ORDER : This writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of an order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the 2 nd respondent, the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Ariyalur in Roc.No.416 of 2023 and also of the consequential proceedings dated 06.07.2023 passed by the 3 rd respondent, the President, Kilapalur Panchayat, Ariyalur District in Na.Ka.No.1/2023-2024 relating to layout No.DTCP No.10 of 2023 in Kilapalur Village, Thirumanur Panchayat Union, Ariyalur Taluk and to quash both the aforementioned orders and direct the respondents to revise the layout No.10 of 2023 in such a way that there is connectivity between the roads in existing layout No.08 of 2022 and the layout of 10 of 2023. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated that she is the absolute owner of the property at S.No.477/3C and 458/2 in Kilapalur Village, Kilapalur Panchayat Union, Ariyalur District, totally measuring 4.75 acres. The petitioner had developed the same as a layout of house sites called Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar, Kilapalur. She applied to the 2 nd respondent, the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Ariyalur District, for approval of the layout. The 2 nd respondent also granted layout approval in DTCP Approval No.08/2022 by proceedings dated 18.08.2022. The 3 rd respondent, President, Kilapalur Panchayat, Ariyalur District also granted approval by proceedings dated 25.08.2022. The petitioner had also applied for registration under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and registration was also granted by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority by proceedings dated 28.10.2022. The petitioner claims that she had developed the layout after providing sufficient space for park, road and other public utility services. She also executed a Gift Deed in favour of the 3 rd respondent, President, Kilapalur Panchayat for such public spaces. 3. It had been further stated in the affidavit that 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents are the owners of property in S.No.474/4, 474/5, 475/2 and 475/4 in Kilapalur Village. The 5 th to 7 th respondents also intended to develop the aforementioned lands totally measuring 6.96 acres into house sites and had applied for approval from the 2 nd respondent. It had been stated that the 5 th to 7 th respondents had shown the western bit of the property as a park. The 5 th to 7 th respondents also intended to develop the aforementioned lands totally measuring 6.96 acres into house sites and had applied for approval from the 2 nd respondent. It had been stated that the 5 th to 7 th respondents had shown the western bit of the property as a park. It is contended that the said park comes in between the layout of the petitioner in DTCP Approval No.8/2022 and the proposed layout of the 5 th to 7 th respondents. It had been further stated that the 2 nd respondent had granted approval of the proposal given by the 5 th to 7 th respondents in DTCP Approval No.10/2023 by proceedings dated 23.06.2023 and the 3 rd respondent also granted consequential approval for the same. It had been contended that the eastern end of the layout developed by the petitioner ends in a road called Shanthi Salai. It had been contended that when the 5 th to 7 th respondents had provided a plan to their layout, they should have ensured that Shanthi Salai, which is an existing road is connected outward. However, they had earmarked that particular place for a park and therefore, Shanthi Salai had come to dead end. Contending that grant of approval to the 5 th to 7 th respondents would prevent free movement from one layout of house sites and another layout of house sites and to reach Ariyalur and Thanjavur Road, the Writ Petition has been filed seeking interference of the grant of approval for the layout proposed by the 5 th to 7 th respondents. 4. It had been contended that the 2nd respondent should have taken into consideration Rule 47 of the Combined Development Rules, which provided that there should be free circulation or rather movement from one layout to another layout by connecting roads. It had been contended that grant of approval for laying a park at the end of Shanthi Salai would prevent the free movement of the residents in the layout proposed by the petitioner and it had therefore been contended that the layout permission granted to the 5 th to 7 th respondents should be revisited by the 2 nd respondent. 5. 5. The 5 th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had not only developed a layout called Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar but also another layout called Shree Raja Ganapathy Nagar and that both the layouts were adjacent to each other. It had been stated that the layouts had been properly linked to enable the owners of the house sites in Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar to reach the Thanjavur Main Road. The petitioner had actually shown the Kilapalur – Thirumazhabadi Road as the approach road. It had been contended that the 5 th to 7 th respondents who also owned properties in S.Nos.474/4, 474/5, 475/2 and 475/4 converted the said property into house sites by forming a layout called Vasan Nagar. It had been contended that except for the portion earmarked for park, the entire remaining portion was situated east of Shree Raja Ganapathi Nagar. It had been stated that further east to the layout of the 5 th to 7 th respondents yet another layout had been formed called Anandha Nagar. It had been stated that the roads in the layout formed by the 5 th to 7 th respondents were linked with the roads in Anandha Nagar and also Shree Raja Ganapathi Nagar. It had been further stated that the roads in Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar were linked to the roads in the Shree Raja Ganapathi Nagar. It had therefore been contended that there is connection to the Thanjavur Main Road from Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar. It had been further stated that the approval had been granted by the authorities after ascertaining adequate linkages and proper circulation of movement in already approved layouts. 