Judgment Heard Mr. R. Vijayaraghaven, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. Durairajan, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Surana & Surana, for the second and third respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to forbear the first respondents from according any sanction in respect of the plan submitted by the second respondent without providing 40' Road to have access to the petitioner's property situated in Survey Nos.71/4, 76/4, 50/1B, 51/1B to 51/1F, 74/3D, 44/1B, totalling an extent of 139.5 cents as well as the installation of sewerage treatment plant in front of one of the petitioner's property situated in Survey No.76/4. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the Proprietor of Sri Velan Properties having office at No.9/6, S.F.1, Park View Street, Srinivasa Avenue, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai600 028. He is holding various properties as stated in the petition at Jellidianpet, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. M/s.India Bulls Real Estates Limited approached the petitioner for the purchase of lands to an extent of 50 acres in various survey numbers in Jellidianpet Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District in order to promote multi-storied residential apartment. In the abovesaid extent, 17 acres of lands were conveyed to M/s.Selene Estate Ltd., the second respondent herein, a sister concern of the said M/s.India Bulls Real Estates Ltd., jointly by the petitioner and the land owners. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he arranged for the gift in favour of Chitlapakkam Panchayat Union to an extent of 67.5 cents of lands at Jellidianpet Village by the land owners in S.Nos.60/3, 60/5, 60/2, 61/2A, 61/2B, 62/1, 62/2 in front of the property purchased by M/s.Selene Estate Pvt. Ltd., to enable the said Company as well as the land owners in and around the said property purchased by the said Company to have a 40' public road so that all the land owners can have access and passage to their properties. In the said situation, the petitioner apprehends that as the said M/s.Selene Estate Pvt. Ltd. applied for planing permission by showing 40' road, and if the same is sanctioned to the said Company, it may close the said 40' road within the limits of the properties purchased by them and the width of the said 40' road may be fenced by putting up compound wall. In that situation, the petitioner will be left with no access to his properties, if the said Company blocks the said 40' road within the boundaries of the properties. 5. The further apprehension of the petitioner is that the second respondent is putting up a sewerage treatment plant in front of the petitioner's property situated in S.No.76/4, which will spoil the ground water in and around the said area. The petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 26.3.2008 and further representation dated 12.2.2009 to the Deputy Planner, CMDA and also made a representation dated 23.3.2011 to the first respondent and still the apprehension exists, and therefore, the petitioner has moved this Court for the above relief. 6. To the above grievance of the petitioner, the first respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter-alia stating that M/s.Selene Estates Limited applied planning permission for construction of combined basement floor + ground floor + 6 floors with 17 blocks stilt + 7 floors with 2 blocks, stilt + 5 floors of 1 block for EWS, Club house and Gym with 904 dwelling units at S.No.63/1, 63/2A, 2B, 2C2, 3, 64/1B, 2A, 2B, 65/1B, 2, 66/1, 2, 67, 68/1A2A2, 3, 69/1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 70/1, 7, 8, 71/1, 2, 3, 5A, 5B2, 75/2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, 76/1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 5B, 77/2A, 2B, 3E1, 3E2, 5B, 82/1 and 82/2 of Jellidianpet Village on 5.1.2009. The Government in Letter No.(MS) 10, dated 22.1.2010, stipulated the following conditions: (a) The Government after careful examination, have decided to approve the proposal subject to fulfilment of the conditions imposed by DF & RS No Objection Certificate and subject to the condition that applicant should handover 12.0m link roads and open space reservation area to the local body free of cost before issue of planning permission. (b) Accordingly, the applicant has handed over 12.0m and 9.0m link roads to an extent of 3797 sq.m. to CMDA in gift deed document No.1352/2010, dated 20.3.2010. The same was taken possession by CMDA on 17.3.2010. The link road S.Nos.are 62/2C2 Part, 3 Part, 63/1 Part 2A Part, 2B Part 64/2A Part, 2B Part 65/s Part, 66/2 Part, 67 Part, 68/1A Part, 69/2 Part, 69/3 Part and 3C Part of Jellidianpet Village. The same was taken possession by CMDA on 17.3.2010. The link road S.Nos.are 62/2C2 Part, 3 Part, 63/1 Part 2A Part, 2B Part 64/2A Part, 2B Part 65/s Part, 66/2 Part, 67 Part, 68/1A Part, 69/2 Part, 69/3 Part and 3C Part of Jellidianpet Village. (c) The applicant was requested to remit the development charges and other charges in file No.C3/541/2009, dated 22.3.2010 and the same was remitted in his letter dated 7.4.2010. (d) The final plans were forwarded to local body for issue of building licence, vide this office letter dated 9.4.2010 (The Commissioner, St.Thomas Mount Panchayat Union at Chitlapakkam). 7. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent, in paragraphs 6 to 8, it is stated as follows: "6. I further submit that the averments of para Nos.9 to 16 of the affidavit, the petitioner has contended that M/s.Selene Estate after purchasing land from the petitioner and with the land already with him has formed 40 feet Road and gifted to Chitlapakkam P.U. as access road for the proposed construction. The petitioner's fear is that once the Planning Permission is granted the respondents would put up a compound wall surrounding their properties and hence they would be left with no access to their properties if the said companies block the said 40' Road within the Boundaries of the property by showing the said road as the access only to their project. In that event the very purpose of said gift deed given for the purpose of forming a public Road will be defeated. After issue of planning permission which was dealt in file No.C3/541/2009, M/s.Selene Estate has resubmitted a Revised Proposal and is being dealt in file No.C3/15344/2010. For this proposal the Government in Lr.No.(Ms)No.40 dt.27.2.2012, has accorded approval subject to conditions. The Planning Permission is under process. 7. I further submit that the Link road that is shown within the site would be gifted to the concerned Local Body. On gifting the road, it becomes Public road and local body would be the custodian only on gifting the Road, Planning Permission is issuable. Any encroachment in the Public Road, the Local body concerned will take necessary action for removal of the encroachment. 8. I further submit that the Petitioner's another contention is that, the respondent has proposed STP adjoining to their land. Any encroachment in the Public Road, the Local body concerned will take necessary action for removal of the encroachment. 8. I further submit that the Petitioner's another contention is that, the respondent has proposed STP adjoining to their land. Hence the petitioner fears that it would cause serious hardship and hazard to the people in and around the said area. I further submit that for any STP the design would be approved by CMWSSB and the applicant's proposes the STP usually within the Boundary of the site and in the instant case also the applicant has proposed the STP within his site. The CMWSSB has also given their consent for the STP design. STP's design is designed taking into account the aspects of Pollution by Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The petitioner's contention that, the STP would affect the Health of the surrounding people is not correct." 8. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner failed and neglected to honour the terms and conditions of the LOI entered into between them. Under the said LOI, only about 15.90 acres of lands were purchased by the second respondent. As there had been huge delay on the part of the petitioner, the LOI stood cancelled. There are disputes regarding the same. C.S.No.843 of 2007 is pending on the file of this Court in regard to the said disputes and the said disputes are sub-judice. The 40' public road has been gifted to the statutory authorities and the same forms a public road as on date. The said public road of 40' width does not touch upon all the survey numbers as alleged and the second respondent purchased the lands adjoining the said 40' road only after the gift of 40' road by the then land owners to the statutory authorities. The lands on both sides of the said 40' road are absolutely owned by the second respondent. It is not correct to state that the said 40' feet was given by the erstwhile owners to provide access to the second respondent as well as to all the other land owners in and around the properties purchased by the second respondent. All the survey numbers referred to in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are not abutting the properties purchased by the second respondent. All the survey numbers referred to in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are not abutting the properties purchased by the second respondent. Only some properties are abutting the properties purchased by the second respondent. The petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim any access through the properties of the second respondent and that too, by way of direction in the Writ Petition. In respect of the properties purchased by the second respondent, they have got a plan approval and it has almost completed Phase I of its constructions. While constructing Phase-I of its project, due to business requirements, and also to better enhance the value of the project, the revision of the said plan was sought for and the same had been duly submitted to the concerned authorities and the same has been approved. The second respondent is putting up the constructions well within the parameters. 9. The second respondent further states that from the said 40' feet road, there is a separate 30' road on the properties purchased by the second respondent, which road extends till the boundary of Survey No.76/4 alleged owned by the petitioner. This 30' road has been gifted by the second respondent as a public access road and the second respondent has no intention to construct any wall at the end of 30' road so as to obstruct the usage of this 30' road by the owner of lands in S.No.76/4 or any other user. This 30' road is not abutting any of the other survey numbers given by the petitioner and the petitioner cannot claim passage through the properties of the second respondent. The above said 30' road which is perpendicular to 40' road gifted, has been gifted by the second respondent only after the CMDA has taken into consideration the representations dated 26.3.2008 and 12.2.2009 made by the petitioner. The second respondent is not using the said 40' road as its own private road and the same would remain a public road. As per the gift deed, the said road terminates at the end of S.No.68/1A and it does not give a right to the petitioner to claim a 40' road access to all the other small scattered bits and pieces of lands in different areas, currently alleged to be belonging to the petitioner. As per the gift deed, the said road terminates at the end of S.No.68/1A and it does not give a right to the petitioner to claim a 40' road access to all the other small scattered bits and pieces of lands in different areas, currently alleged to be belonging to the petitioner. The said 40' road has been extended and the Government approved the same. This 40' road would also be gifted to the Panchayat and will be a public access road as and when the formalities are completed and the plan is approved. Even on this extended 40' feet road, the second respondent cannot and will not put up any construction so as to obstruct the use of the same. All representations made by the public in general, would include the petitioner's representation also, which will be duly considered by the first respondent while granting the plan sanction. 10. It is the further stand of the second respondent in the counter affidavit that the second respondent has no intention nor will it be entitled to block the said public road by creating any sort of barrier and it would always remain and would maintain the character of a public road. The said 40' road has been gifted to the Panchayat and it is the property of the Panchayat, whose duty is to lay and maintain the said public road. The plan had been sanctioned as early as in April 2010 and constructions thereon have commenced and as clearly admitted by the petitioner, it is nearing the stage of completion. The petitioner himself is a Developer and Builder and is seeking to use these proceedings with ulterior motive to settle the private scores. The second respondent, with a view to expanding Phase II of its project in the additional lands belonging to it, has well within the framework of law, submitted its plan, keeping in view the requirements of the statutory authorities, who have considered and approved the plan of the second respondent. The allegation regarding the existence of a big agricultural well, etc., is denied by the second respondent. The entire area is a dry land and there are no agricultural activities for years in the said region. The allegation regarding the existence of a big agricultural well, etc., is denied by the second respondent. The entire area is a dry land and there are no agricultural activities for years in the said region. The alleged hardship, pollution, etc., are nothing but a figment of imagination of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot seek the re-location of the sewerage treatment plant when the same has been approved by the authorities. 11. The second respondent further alleges in the counter affidavit that the map given by the petitioner in the typed set of papers, is incorrect and he has deliberately not filed a map clearly showing the passage of 40' road and the exact locations of various survey numbers allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The second respondent has filed a detailed map showing the existence of 40' road referred by the petitioner. The said 40' feet road referred to by the petitioner does not lead to and/or is adjacent to any of the alleged small parcels of lands belonging to the petitioner. As per the requirements of the statutory authorities, there must be a clear and proper access to the sewerage treatment plant and the second respondent has correctly planned the same and it no way causes any alleged health hazard, environmental pollution or contamination of the ground water. The Writ Petition is not maintainable in law and on facts and the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 12. The main focus of the grievance put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there should be a 40' road as per the planning permission, otherwise, it would affect the petitioner's access to the property. Secondly, the construction of sewerage treatment plant will cause serious health hazard to the people of the