JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2017 made in A.S.No.85 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2014 made in O.S.No.354 of 2010 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.) 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the suit for injunction. 3. The facts of the case is that in the year 1963 to promote industry in the area around Coimbatore District about 198 acres of land in Kurichi Village was acquired and handed over to the Coimbatore Private Industrial Estate Limited. Layout for industrial sites was formed and approved by the Director of Town Planning, Chennai, vide approval No.86/1963. Later, it was revised in the year 1971. As per the approved layout, 100 feet width road was formed and set apart for easy movement of vehicles and transportation. In the year 1970, due to lack of infrastructure, a portion of the acquired land was handed over to M/s SIDCO and Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 4. The plaintiff/appellant herein had purchased two sites falling on either side of the 100 feet road. In the year 2000, when the plaintiff wanted to expand its factory due to shortage of accommodation, it had occupied 100 feet road laying in between two plots. When the first respondent herein the Town Development Authority caused notice of eviction on 05.05.2010 to remove the eviction, suit has been filed seeking declaration that the impugned notice dated 05.05.2010 issued by the first respondent is void, illegal and unenforceable and permanent injunction. The claim of the plaintiff is that the said 100 feet road earmarked in between its two factory sites never used by any one right from the formation of layout since approach to the road on the western side was blocked by a waterbody. 5. The first respondent had filed a written statement narrating the sequence of facts and the pendency of a writ petition before the High Court seeking Mandamus to maintain the public roads in the subject property as per the original approved plan. 5. The first respondent had filed a written statement narrating the sequence of facts and the pendency of a writ petition before the High Court seeking Mandamus to maintain the public roads in the subject property as per the original approved plan. Further, in the written statement it was stated that the plaintiff by force has blocked the 100 feet road without any right, title and interest causing hindrance to the general public. The resolution of the 2nd respondent relied by the plaintiff was termed as falsehood. 6. When the suit was taken up for trial after framing issues, the defendants did not participate. However, the trial Court, on perusing the evidence placed before it, has considered the pleadings and exhibits and dismissed the suit as not maintainable, since it is contrary to law. The trial Court has observed that there is no locus standi for the plaintiff to usurp the property which belong to a quasi- Government authority the plaintiff has no legs to stand even in the absence of the defendants actively participating in the suit proceedings. 7. When the matter was taken up on appeal, the first appellate Court concurred the view of the trial Court and confirmed the trial Court judgment of the dismissal. In the second appeal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant strenuously argued that the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the public road earmarked as 100 feet road was never handed over to the localbody. The land in dispute was conveyed to the plaintiff, vide Exs.A1 to A6. Therefore, it is valid in eye of law. The impugned notice dated 05.05.2010 marked as Ex.A8 is issued by the first respondent without any authority. The promoter namely, M/s Coimbatore Private Industrial Estate Limited did not execute any gift deed or sale deed in favour of the localbody and the 100 feet road earmarked in the old layout never been put to use for more than 35 years. While the 2nd defendant had regularised the buildings of the plaintiff factory after collecting regularisation charges, the first defendant has no authority to question the usage of the land in dispute branding the plaintiff as an encroacher. 8. The property in dispute is admittedly a public property which was acquired for a particular purpose. While the 2nd defendant had regularised the buildings of the plaintiff factory after collecting regularisation charges, the first defendant has no authority to question the usage of the land in dispute branding the plaintiff as an encroacher. 8. The property in dispute is admittedly a public property which was acquired for a particular purpose. Lay out was formed and the piece of land claimed by the plaintiff is part of 100 feet road as per the approved lay out. While so, the surrender of a portion of land from the original acquired extent or nonusage of that land cannot give any right to the neighbouring plot owners to encroach upon the public road, namely 100 feet road. For the reason best known the first defendant, after filing its counter ,has not actively participated in the trial. However, the facts are found in the written statement. In any event, it is for the plaintiff to stand or fall on its own leg. 9. Before the trial Court, 10 exhibits were marked. Out of which, six sale deeds relied by the plaintiff are all photocopies. They are in respect of the factory site and not in respect of the 100 feet road. The claim of the plaintiff over the 100 feet road has not backed by any valid document. 198 acres of land was acquired from the public by the Government for formation of industry. The Coimbatore Private Industrial Estate Limited was formed for promoting the industrial estate. Apart from the plaintiff, there are other allottees and beneficiaries of the 100 feet road. Detrimental to their interest no one including the promoters can convey the area earmarked for public access. 10. The Courts below have considered the facts and has rightly held that the plaintiff has no right to encroach upon the public road and question the authority of the first respondent while causing notice to evict. The first appellate Court while confirming the judgment of the trial Court has re-appreciated the evidence before it in the following words:- “On the side of the plaintiff to substantiate their case prima facie, the xerox copy of sale deeds have been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 through PW-1. The Ex.A8 is the impugned notice issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for which the copy of the reply given is marked as Ex.A9. The copy of board resolution is marked as Ex.A10. The Ex.A8 is the impugned notice issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for which the copy of the reply given is marked as Ex.A9. The copy of board resolution is marked as Ex.A10. It is only the xerox copy of Regularization orders (6 nos.) passed by the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit property attain some importance and also the Ex.A7 regularisation orders are also in respect of the properties purchased by the plaintiff and they have got no relevance to the subject matter of the suit namely the road. There is no logic in contending that the plaintiff happened to be the purchaser of the properties annexed the road passing through them. More so, the claim of the plaintiff has been stoutly opposed by the 1st defendant by contending in its written statement that the Coimbatore Industrial Estate had not handed over the road portions to Kurichi Panchayat taking advantage of the G.O.No.719 Industries Department dated 13.07.1990. The Coimbatore Private Industrial Estate did not apply for a revised layout; the modified plan approved by the 2nd defendant that is Kurichi Town Panchayat contradiction to the approved plan is not valid as per the Development Control Rule No.4 for Kurichi New Town Department area which came in existence from 1992 under Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.” 11. In sofar as the reference to the writ petition made in the judgment of the Courts below, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the said writ petition was withdrawn. In view of this Court, the said writ petition has no bearing to decide the suit. The Courts below have referred the said writ petition only to highlight that there are other interested parties, who are aggrieved by ameliorating the 100 feet road by encroachers, which was part of the approved lay out. Whether the road area gifted to local body or not, the allottees cannot encroach over it in connivance with the promoters or others, which will affect the 3rd party interest who have right of access through the 100 feet road. Therefore, this Court finds there is no Substantial Question of Law involved in this second appeal to entertain against the concurrent finding of the Courts below. 12. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decree of the Courts below are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.