JUDGMENT : N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. The Real Estate is meant for land grabbers, land mafias and Goondas in collusion with politicians and police force violators. These people join together and grab the properties of the Government as well as private parties and even if layouts are made, the lands meant for road and public places are also being grabbed or encroached upon and made as a private land by the developers, violating the rights of the persons who have purchased the plots in the layouts. These kinds of illegal acts are being done on for long and the general public are the victims. 2. This is one such case wherein the land which was meant to be used as roads has been subdivided and registered in the name of developer's family members as a private property. 3. Whether the developer has got any such power or authority to convert the piece of land which has been shown as road to be made as a private land is the issue in this case? 4. The appeals have been filed against the orders of dismissal of the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants. The Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants to remove the electricity cable laid in S.No.287/1A1 and to quash the order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Kancheepuram District, cancelling the sub-division of road and cancellation of patta for the sub-divided portion of the road. 5. One Mr.Bir Shahbuddin was the owner of the property measuring about 17.5 acres comprised in S.No.287, Injambakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. Having acquired the same by virtue of sale deed dated 05.02.1980, she settled the same in favour of her five sons equally 3.50 acres each in the following manner : Name Survey No. Date Settlement Doc. No. Extent Mr.Amanuddin 287/1A1 05.07.1985 828/91 3.50 Acres Mr.Syed Salauddin 287/1A2 16.07.1985 830/91 3.50 Acres Mr.Shahbuddin 287/1A3 23.07.1985 829/91 3.50 Acres Mr.Zakkauddin 287/1A4 23.07.1985 831/91 3.50 Acres Mr.Ziauddin 287/1A5 23.07.1985 832/91 3.50 Acres 6. Mr.Amanuddin gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 11.07.2003 and 30.09.2003 to an extent of 2 acres & 1.45 acres comprised in S.No.287/1A1 respectively. Mr.Zakkauddin gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 03.07.2003 and 21.10.2003 to an extent of 2 acres and 1.45 acres comprised in S.No.287/1A4 respectively. Mr.Zakkauddin gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 03.07.2003 and 21.10.2003 to an extent of 2 acres and 1.45 acres comprised in S.No.287/1A4 respectively. Mr.Shahbuddin sold the 3.50 acres comprised in 287/1A3 to Mrs.Geetha and Mr.Balakrishnan, who in turn gave Power of Attorney in favour of Ms.P.G.Sobha through two Power of Attorney deeds dated 17.05.2004 to an extent of 1 acre and to an extent of 2.45 acres. 7. Having got power to sell the properties, i.e, the respective shares of three sons of Mrs.Salimunnissa, Ms.P.G.Sobha has developed the property by way of an unapproved layout. The appellants purchased 80 cents of land comprised in S.No.230 for providing 20 feet road and another piece of land measuring about 12 cents comprised in S.No.230/3 on 04.05.2014 from one Mr.M.C.John for providing 20 feet road. Making use of those lands 20 feet wide road was provided to the property purchased from Mr.Amanuddin viz., S.No.287/1A1 and 33 feet road was formed to provide access to the property purchased from Mr.Shahbuddin comprised in S.No.287/1A3. After showing the said property as road, the property belonging to Mr.Amanuddin, Mr.Shahbuddin and Mr.Zakkauddin have been divided into plots and sold to various third parties. Though it was developed as a gated community, no approval has been obtained. Many third parties have purchased plots in the unapproved layout. The compound wall was constructed abutting the portions of Mr.Shahbuddin on the western side as well as eastern side. 8. Thereafter, the Power of Attorney holder Ms.P.G.Sobha divided the road which has been comprised in S.No.287/1A3 whose width is 33 as 20 feet road and 13 feet piece of land on the eastern side of the Mr.Syed Shahbuddin's property (S.No.287/1A2). The 13 feet wide piece of land which runs from North to South was divided into three. Northern portion of the said subdivided land measuring 13 ft in width and 174 ft in length was sold by Ms.P.G.Sobha in favour of her son Mr.Naveen, as per sale deed dated 02.09.2013 bearing Doc. No.6147/2013. The central portion measuring 13 ft x 174 ft was sold to herself by Ms.P.G.Sobha vide Doc. No.6148 of 2013 dated 02.09.2013. The southern portion of the piece of land measuring 13 ft x 174 ft was sold to another son Mr.Nirmal vide Doc. No.6146 of 2013 dated 02.09.2013. No.6147/2013. The central portion measuring 13 ft x 174 ft was sold to herself by Ms.P.G.Sobha vide Doc. No.6148 of 2013 dated 02.09.2013. The southern portion of the piece of land measuring 13 ft x 174 ft was sold to another son Mr.Nirmal vide Doc. No.6146 of 2013 dated 02.09.2013. By carving out the aforesaid piece of land by 13 ft from the 33 feet width road, the appellants got patta in their favour and the patta numbers are 5673, 5674 & 5675. Against the said issuance of pattas, Mr.Syed Salauddin, the fourth respondent in W.A.No.360 of 2019 filed Appeal on 19.12.2014 stating that the road has been made as a private land and pattas have been issued in favour of the appellants. The Executive Magistrate, Tambaram cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Tambaram, Chennai by order dated 26.02.2015 set aside the order of the patta issued in favour of the appellants and directed the Tahsildar to grant joint patta in favour of the purchasers of the plots. Against the said order passed by the RDO, an appeal has been preferred by the appellants before the DRO, Kancheepuram. The DRO, Kancheepuram dismissed the said appeal, by order dated 29.05.2017. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.15782 of 2017 by the Appellants. 