Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner companies, intending to form lay outs of residential plots, in the various survey numbers mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in Venkatapuram Village, in Chengelpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 87.97 cents, had submitted an application, dated 15.3.2010, before the second respondent, for the approval of the layout plan, under Rule 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997. 3. It has been further stated that, prior to the submitting of the application, a certificate had been obtained from the Tahsildar, Chengelpet, stating that the lands in question are punja dry lands and that they are patta lands belonging to the petitioner companies. It had also been stated, in the said certificate, that the lands in question are not poramboke lands and that they are not subject to land acquisition proceedings and they are not in risk of inundation by floods. 4. It has also been stated that all the other statutory and regulatory clearances from the authorities concerned had also been obtained, as per the procedures established by law. The petitioner companies had also complied with all the requirements, along with the relevant records, as per the directions of the authorities concerned. However, the application submitted by the petitioner companies, on 15.3.2010, is kept pending, without any orders being passed, till date. While so, the petitioner companies had been informed that the government had amended the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, with effect from 1.1.2011, by inserting a new section, as Section 47- A, according to which prior concurrence of the District Collector concerned is required, for converting wet lands for other uses. The amendment introduced, under Act 46 of 2010, amending the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, had come into effect, as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.302, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 29.12.2010, from 1.1.2011. As such, it is clear that Section 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, would not be applicable to the application, dated 15.3.2010, submitted by the petitioner companies, for layout approval, as the amendment had been introduced only with effect from 1.1.2011. As such, it is clear that Section 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, would not be applicable to the application, dated 15.3.2010, submitted by the petitioner companies, for layout approval, as the amendment had been introduced only with effect from 1.1.2011. Therefore, it would not be necessary to obtain the clearance, from the District Collector concerned, for the consideration of the application, by the respondents, for the grant of layout approval in favour of the petitioner companies. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, dated 18.4.2011, made in M.P.No.1 of 2011, in W.P.No.8110 of 2011, to support his contention that the amendment introducing Section 47-A in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, could not be applicable to the application, dated 15.3.2010, submitted by the petitioner companies. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the order, dated 18.4.2011, read as follows: "6. While so, the second respondent, has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that since majority of the survey numbers are wet lands, only after obtaining the District Collector's approval, application for permission is to be submitted, in terms of G.O.No.302, Housing Development and Urban Development Department. 7. A strong argument has been advanced on the part of the petitioner by the learned senior counsel appearing on their behalf that the application for Planning permission was made by the petitioner as early as on 5.1.2010 and Act 46 of 2010, whereupon much reliance has been placed by the second respondent, was brought into force only with effect from 1.1.2011 and therefore, the provisions of the said amended Act cannot be applied to the application of the petitioner dated 5.1.2010. It has also been argued by the learned senior counsel that as per G.O.ms.No.130 dated 14.6.2010 issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department for the applicability of Development Regulations of Second Master Plan for CMDA to other areas, it has been clearly stated that the proposals pending prior to the notification of the Regulations shall be disposed of in accordance with the planning parameters and rules prevailing before the issue of the notification and therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the impugned rejection order passed by the second respondent is nothing but illegal. 8. 8. In due consideration of the arguments advanced on either side, we are able to see that the petitioner has already complied with the query raised by the second respondent, by gifting out of the lands to the Panchyat and the reason offered by the second respondent to reject the request of the petitioner, to process his application, on the ground that the concurrence of the District Collector has to be obtained as per the amended law, prima facie appears to be an unimpressive one. "To clarify the order by substituting paragraph 9 of the order dated 18.4.2011 passed in MP.No.1 of 2011 in WP No.8110 of 2011 to read: 9. Therefore, there shall be a direction the respondents to process the application of the petitioner dated 5.1.2010 along with the continuation application of the petitioner dated 22.10.2010 submitted by him for Phase-II of the project and pass orders on merits and in accordance with the law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that any order, thus, passed by the respondents, is subject to the result of the Writ Petition." Therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the application, dated 15.3.2010, submitted by the petitioner companies, for layout plan approval, ought to be considered by the respondents, only as per the rules and regulations applicable, as on the date of the submission of the application. The introduction of Section 47-A in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, with effect from 1.1.2011, cannot be made applicable to the application submitted by the petitioner companies, retrospectively. 6. It had also been submitted that, in similar cases, the respondents had granted the layout plan approval, applying the rules and regulations existing on the date of the application. While so, it would be arbitrary on the part of the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner companies, dated 15.3.2010, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. He had further submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner companies had submitted the application, dated 15.3.2010, and that it had been received by the office of the second respondent on the same date and marked as Document No.1249/10. He had further submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner companies had submitted the application, dated 15.3.2010, and that it had been received by the office of the second respondent on the same date and marked as Document No.1249/10. In such circumstances, the application, dated 15.3.2010, submitted by the petitioner companies, to the first respondent, through the second respondent, may be directed to be considered, by the first respondent for passing appropriate orders thereon, by the said authority, in accordance with the rules and regulations prevailing on the date of the making of the said application, taking into consideration the decision of this Court, dated 18.4.2011, made in M.P.No.1 of 2011, in W.P.No.8110 of 2011. 7. No counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner companies, dated15.3.2010, shall be considered, as per the rules and regulations applicable for the granting of layout plan approval, in accordance with the directions that may be issued by this Court. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners companies, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, the first respondent is directed to consider the application, dated 15.3.2010, submitted by the petitioner companies, for layout plan approval, as per the rules and regulations applicable to the case, as on the date of the application, and as per the order of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 18.4.2011, made in M.P.No.1 of 2011, in W.P.No.8110 of 2011, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.