area. 13. Resisting the said contentions, learned counsel for the first respondent-CMDA submitted that when once the property of public road is gifted to the local body, it is for the local body to take into consideration and maintain the road keeping the same as per the plan approval and it is not for the petitioner to question the same about the distance and maintaining it after handing over the site to the local authorities. Further, the construction of the sewerage treatment plant will be always as per the approval of the CMWSSB and the design therein and when that construction is within the site, it is not for the petitioner to question the same. 14. Mr. Durairajan representing M/s.Surana & Surana, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that the respondents 2 and 3 have not violated any of the planning permission and they will keep the tenor of the planning authority's decision in keeping the said 40' road gifted to the local body. He further contended that the Government's approval is subject to the condition and this has been taken into consideration while giving for construction. The sewerage treatment plant is to be kept inside the site and there is no violation as alleged by the petitioner. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the map showing the area and the plan and also the records. 16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are engaged in real estate business. The second respondent purchased the property from the petitioner and applied for planning permission and the second respondent agreed to gift an extent of 3797 sq.m. to CMDA in gift deed document and the same was taken possession by the CMDA on 17.3.2010. The link road is also part of the survey numbers in question. The planning authorities have considered every aspect and final plans were forwarded to the local body for issue of building licence, vide first respondent's office letter dated 9.4.2010. Thereafter, the proposal was examined and placed before the multi-storied building panel meeting held on 1.3.2011 and recommended to the Government in letter dated 13.9.2011. The Government in letter MS No.40, dated 27.2.2012 accorded approval and the proposal is under process. The link road that is shown within the site, would be gifted to the concerned local body and on gifting the road, it becomes public road and local body would be the custodian only on gifting the road. 17. The Government in letter MS No.40, dated 27.2.2012 accorded approval and the proposal is under process. The link road that is shown within the site, would be gifted to the concerned local body and on gifting the road, it becomes public road and local body would be the custodian only on gifting the road. 17. It is the specific stand of the first respondent-CMDA that the petitioner fears that when once the planning permission is granted, the second respondent would put up a compound wall surrounding the properties and the petitioner would be left with no access to the properties, if the second respondent-Company blocks 40' road within the boundaries of the properties by showing the said 40' road as the access only to their project. 18. In the light of the above stated position, if we look into the grievance of the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner is the seller of the property and having understood what would be the impact if the property goes to the hands of the second respondent and the construction is made after getting planning approval, the petitioner cannot now take a stand that if the compound wall is constructed, that would affect the access to his property. The apprehension made by the petitioner is under the guise that there should be access to 40' road which should kept open for him. This cannot be a ground to approach this Court, and as there exists civil dispute between the parties, it is not for this Court to adjudicate the matter and examine the petitioner's case. 19. On examination of the entire pleadings, it reveals that there was proper approach by the respondent-Companies to the planning authority and the authorities have considered and sent it for the approval of the Government, and the Government approved the same in Letter Ms.No.40, dated 27.2.2012 and it is not proper for the petitioner to come before this Court contending that there would be construction of the compound wall and the sewerage treatment plant and therefore, the petitioner's approach to prevent the first respondent from according any sanction of the plan submitted by the second respondent without providing 40' road, is only an imagination and it cannot be construed that there is any kind of attempt by the respondents. It goes without saying that the planning approval is as per the decision of the planning authority and not by the respondents 2 and 3. If that would be determination made already, it is for the planning authority to keep every thing including the said 40' road and the petitioner's grievance cannot be looked into in this Writ Petition. 20. The Writ Petition deserves no merit consideration and the same is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.