9. Mr.Syed Salahuddin/R4 in W.A.No.360 of 2019 and R9 in W.A.No.340 of 2019 applied for electricity connection to his property viz., Plot No.15 which forms part of the property purchased by the appellants from Mr.Amanuddin comprised in S.No.287/1A1. The said Electricity connection was granted to the superstructure put up by Mr.Syed Salahuddin in Plot No.15 through the 20 feet width road laid by the appellants. In view of the same, objections have been raised by the appellants by notice dated 27.07.2016 stating that underground cable has been laid in the 20 feet wide private road located in the unapproved layout and if Mr.Syed Salahuddin intends to get electricity connection he could get it from his land from the side of the road comprised in S.No.287/1A2. In view of the same, objections have been raised by the appellants by notice dated 27.07.2016 stating that underground cable has been laid in the 20 feet wide private road located in the unapproved layout and if Mr.Syed Salahuddin intends to get electricity connection he could get it from his land from the side of the road comprised in S.No.287/1A2. Thereafter, the appellants filed W.P.No.30748 of 2016, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the electricity board to remove the power lines from the road, alleging that the cable was laid on 19.07.2016 by the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Injambakkam, Chennai (South) in Old S.No.287, patta No.223 and new S.No.287/1A1 and electricity connection was given by demolishing the compound wall constructed by the appellants. 10. Both the Writ Petitions on contest were dismissed, against which the present Appeals have been filed. Against the order passed in W.P.No.30748 of 2016 (to remove the electricity cable line), W.A.No.340 of 2019 has been filed and against the order passed in W.P.No.15782 of 2017 (cancellation of patta for the sub-divided road portion), W.A.No.360 of 2019 has been filed. 11. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the entire property is a private unapproved layout. After getting power of attorney holder from the actual owners, the land has been divided into plots by laying the road. It is an unapproved layout and no piece of land has been gifted or given to the local body and therefore, there is no question of calling any part of the property as road though it has been shown in the layout as public road. The portion shown as road always remains with the developer. The roads have been formed by purchasing the two piece of lands from the private parties measuring about 80 cents and 12 cents by sale deeds dated 03.04.2002 and 04.05.2004 respectively from one Mr.Nithyanandham and three others and M.C.John. The above 12 cents and 80 cents of lands which have been used as a private road are the only source of access for the 20 feet and 33 feet private road and the strip of private land is situated facing the main access road, ultimately connects the said gated community. In respect of lands in S.No.287/1A1, 20 feet private road (16 ft + 4 ft wide) was formed exclusively for convenient use and enjoyment of the purchasers. In respect of lands in S.No.287/1A1, 20 feet private road (16 ft + 4 ft wide) was formed exclusively for convenient use and enjoyment of the purchasers. The said 20 ft private road abuts the property of Mr.Syed Salahuddin, comprised in S.No.287/1A2. In respect of S.No.287/1A3A and S.No.287/1A3B, a 33 feet wide private road (20 ft + 13 ft wide) was formed for the exclusive use and convenient enjoyment of the purchasers of the lay out. The 30 ft wide private road abuts the land belonging to Mr.A.Syed Salahuddin. The appellants already constructed a compound wall adjoining Mr.Syed Salahuddin's land in the above said survey numbers. As long as land portion which has been shown as road has not been handed over to the local body it remains with the owner of the layout. 12. The 33 feet piece of land comprised in S.No.287/1A3 was divided into 13 feet & 20 feet and 20 feet has been retained as road and 13 feet wide piece was sold in favour of the appellants to the extent 22 x 53 sq.ft each and pattas have been granted in Nos.5673, 5674 & 5675. The said pattas were sought to be cancelled by Mr.Syed Salahuddin complaining as if 33 feet piece of land was gifted by the appellants to the local panchayat and sought for cancellation of patta in respect of S.No.287/1A3 granted in favour of appellants. 13. According to the learned senior counsel, the said Mr.Syed Salahuddin cannot have any access to the land which has been shown as a road which does not belong to him and he is only a third party and third parties cannot claim access or right over the neighbour's lands. In this regard, the learned senior counsel would rely upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd., Vs. The District Collector, Kancheepuram and 4 others reported in 2011 (5) CTC 94 and would submit that since the disputed property shown as road is an unapproved land, it cannot be claimed as a public road and that transfer of title in respect of 13 feet out of 33 feet wide piece of land which has been comprised in S.No.287/1A3A and 287/1A3B, cannot be questioned and that Mr.Syed Salahuddin cannot have any right to access through the piece of land. Therefore, the pattas granted in favour of the appellants, which were cancelled, have to be restored. The electricity connection which has been given through private land of the appellants to Mr.Syed Salahuddin should be removed and he has got no right to lay the cable line to his property which is comprised in S.No.287/1A2. 14. The learned senior counsel would further submit that merely because the pattas were cancelled, it will not have the effect of appellants' private land being converted into public road. No procedure has been followed as contemplated under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act towards acquisition of private land to be converted into public road. If the land which has been located in a private layout is sought to be converted as public road, the said piece of land has to be acquired for the purpose of laying road for the public. The demolition of compound wall on the two sides of the appellants' properties without following the procedure needs to be compensated. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would submit that the appeals have to be allowed. 