JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the first petitioner is entitled to 1/15th share in the land, bearing T.S.No.9/283, site Nos.6,7 and 8, at Door No.119, Rajaji Road, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore, having an extent of 36 cents. She had further submitted that the second petitioner, the wife of the first petitioner, is the power of attorney of the first petitioner. Without obtaining the necessary consent from all the co-sharers of the property in question, the sixth respondent had entered into a joint venture agreement with the fifth respondent, who is a builder and promoter. A Memorandum Of Understanding had also been signed between the fifth and the sixth respondents, with the mala fide intention of grabbing the entire property in question. 3. The learned counsel had also submitted that the first petitioner had filed a suit, in O.S.No.625 of 2012, for partition and for separate possession of 1/15th share in the suit property, which is pending on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. While so, the fifth respondent had approached the third and the fourth respondents for the grant of site approval and for planning and building approval for the construction of flats in the property in question. 4. She had further submitted that, after the filing of the present writ petition, it had been learnt that the Local Town Planning Authority, the fourth respondent herein, had granted the approval for the construction of the flats, as prayed for by the fifth respondent. Therefore, this Court may direct the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the approval granted in favour of the fifth respondent and to pass further orders. In the alternative, this Court may be pleased to permit the first petitioner to challenge the order of approval granted by the fourth respondent, by way of an appeal, before the appropriate authority, under section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decision of this Court, in CMDA Vs. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had relied on the decision of this Court, in CMDA Vs. ADBUR REHMAN (2002 (2) CTC 230) wherein, it has been held that section 101, read with sections 49, 56 and 80 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, make it clear that an order or decision of the planning authority cannot be questioned, by way of a civil suit. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to question the approval granted by the fourth respondent, in favour of the fifth respondent, before a civil court. As such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners, before this Court, is maintainable. 6. Per contra, Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the fifth respondent, had submitted that the sixth respondent had got the property in question, by way of a registered partition deed, dated 20.11.1982. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners, claiming 1/15th share in the property in question, is not maintainable, as the dispute is of a civil nature. In fact, the first petitioner has filed a civil suit for partition and for separate possession, in O.S.No.625 of 2012, on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore, and it is still pending adjudication. The fifth and the sixth respondents had been arrayed as defendants in the said suit. Further, the first petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, had also filed interlocutory applications therein, in I.A.Nos.845, 846 and 847 of 2012. I.A.No.845 of 2012, had been filed praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein, their men, agents, and servants from, in any way, demolishing or altering the physical features of the suit property, in any manner. 7. In I.A.No.846 of 2012, the first petitioner had prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein, their men, agents and servants from in any way, alienating or encumbering the suit properties. I.A.No.847 of 2012, had been filed praying for an order appointing an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the petition mentioned property and to file a report thereon. 8. The learned counsel had further submitted that disputed questions of fact, which are of a civil nature, as in the present case, cannot be gone into by this Court, in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned counsel had further submitted that disputed questions of fact, which are of a civil nature, as in the present case, cannot be gone into by this Court, in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the first petitioner to pursue his remedies before the District Court, Coimbatore, in the civil suit, in O.S.No.625 of 2012. Further, it is open to the first petitioner to obtain interim orders, by way of interlocutory applications, if possible, before the said Court, in the manner known to law. However, it is not open to the first petitioner to agitate the matter relating to his claim, before this Court, in the present writ petition. 9. The learned counsel had further submitted that it is clear, from the documents found in the typed set of papers filed along with the present writ petition, that the issues arising for the consideration of this Court in the present writ petition are, purely, of a civil nature. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent had further submitted that it would not be open to the respondents 1 to 4 to go into the issues of title, at any point, during the process of granting approval or at any time, thereafter. Any dispute relating to the title, in respect of the property concerned, ought to be agitated before the appropriate civil forum, in the manner known to law. It is not open to the petitioners to file an appeal before the authority concerned, challenging the order of approval granted by the fourth respondent, by invoking the provisions of Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court dated 10.3.2006 in P.R.MURLIDHARAN & ORS Vs. SWAMI DHAMANANDA THEERTHA PADAR & ORS., in support of his contentions. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as follows: “It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which was beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. The respondent no.1 who sought to claim a status was required to establish the same in a court of law in an appropriate proceeding. He for one reason or the other, failed to do so. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stares on his face. He, therefore, could not have filed a writ petition for getting the self same issues determined in his favour which he could not do even by filing a suit. Indeed the jurisdiction of the writ court is wide while granting relief to a citizen of India so as to protect his life and liberty as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but while doing so it could not collaterally go into that question, determination whereof would undoubtedly be beyond its domain. What was necessary for determination of the question arising in the writ petition was not the interpretation of the document alone, but it required adduction of oral evidence as well. Such evidence was necessary for the purpose of explaining the true nature of the deed of trust, as also the practice followed by this trust. In any event, the impleading applicant herein, as noticed hereinbefore, has raised a contention that he alone was ordained to hold the said office as per the bye-laws of the trust. The qualification of the first respondent to hold the office was also in question. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that such disputed questions could not have been gone into by the High Court in a writ proceeding.” 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is not maintainable. 13. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that the dispute arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition, is of a purely civil nature. 13. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that the dispute arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition, is of a purely civil nature. It is well settled in law that such disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. It is also clear that it would not be open to the respondents 1 to 4 herein to decide the issues relating to the title, in respect of the property in question, especially, when there are rival claims. Further, it is not in dispute that the first petitioner had filed a suit, in O.S.No.625 of 2012, which is pending on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore. He had also filed interlocutory applications seeking various reliefs relating to the property in question. While so, it is not open to the petitioners to agitate such disputed issues before this Court, by way of a writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the present writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed.