Panchayat of Erode District, hence, the suit could have been filed in the Court having jurisdiction in Erode District and therefore, I answer the third issue also against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. 17. Issue No.5 : The plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants seeking a decree directing the defendants to pay Rs.25 lakhs with interest at 18% p.a., on the said amount from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realisation and also for costs. As answered for issue numbers 1 and 3, the plaintiffs have not established any failure of contractual obligation or breach of contract by the defendants to seek compensation. Similarly, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that there was negligence on the part of the defendants, on account of the same, the plaintiffs sustained loss to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. Since the suit claim relates to immovable properties situate in Erode District, the suit could have been filed in the Court having jurisdiction in Erode District, as such the suit filed invoking the Original Side Jurisdiction of the High Court is without jurisdiction. Since the suit claim relates to immovable properties situate in Erode District, the suit could have been filed in the Court having jurisdiction in Erode District, as such the suit filed invoking the Original Side Jurisdiction of the High Court is without jurisdiction. Though the plaintiffs have admitted that they came to know about the G.O.Ms.No.33, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 25.01.1988, by reading Dinamalar Tamil Daily, dated 06.03.1989, they filed the suit nearly 13 years after the date of the newspaper, hence, the claim is also barred by limitation, as stated by the defendants and further, there is no evidence or materials on the side of the plaintiffs to claim compensation or damages to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs from the defendants. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree as prayed for in the plaint and the suit is liable to be dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances, I find it just and reasonable to direct both the parties to bear their own costs in the suit. 18. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.