15. On the other hand, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.Syed Salahuddin would submit that having shown 33 feet wide road comprised S.No.287/1A3 and 20 feet road comprised in S.No.287/1A1 as roads, plots were sold to third parties. The appellants do not have any right to divide the 33 feet road and execute sale deeds in faovur of their family members to the extent of 13 feet width and 174 feet length. To show the 33 feet wide piece of land which is claimed to be a private road by the appellants from the sale deeds dated 14.02.2003 and 02.09.2013, the appellants cannot convert the same and purchase the said piece of land by dividing the same. Once it has been shown as a road it should be used only for common purpose and the promoters or owners have got no right to subdivide and sell the same. Promising the purchasers that 33 feet wide road has been provided and facilities have been provided, the plots have been sold. Therefore, the promoters have got no right to touch the property. Promising the purchasers that 33 feet wide road has been provided and facilities have been provided, the plots have been sold. Therefore, the promoters have got no right to touch the property. The sale deeds registered in the name of appellants allegedly transfering the portion of the properties which have been shown as road comprised in S.No.287/1A3 and without giving boundaries of the properties in all the three sale deeds have been registered in favour of the appellants on 02.09.2013. The said sale deeds are fraudulent sale deeds. All the purchasers of plots are the beneficiaries of the common access road in unapproved land and the road should belong to all the owners for common use. Therefore, the DRO, appreciating the facts rightly cancelled the pattas which have been granted in favour of the appellants. On appeal also the same was rightly confirmed by the learned single Judge. 16.Mr.Syed Salahuddin purchased plot No.15 comprised in S.No.287/1A1. The electricity connection is extended upto plot No.8 which is a neighbouring plot through 24 feet road. Through the 24 feet road only, the cable has been laid and the appellants have got no right to ask for direction to remove the cable as it is only meant for common use. Moreover, houses have been constructed in the layout and all the persons have got electricity connection. In Plot No.1 comprised in S.No.287/1A a marriage hall has been constructed. When all the persons have got electricity, the electricity connection given to Mr.Syed Salahuddin, who is the owner of the Plot No.15 comprised in S.No.287/1A1 cannot be disconnected and the cable cannot be directed to be removed. 17. Mr. V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader would submit that once the land has been divided into plots and developed as a layout, whether it is approved or unapproved, the land, which has been shown as a road, should be used as a common road or public road and no one has got any right over the property. In this regard, he referred to a circular issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, dated 13.02.2006, stating that the road in a layout should not be earmarked as for owner's use which deprives the access to the adjacent land owners. In this regard, he referred to a circular issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, dated 13.02.2006, stating that the road in a layout should not be earmarked as for owner's use which deprives the access to the adjacent land owners. He also referred to another circular dated 02.07.2012 issued by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement stating that in respect of both approved and unapproved layouts where space is allocated for roads and public utilities, they should be surveyed separately and assigned separate T.S.No and that they should be in the name of Government or local body agencies. In respect of unapproved lands, the common areas, till they are handed over/taken over by the Government/local body, will bear a joint patta in the names of all the owners of the unapproved layout. He would point out from Rule 4(6) of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of the Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017 in G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 04.05.2017 that no plot with encroachment on to a public road or street or any other land over which the applicant does not possess ownership right shall be considered for regularisation. The learned Government Pleader relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Mariam Beevi Vs. Athirampuzha Grama Panchayath reported in 2007 SCC Online Madras 381 to contend that the open land reserved for public purposes cannot be used for any other purposes. Another judgment in OSA.No.50 to 59 of 2018 dated 08.06.2018 in the case of M/s.Sterling Garden and Foundations Apartment Owners Association, Rep. by its Secretary Muthukumar Vs. Hyder Ali and others, has been referred in which it is held that even in unapproved layouts where the lands are shown as public roads, they can be accessed by public. Similar dictum has been laid down by this Court in W.P.No.19570 of 2018 in J.Kirubakaran Marcus Vs. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation and others dated 31.07.2018. By relying upon these judgments, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the piece of land which has been shown as road in unapproved land cannot be used for any other purposes, except as a road. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the appeals. 18. Heard the parties and perused the records carefully. 19.There is no dispute with regard to the property owned by Mrs.Salimunnisa and thereafter settlement has been made by her in fvaour of her five sons. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the appeals. 18. Heard the parties and perused the records carefully. 19.There is no dispute with regard to the property owned by Mrs.Salimunnisa and thereafter settlement has been made by her in fvaour of her five sons. Similarly, Ms.P.G.Sobha got power of attorney in respect of property comprised in S.No.287/1A1 belonging to Mr.Amanuddin, property comprised in S.No.287/1A4 belonging to Mr.Zakkauddin and property comprised in S.No.287/1A3 belonging to Mrs.Geetha and Mr.Balakrishnan, who have purchased the said property from Mr.Shahbuddin. Ms.P.G.Sobha also divided the said land into plots and developed the layout. However, it is an unapproved layout. In the layout, for the purpose of laying road, the appellants purchased two pieces of land measuring 80 cents comprised in S.No.230 and 12 cents comprised in S.No.287/1A1 and shown them as 20 feet and 33 feet road. The said piece of land has been shown as road in the layout and third parties have purchased various plots on various dates and put up constructions also. It is submitted before this Court that many persons have constructed houses including construction of marriage hall in plot No.1 comprised in S.No.287/1A1 and got electricity connection. 20.Whether it is an approved or an unapproved layout, once the piece of land has been shown as a road promising the purchasers that the access is available through those roads to reach their plots, it would get the character of road and it should be used only for road purpose and it can neither be converted nor divested for any other purpose or claimed as private property by the developer. Admittedly, the road portions are comprised in S.No.287/1A3 and 287/1A4. As rightly pointed out by Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader relying upon the circulars dated 13.02.2006 issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning and circular dated 02.07.2012 issued by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement, once a portion of the land in the unapproved layout is shown as common area, it should be set apart for public utility and should be separated from the rest of the lands. The relevant portion of the circular dated 13.02.2006 reads as follows: “At any circumstances, such a road in the layout should not end at spaces earmarked as “owners use” while deprives of an access to the adjacent land owner.” In the circular dated 02.07.2012, the following guidelines have been given with regard to the roads and other places set apart for public utility: “(i) In respect of unapproved layouts, roads and other places set apart for public utility should be separated and the rest of lands should be surveyed and sub divided - based on the title deeds such as sale deeds, settlement deeds, gift deeds, relinquishment deeds, etc., and assigned separate T.S./Survey/Sub division Number (both in towns and villages, i.e., Town and Cadastral Survey). Title (name of owner) should be clearly indicated in 'A' Register/Chitta, etc., (ii) In respect of approved layouts, each holding should be separately surveyed and sub divided – based on the title deeds such as sale deeds, settlement deeds, gift deeds, relinquishment deeds, etc., and assigned separate T.S./Survey/Sub division Number. Title (name of owner) should be clearly indicated in 'A' Register/Chitta, etc., (iii) In respect of both approved and unapproved layouts where space is allocated for roads and public utilities, they should be surveyed separately and assigned separate T.S./Survey/Sub division Number. This should be in the name of Government or Local Body agencies as the case may be, in the case of approved layouts provided they have been handover and/or taken over. (iv) In respect of unapproved layouts, the common areas till they are handed over/taken over by Government/local bodies, etc, will bear a joint Patta in the names of all the owners of the unapproved layout and will not be labelled as road, etc. since this involves the jurisdiction of the local body/other Government departments.” Therefore, it is clear that even in an unapproved layout, the piece of land which has been shown as road and other places set apart for public utility cannot be used for any other purposes and it should be separated from the rest of the land and it will bear a joint patta in the name of all the owners of the unapproved layout. 21. 21. Rule 4(6) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots, 2017 reads as follows: “No plot with any encroachment on to a public road or street or on any other land over which the applicant does not possess ownership right and lands affected by the repealed Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) shall be considered for regularisation” Therefore, no encroachment is allowed on public road and even if it is encroached it cannot be considered for regularisation. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Mariam Beevi Vs. The Secretary Athirampuzha Grama Panchayath and others reported in 2017 SCC Online Ker 7182 held that the road has as an element of public utility attached to it, be it private or public. Paragraphs 14, 16 & 17 of the said judgment are extracted as follows: “14.The learned single Judge, after referring to the provisions under Section 169 of the Panchayat Raj Act, which begins with a non obstante clause concluded that the expression 'not being private property appertaining thereto' in sub-section (1) of Section 169 exempts only private property adjacent to any public road, but not the very road, which always has an element public utility attached to it; be it private or public. Further, the road need not be thoroughfare and that the expression 'Village roads, paths and lanes' use in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 169 does not specify whether they are private or public. ... 16. The learned single Judge has also held that once a property assumes the character of a road or pathway having the potential of being a public utility, it ceases to have any exclusivity. 17. The learned single Judge has also noted that, if a piece of land is to be plotted out, it is the mandate of the Statute that proper roads and other amenities are provided. Just because the whole of the property once was private, it could not be said that it would bear the same character forever.” Therefore, once the property assumes the character of a road or pathway having potential of being a public utility, it ceases to have any exclusivity. 22. Just because the whole of the property once was private, it could not be said that it would bear the same character forever.” Therefore, once the property assumes the character of a road or pathway having potential of being a public utility, it ceases to have any exclusivity. 22. From the above Rule, Circulars and judgments it is very clear that once a piece of land has been shown as road or pathway, it should be used and known as only road and no one including the developer has got any right over the property. It should be called as public road or it is available for the use of persons who purchased the plots in the unapproved layout. 23. Once a piece of land has been earmarked as road or street, it acquires the status of a public land and it is meant for use by all the persons who purchased plots in the layout. Without access to the plots, nobody would come forward to purchase the property. Further, the person who purchases the plot would become the joint owner of the said piece of land earmarked as road or street. The peace of land earmarked as road would become a part and parcel of every plot and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be claimed as private land or private property as claimed by the appellants. 24. