Judgment :- H.L. Gokhale The first two of these writ petitions are filed by the allottees of two plots bearing Plot Nos.53B and 61A in a Housing Colony known as Teachers Colony" in Survey No.165/3B of Injambakkam Village, Tambarm Taluk on the outskirts of Chennai. They are seeking to quash the order, dated 22nd August 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration to the extent that it denies them patta for the purposes of possession. 2. The third writ petition, on the other hand, is filed by a Welfare Association, viz., Injambakkam Villagers Welfare Association in public interest. It seeks a direction that this very order dated 22 August 2005 be implemented and the superstructure put up by the other two petitioners be removed. 3. Mr.N.Selvaraju, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioner in W.P.No.28845 of 2005 and Mr.C.R.Sathindran, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner in W.P.No.30305 of 2005, whereas Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appeared with Ms.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan for the petitioner in W.P.No.1089 of 2008. Mr Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader has appeared for the Commissioner of Land Administration, the District Revenue Officer and the President of the Injambakkam Panchayat. 4. The short facts leading to these petitions are this-wise:- The land involved in this litigation, i.e. Survey No.165/3B admeasuring 7.83 acres in Injambakkam Village, belonged to one Smt.Santhanalakshmi. One Mr.Narayanasamy, holding her Power of Attorney, prepared a lay-out for this land and sold those plots in the year 1979. In this lay-out, four sub-plots bearing Nos.53A, 53B, 61A and 61B admeasuring about 26 cents were reserved for public purpose. This lay-out plan was not approved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) for the reason that this Survey Number was falling in the prohibited area under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). Smt.Santhanalakshmi sold this land of 26 cents to Smt.Devaki Lazarus, who divided it into four plots, which were marked as 53A, 53B, 61A and 61B. She sold those plots to the petitioners in the first two petitions, viz., P.S.Rajan and Uma and to two others, viz., Susi and Joy Bentic sometimes in the year 1981. 5. The other residents of this Survey Number formed a Welfare Association and there was a litigation between the Teachers Colony Residents Welfare Association on the one hand and this Uma and Rajan, on the other hand. 5. The other residents of this Survey Number formed a Welfare Association and there was a litigation between the Teachers Colony Residents Welfare Association on the one hand and this Uma and Rajan, on the other hand. Rajan is supposed to have put up a Ground plus one residential house on his plot. It is stated on behalf of Uma that there was one hut earlier, which continues to remain in her plot. As far as the other two plots are concerned, it is stated that there is an overhead water tank constructed in one of those plots and some electrical connections and one Vinayaka Temple in the other plot. 6. The Teachers Colony contended that these four sub-plots totaling to an area of about 26 cents must be retained as an open park area, whereas the said Rajan and Uma contended that they had purchased the particular parcels of land. 7. While the matters stood thus, the Teachers Colony Residents Welfare Association filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu challenging the grant of patta to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.28845 and 30305 of 2005. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu as per order dated 31st May, 1992 cancelled the patta on the ground that the subject land were allotted for public purposes. The said order was challenged before the District Revenue Officer, Kancheeputam. The District Revenue Officer as per his order dated 6th August, 2002 remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the matter afresh, after giving due opportunity to the parties. Accordingly the matter was taken up for consideration and as per order dated 8th January, 2003, the Revenue Divisional Officer was pleased to confirm the order dated 31st May, 2002. The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer was taken up by way of a statutory revision before the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram. The District Revenue Officer on his part, set aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground that the lay out was an unapproved one and as such, the Welfare Association had no right to execute a gift deed in favour of the Panchayat. The Revenue Divisional Officer further opined that the individual land owners have purchased the plots from the original owner of the land and therefore, they were entitled to patta in respect of the property. The Revenue Divisional Officer further opined that the individual land owners have purchased the plots from the original owner of the land and therefore, they were entitled to patta in respect of the property. The order dated 5th August, 2003 on the file of the District Revenue Officer was taken up by way of a revision by the Welfare Association before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. The Commissioner heard the matter and came to the conclusion that there was a lay out prepared and the subject property was ear-marked for public purposes and, therefore, there could not be any patta in favour of these petitioners, by name Uma and Rajan and accordingly, the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 5th August, 2003 was set aside. 8. Being aggrieved by this order, the said Uma and Rajan have filed their respective writ petitions to quash and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, dated 22nd August 2005, whereas, the Welfare Association of the residents in that village has filed a writ petition in public interest that the area be retained as it is. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for all the parties. Now as can be seen, the relevant provision of law governing the construction in the panchayat area would be the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997 framed under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Rule 3 of the said Rules is the relevant Rule for our purpose. Rule 3(1) provides for approval of lay-out of sites and unless the lay-out is approved, the plots cannot be sub-divided or utilized. Sub-Rule (1) to (6) of Rule 3 of the said Rules read as follows:- 3. Application for approval of lay-out of sites.- (1)No owner or other persons shall lay-out a street, land, passage or pathway or subdivide or utilise the land or any portion or portions of the same on the site or sites for building purposes until a lay-out plan has been approved by the Executive Authority who shall get prior concurrence of the Director of Town and Country Planning or his authorised Joint Director or Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning for such approval. In cases of lay-out abutting National Highways, State Highways and by-pass roads thereof, the concurrence of the Divisional Engineer (Highways and Rural Works) under whom the control of the road is vested shall also be obtained by the Executive Authority. The application for approval of such lay-out plan or sub-division shall be submitted to the Executive Authority in the form specified in Appendix-A with such variation as circumstances may require; (2)The application shall be accompanied by a lay-out plan or plans (in triplicate) of the land to be laid out into house-sites, as far as may be necessary; (3)The application for lay-out approval shall be accompanied by an up-to-date encumbrance certificate of the land specifying ownership and also the authenticated survey sketch. It shall be entertained only from the owner of the land or from any other person who possesses the power of attorney duly registered. (4)The owner of the land to be laid out shall while submitting the application and plans required under sub-rule (1) submit a letter of consent relinquishing the land required for such streets, lanes, passages, common construction and pathways in favour of the Executive Authority. (5)Every street, land, passage and pathway shall be demarcated, formed and constructed including paving, metalling, flagging, channelling, swering, draining, conserving and lighting by the owner of the land in accordance with the provision of the lay-out for the proper development of the area ensuring safety and convenience of the public and all expenses incurred thereof shall be paid by the owner of the land at his expenses, while submitting the application required under sub-rule (1). (6)The owner of the land to be laid out shall not proceed to sub-divide or utilise the site or sites intended for building purposes unless he has complied with the requirements of sub-rules (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). (7) to (11). ... ... ... " 10. From what is stated above, it is an admitted position that the lay-out was not approved by the CMDA for the reason that the land was in the CRZ area. Since there was no such approval, obviously, there could not be any such division and construction on this land. (7) to (11). ... ... ... " 10. From what is stated above, it is an admitted position that the lay-out was not approved by the CMDA for the reason that the land was in the CRZ area. Since there was no such approval, obviously, there could not be any such division and construction on this land. As far as the ownership or patta for possession is concerned, it is another matter and inasmuch as the original land owner has divided the plots and sold them to various persons, including Uma and Rajan, their ownership and patta for possession cannot be disputed. In such circumstances, the order dated 22nd August 2005 to the extent it is contrary to the above provision of law cannot be sustained. 11. Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997 provides that every person who intends to construct or reconstruct or alter or add to a building or to a hut shall submit an application to the Executive Authority for the approval of the site and for permission to execute the work, in the form specified in Appendix-B. The petitioners in W.P.No.28845 of 2005 and 30305 of 2005 have no case that they have obtained planning permission after approval of the site as provided under Rule 4 of the statutory rules. 12. Though the petitioners in W.P.Nos.28845 and 30305 of 2005 will have the right to possess those two particular plots, inasmuch as the layout has not been approved, there was no question of their putting up superstructure unless they have the permission for construction. Hence, under the provisions of Rule 3(6) and 4 of the Panchayat Rules, they cannot have any construction on those plots. 13. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the Commissioner of Land Administration was not justified in cancelling the patta by confirming the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the first two writ petitions will have to be allowed to the extent the order of the Commissioner of Land Administration denies them patta. In view of our finding that the Commissioner of Land Administration was not correct in cancelling the patta, the petitioner in W.P.No.1089 of 2008 is not entitled for a writ of mandamus to implement the order dated 22nd August, 2005. In view of our finding that the Commissioner of Land Administration was not correct in cancelling the patta, the petitioner in W.P.No.1089 of 2008 is not entitled for a writ of mandamus to implement the order dated 22nd August, 2005. Therefore, the third petition filed by the Welfare Association of the villagers of the particular village, will also have to be allowed to the limited extent that Uma and Rajan cannot be permitted to have any construction on these two plots. 14. All the three petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.