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is admitted by the appellants that 20 feet wide road was left for the purpose of road. Similarly, it is admitted in paragraph 3 that 33 feet wide land abetting the land belonging to the fourth respondent Mr.A.Syed Salauddin is left vacant for the purpose of using it as road. However, they claimed that the said road have not been gifted to the local body at any point of time and therefore, it would become a private holding. Having shown the piece of land as road and sold plots to various parties, the appellants are estopped from contending that the said piece of land namely, the 20 feet wide road and 33 feet wide road is private holding. Having shown the piece of land as road and sold plots to various parties, the appellants are estopped from contending that the said piece of land namely, the 20 feet wide road and 33 feet wide road is private holding. 25.A Division Bench of this Court in T.N.Rajasekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Madras 646 held that when the promoter promoted the land as layout and sold plots to respective purchasers, the promoter is divested of all his rights in respect of land earmarked as roads and streets. "15. Once a lay-out has been approved by the appropriate authority, the portions earmarked for road and street would be left to the benefit of the plot owners, who purchased the plots from the original owner or promoter, as the case may be, and after the said approval, all the roads and streets shall become public and, thereafter, the original land owner cannot lay his hands on the portions left out for the purpose of laying roads and streets, claiming that he is still holding ownership over them since there cannot be any approved lay out without making any provision for road. Thus, in case, any plea has to be raised either objecting the acquisition or the quantum of compensation, it should be either by the local authority or the purchasers of the plots, but not the petitioner, since has sold away the lands." 26. In the aforesaid case also, it was contended by the promoter that he did not relinquish the road portion for local panchayat for maintenance and therefore, he is entitled to the road portion of the land. The said contention was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court. Paragraph 19 of the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder: "19. From the above Rules, it is clear that all streets shall become public and the land owners/developers shall hand over these street/roads portion through a deed to the local authority concerned, after forming the roads. But, as could be seen from the original records produced before us, the appellant/petitioner has not executed any deed in favour of the local authority handing over these street/roads portion, only with a malafide intention of making this type of fictitious claims, to illegally enrich himself at the cost of the exchequer, by violating the mandatory provisions of law." 27. But, as could be seen from the original records produced before us, the appellant/petitioner has not executed any deed in favour of the local authority handing over these street/roads portion, only with a malafide intention of making this type of fictitious claims, to illegally enrich himself at the cost of the exchequer, by violating the mandatory provisions of law." 27. Hence, the portion of land namely, 20 feet wide road comprised in Survey No.287/1A1 and 33 feet wide road comprised in Survey No.287/1A3 would get the characteristics of the public road or atleast for common usage of all the plot owners. Thus, the said portion of land loses its private character, once it is shown as road in the layout, irrespective of whether it is gifted to the local body or not. 28. In view of the above position of law as well as the rules and regulations, the roads have become common property for the use of all the plot owners and appellants have got no right to subdivide the lands to claim the portion exclusively for them. In this case, the 33 feet wide road has been divided into 20 feet and 13 feet and the 20 feet portion has been retained as road while the balance 13 feet road portion is illegally claimed as private lands by the appellants and highhandedly manufactured 3 sale deeds among the appellants themselves. Thus; 1. The sub division of 33 feet land shown as road portion is illegal. 2. The sale of 13 feet road portion claiming it as private property is contrary to law. 3. The three sale deeds dated 02.09.2013 selling the property in favour of each of the appellant to an extent of 13 feet * 174 feet is fraud. 4. The issuance of pattas in Patta No.5673 in favour of T.G.Naveen, Patta No.5674 in favour of T.G.Nirmal and Patta No.5675 in favour of T.G.Shoba for the property showing the sale deeds is also illegal. 29. For the reasons stated above, this Court has got no hesitation to declare the above three sale deeds dated 02.09.2013 registered as Documents Nos.6416, 6417 and 6418 of 2013 to an extent of 2253 sq.ft each on the file of SRO, Neelangarai is fraudulent and illegal and the same is struck off. 30. 29. For the reasons stated above, this Court has got no hesitation to declare the above three sale deeds dated 02.09.2013 registered as Documents Nos.6416, 6417 and 6418 of 2013 to an extent of 2253 sq.ft each on the file of SRO, Neelangarai is fraudulent and illegal and the same is struck off. 30. As rightly pointed out by Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, in the sale deed executed in favour of one Jeeva Bharathi dated 14.02.2005 selling about 12,317 sq.ft, the western boundary of the said property has been shown as 30 feet road. Similarly, the 30 feet road is shown as western boundary in the sale deed dated 07.11.2005 executed by the appellants in favour of one Narayanan selling about 12,317 sq.ft of land. Therefore, the above documents would show that 30 feet road has been in existence. 31. After 8 years of executing the aforesaid sale deeds, selling various plots to various persons showing the 33 feet road and 20 feet road as access, the appellants themselves created documents selling the property in their favour vide sale deeds dated 02.09.2013 by fraudulently showing the boundary on the eastern side as 20 feet Gopikrishna Brindavanam 2nd Cross street. The appellants cannot according to their whims and fancies create any new rules reducing the already existing 30 feet road to 20 feet road unilaterally infringing the rights of the plot owners who purchased the property along with the road portion. The fraudulent intention of the appellants is clearly exhibited in the aforesaid sale deeds. 32. The official respondents based on the objections raised by the private respondents regarding the grant of patta in respect of Patta Nos.5673, 5674 and 5675 based on the sale deeds dated 02.09.2013 has rightly cancelled the pattas granted in favour of the appellants. 33. Though it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the private respondent is the neighboring land owner and he cannot have any right to file objection, it is to be held that when a fraudulent transaction takes place affecting the rights of the general public [in the instant case, the purchasers of the plot in the layout], any person can raise objection pointing out the fraudulent transaction. What has to be seen is whether there is any fraud played in the transaction and whether based on the said fraudulent transaction, the authorities had been mislead and persuaded to grant patta in respect of the above properties. Therefore, the private respondent viz., the neighboring land owner has got every right to putforth his objections. 34.Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relied upon the judgment made in the case of Vishwa Foot Wear Company Limited v. District Collector, Kanchipuram reported in (2011) 5 CTC 94 to contend that once a patta has been issued based on the registered documents by the Tahsildar as per the provisions of the Patta Passbook Act, the same cannot be cancelled and the person who disputes the issuance of patta and the entry made in the Patta Passbook have to approach the Civil Court, as the dispute regarding the title of the property arises. The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the same judgment and submitted that the writ Court cannot go into the disputed questions of facts, especially regarding the title of the property and it is for the parties to approach the Civil Court to decide the issue. 35. In the instant case, there is no disputed questions of facts. As already explained supra, the land which has been shown as road portion has been fraudulently subdivided by the appellants and illegally registered in their favour by themselves in violation of the rules and regulations and the circulars referred to above. There is no title vested with the appellants in respect of the road portion as they are divested of their right once it has been developed as layout showing the peace of land as road and sold various plots to various owners. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. On the face of it, it is evident that the subdivision of the land portion and selling the property in their favour are illegal and fraudulent. As the same is established before the authorities, the official respondents 1 and 2 had rightly set aside the pattas granted in favour of the appellants. 36. A perusal of the orders dated 26.02.2015 passed by the first respondent based on the report of the Tahsildar would prove that the appellants without showing the original sale deeds obtained the pattas. As the same is established before the authorities, the official respondents 1 and 2 had rightly set aside the pattas granted in favour of the appellants. 36. A perusal of the orders dated 26.02.2015 passed by the first respondent based on the report of the Tahsildar would prove that the appellants without showing the original sale deeds obtained the pattas. Further, the office had noted that the sketch produced by the appellants is contrary to the FMB and therefore, the Tahsildar had recommended for cancellation of pattas. Thus, by accepting the report of the Tahsildar, the first respondent had cancelled the pattas issued in favour of the appellants and directed the issuance of joint pattas in favor of all the plot owners, if necessary. 37. On appeal, the second respondent vide order dated 29.07.2015 confirmed the order passed by the first respondent holding that based on the report of the Revenue Inspector dated 26.12.2014 and the report of the Taluk Surveyor dated 29.12.2014, the second respondent had factually found that the land which has been conveyed by virtue of the sale deeds dated 02.09.2013 registered as Documents Nos. 6416, 6417 and 6418 of 2013 is only the road portion. The authorities also found that only the road portion have been sold by the above said sale deeds and pattas have been fraudulently obtained which is contrary to law. The second respondent also held that the land which has been shown as road cannot be held to be a private holding and only all the plot owners can have joint patta. Once the authorities, based on the documents found that the road portion have been sold illegally by the appellants and pattas have been fraudulently obtained and thereafter, it was cancelled by the authorities and the same was also upheld by the learned Single Judge, the same cannot be set aside. 38. Since the appellants contended that the Revenue Inspector and the Taluk Surveyor made inspection in their absence without notice to them and file a report dated 26.12.2014 and 29.12.2014 respectively, the learned Single Judge directed to the Tahsildar to submit the status report afresh to consider the claim of the parties. 38. Since the appellants contended that the Revenue Inspector and the Taluk Surveyor made inspection in their absence without notice to them and file a report dated 26.12.2014 and 29.12.2014 respectively, the learned Single Judge directed to the Tahsildar to submit the status report afresh to consider the claim of the parties. The Tahsildar filed the status report on 24.09.2018 after conducting inspection along with the Revenue Inspector, Taluk Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer, in which it has been categorically stated in the FMB, there is a 20 feet road on one side and 33 feet road on the other side earmarked in the field on both the eastern and western side of S.No.287/1A2A1. Further, it has been stated that the appellants have not furnished the layout sketch of the unapproved layout to any purchaser and the appellants had put up a gate on the southern side of the above Survey number already in the old FMB and closed the road and it is not accessible to the fourth respondent. Further, it has been noted that the appellants failed to surrender the 33 feet road and 20 feet road portion earmarked for the purpose of using as road to Chennai Corporation only with an intention to grab the same. 39. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the appellants are real estate agents doing business without rules cheating the Public as well as Government authorities by forming unapproved layout. The learned Single Judge accepted the finding of the first and second respondents that the land in question is earmarked as road should be kept open for the usage of public at large. The learned Single Judge also approved the removal of gate constructed by the appellants, so as to enable the road to be used by the public. Further, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that if the appellants are the owners of the land in question, it is for them to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their ownership and till then, the road used by the public at large cannot be disturbed and the official respondents should ensure no further disturbance is caused regarding the usage of road as public road. 40. 40. Though the learned Single Judge found that the finding given by the first and second respondents cannot be disturbed, further stretched and held that it is for the appellants to approach the Civil Court for getting their rights declared in respect of the portion which they are claiming as private land. This Court is of the view that the said observation is unnecessary. It is already proved that the portion which has been shown as road portion has been illegally subdivided and fraudulently sold to themselves by the appellants and based on the said fraudulent sale deeds, they are claiming title to the property and obtained patta. When things are very clear that it is the fraudulent claim of the appellants, there is no question of again going before the Civil Court by the appellants to establish the title over the property. There will be no end if such liberty is given to the appellants. Though the appeal has been preferred by the appellants, the right given in paragraph 28 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge for the appellants to approach the Civil Court and establish their right is set aside as the same is unwarranted and unnecessary. 41. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants relief upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sathyapal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh and other reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 in which it was held that once a document has been registered and some irregularity in the procedure is said to have been committed, deceitfully to cause loss and harm to other party in the deed, it is a question of fact and the aggrieved party by such registration of document has to challenge before the Civil Court. Further, it is stated when the alternate remedy is available by approaching the Civil Court to challenge the said registration of documents, the Article 226 cannot be invoked. There is no dispute with regard to the said factum. It is not the case of procedural irregularity in the registration of document, but it is the illegality and lack of title and usurping the public road and selling the property goes to the root of the issue and therefore, Article 226 can be invoked. 42. There is no dispute with regard to the said factum. It is not the case of procedural irregularity in the registration of document, but it is the illegality and lack of title and usurping the public road and selling the property goes to the root of the issue and therefore, Article 226 can be invoked. 42. As stated supra, fraud has been played by the appellants in registering the documents without any title, that too taking away the road portion to be used by all the purchasers of the property, got the document registered illegally and highhandedly and therefore, this Court has got power and jurisdiction to set at naught the illegality and fraud played by the appellants. Fraud vitiates the actions of the appellants and there is no necessity for the private respondent to approach the Civil Court to challenge the said sale deed. Assuming for a moment that the private respondent has to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the document, the power of this Court once it comes to the knowledge about the illegality and fraud played by the appellants, this Court cannot be a silent spectator and the judicial arm of the Court will extent to strike off the fraudulent document which has been executed without title, taking away the road portion meant for usage by the public especially by the purchasers of the land in the layout. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case and this Court has got power and jurisdiction suo motu to strike off those documents as it is found to be fraudulent and illegal, apart from violating the rights of the innocent purchasers of the property and those of the private respondent. 43. When the documents exhibit fraudulent transaction on the face of it, this Court instead of driving the parties to the Civil Court where the proceedings will be dragged on for years together violating the rights of the parties could invoke suo motu powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to strike of the fraudulent sale deeds to safeguard the rights of the parties who are not before this Court also. 44. Similar is the issue in respect of 20 feet road formed for the usage of the properties comprised in S.No.287/1A1. In the layout 20 feet road has been shown. 44. Similar is the issue in respect of 20 feet road formed for the usage of the properties comprised in S.No.287/1A1. In the layout 20 feet road has been shown. However, the appellants subdivided the road portion as 16 feet and took away the 4 feet road as private property and the 4 feet in S.No.287/1A1 was sold illegally to one of the appellants by virtue of the sale deed dated 16.04.2013 registered as Document No.4796/2013 executed by T.G.Shoba in favour of her son T.G.Nirmal, who is one of the appellants, which has been stated in Paragraph 10 of the written arguments, in respect of the 20 feet road measuring an extent of 1872 sq.ft., 45. Though the issuance of the patta in respect of 1872 sq.ft has not been objected by any of the parties, it is evident that the said land has been carved out of the 20 feet road illegally and the said land has been conveyed through sale deed dated 16.04.2013 registered as Document No.4796/2013. Hence, the sale deed dated 16.04.2013 is suo motu struck of as illegal and fraudulent. 46. With regard to the prayer in the Writ Appeal No.340 of 2019 is concerned, it has been contended by the appellants that the Electricity Board has highhandedly put up cable in the 24 feet road by demolishing the wall put up by the appellants and gave electricity connection to the fourth respondent and therefore, the cable which has been laid in the private road has to be removed 47. As already observed, once the road has been formed, there is no question of claiming it as private land and it is meant for all plot owners who had purchased the property in the layout. A bare perusal of the layout map produced before this Court would show that the property comprised in S.No.287/1A1 was developed as a layout and various plots have been purchased by the third parties. The fourth respondent has also purchased the plot no.15 from the original purchaser of the land from the appellants. As long as R9/Syed Salauddin, the private respondent is the owner of the property, he has got every right to have electricity connection. To have the electricity connection he has got the right to have the cable laid through the roads and the appellants cannot prevent the same claiming the road as private road. As long as R9/Syed Salauddin, the private respondent is the owner of the property, he has got every right to have electricity connection. To have the electricity connection he has got the right to have the cable laid through the roads and the appellants cannot prevent the same claiming the road as private road. It is admitted by the parties that many plot owners developed the property by putting up construction. In plot No.1, a big Thirumana Mandapam has been put up and it has got electricity connection. When such is the position, the appellants cannot prevent R9/private respondent by putting up wall on the boundaries of the road and prevent him from having electricity connection. Therefore, the electricity board is justified in demolishing the portion of the wall which prevented the electricity board from giving electricity connection to the property of the private respondent. 48. Once the private respondent becomes the owner of one of the plots developed by the appellants, all the rights including the right to have electricity connection accrue to him and the same cannot be prohibited or prevented by the appellants. 49. Though Mr.Rameshuwar, learned standing counsel appearing on the behalf of the Electricity Board would contend that the dispute regarding the property has not been brought to the notice by the private respondent at the time of applying for the electricity connection, the same cannot be the reason for not providing electricity connection to the private respondent. As already mentioned, the private respondent is the owner of Plot No.15 comprised in S.No.287/1A1 and hence, he is entitled for electricity connection. 50. It is claimed by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants that the private respondent intends to utilize the private road developed by the appellants in S.No.287/1A1 and 1A3 to have access to reach his land in S.No.287/1A2 by converting into layout sites. However, the said contention is only hypothetical in nature. 51. One other contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is that the Government has to acquire the private land from the parties to convert it as public road. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision made in the case of N.R.Krishnamoorthy Raja v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for land administration and others reported in 2018 (7) MLJ 13. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision made in the case of N.R.Krishnamoorthy Raja v. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for land administration and others reported in 2018 (7) MLJ 13. The facts of the said case is that the owner of the property made a construction leaving his private property to be used as road and that private road has been taken over as public road without payment of compensation. Therefore, the said land owner filed a Writ Petition seeking compensation and the Court granted compensation, as the petitioner's private property has been taken over for laying the road. However, in the instant case, the road which is sought to be used by the private respondent is not a private property but it is the one which is shown as road in the layout to have access to the plots. Whenever a sale is made, the purchasers not only purchases the plots but also the right to use the piece of land shown as road and the sale consideration of the plot would also involve the component of right to use the road portion. The land portion shown in the private layout developed by the appellants is meant for all the persons who purchase the plots in the layout. Hence, it has to be dedicated only for the purpose of road and it should have been handed over by the appellants to the local body. There is a failure on the part of the appellants to hand over the road portion to the local body and he cannot take advantage of his failure to make erroneous claim. Therefore, there is no necessity for the Government or the local body to initiate the land acquisition proceedings to take over the road portion in the layout for the purpose of make it as a public road. Thus, the argument putforth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is liable to be rejected. 52. In the above circumstances, the contentions made by the appellants are liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected and these Writ Appeals are dismissed with the following directions: (i). Thus, the argument putforth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is liable to be rejected. 52. In the above circumstances, the contentions made by the appellants are liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected and these Writ Appeals are dismissed with the following directions: (i). The three Sale deeds dated 02.09.2013 registered as Document Nos.6416, 6417 and 6418 of 2013 to an extent of 2253 sq.ft each and the Sale deed dated 16.04.2013 registered as Document No.4796 of 2013 to an extent of 1872 sq.ft on the file of the SRO, Neelangarai, which convey the road portion in the layout are struck off as the same are fraudulent and illegal. (ii). The liberty given to the appellants in paragraph 28 of the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge to approach the Civil Court and establish their rights is set aside as the same is unwarranted and unnecessary. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.