6. It had also been stated that the 5 th to 7 th respondents had executed a Gift Deed dated 14.06.2023 registered as Document No.1926/2023 in favour of the 3 rd respondents, Kilapalur Panchayat with respect to the area earmarked for roads, public purpose and parks. They had also executed another Gift Deed with respect to an area earmarked for fixing a transformer by the Superintendent Engineer, Electricity Board. It had also been stated that there is yet another large vacant land between the Vasan Nagar and Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar and whenever a layout is formed in the said vacant land, a direct linkage could be obtained. It had also been stated that there is yet another large vacant land between the Vasan Nagar and Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar and whenever a layout is formed in the said vacant land, a direct linkage could be obtained. It had been stated that since the petitioner has connectivity from the layout to the other layout formed by the respondents, the permission granted need not be revisited and that the Writ Petition should be dismissed. 7. The 2 nd respondent, Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Ariyalur, had also filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it had been stated that the 5 th to 7 th respondents had applied for approval for residential layout through Single Window Portal Online and after following due process, approval had been granted in DTCP Approval No.10/2023 by proceedings dated 23.06.2023. The 3 rd respondent had also granted approval. The approval had also been granted after verifying the documents and in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.18, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 04.02.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.16, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated31.10.2020. It had been further stated that there is connectivity and free flow of traffic and movements between the layout of the petitioner in Approval No.8/2022 and the layout of the 5 th to 7 th respondents in DTCP Approval No.10/2023. It had been further stated that there was yet another vacant land adjacent to the layout formed by the 5 th to 7 th respondents and Approval No.45/2019 had been granted for formation of a layout in that vacant land. It had been further stated that the property earmarked as public purpose and gifted to the local body cannot be revised. It had also been stated that the road extended to the adjacent land. It had therefore been contended that the planning permission was granted only after following due procedure. 8. During the course of hearing, this Court, on 07.11.2024 had directed as follows: “2. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner stated that a particular road, Shanthi Salai which extends from the layout, Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar formed by the petitioner, comes to an abrupt end, consequent to the gifting of land for the purpose of a park by the neighbouring developers, who had developed Vasan Nagar. Some vision could have been exercised at an earlier stage to ensure that Shanthi Salai extends further and is not stopped abruptly. Some vision could have been exercised at an earlier stage to ensure that Shanthi Salai extends further and is not stopped abruptly. To prevent ingress and egress to the park, a wall could also be built up. 3. The 2 nd respondent, the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Ariyalur, may depute a Senior Official, with responsibility to take decision, to go over to the 3 rd respondent, President, Kilapalur Panchayat, Ariyalur District and both the officials along with representatives of the writ petitioner and the representatives of the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents may make a spot inspection to examine whether Shanthi Salai could be extended further towards Vasan Nagar and, if that possibility is available, an equivalent area of land of that particular portion which has to be used for such extension, could be allotted for the purpose of park elsewhere. 4. Let a ground inspection be made in this regard and let a report be filed. For filing such a report, list the matter once again on20.11.2024.” 9. After such inspection had been done, a status report had been filed by the2 nd respondent, Assistant Director (In-charge), District Town and Country Planning Office, Ariyalur District. In the status report, it had been stated as follows: “4. In compliance with the observation of this Hon'ble Court, a team was formed to conduct a site inspection to assess the feasibility of extending Shanthi Salai toward Vasan Nagar. The inspection team was led by the Special Officer, President of Kilapalur Panchayat, Ariyalur District, along with the Husband of the Writ Petitioner and representatives of the 5 th , 6 th and 7 th respondents. During the spot inspection, the inspection team observed that Shanthi Salai has (4) four connecting roads for free traffic movement and flow to the Layouts developed by the 5 th to 7 th respondents. The petitioner has requested that the 10-meter-wide road situated to north of her layout (approval number 08/2022, plot numbers 20-24) be extended Eastward to connect with the 10- meter-wide road running along the northern boundary of the park in the layout approval No.10/2023 (Approved Layout formed by 5 th to 7 th respondents). 5. I further submit that, the petitioner has raised a concern about the lack of a connecting road from the petitioner's layout. Approval Number: 08/2022 to the Thanjavur Road. 5. I further submit that, the petitioner has raised a concern about the lack of a connecting road from the petitioner's layout. Approval Number: 08/2022 to the Thanjavur Road. However, the road within the petitioner's layout is already connected to the Thanjavur Road via a 23-foot-wide road in the In-Principle Approved layout (Approve Number: 45/2019) obtained by the Petitioner. Additionally, the road network is well connected to the Thanjavur Road through roads located within approved layouts obtained by the 5 th to 7 th respondents under Approval Number:10/2023. 6. I humbly further submit that, during the inspection, the President of the Keelapalur Panchayat stated that a connecting road could be laid along the northern boundary of the park in Approved Layout No.10/2023 (Layout approval obtained by 5 th to 7 th respondents). He further indicated the willingness to approve the road, provided that an equivalent area of land 576.00 Square Meter (or) 6200 Square Feet is allocated from the unsold plots belonging to both the petitioner and the respondents, in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Regulations, 2019 (TNCDBR – 2019). 7. I respectfully submitted that, in accordance with DTCP Approval No.08/2022 obtained by the petitioners and Approved Layout No.10/2023 obtained by the 5 th to 7 th respondents a portion of land was earmarked as Open Space Reservation (OSR) as required by the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. This designated land was gifted to the Local Body for the common use of house owners purchasing plots within the approved layout. As per Rule 47(3)(A), Note-2 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, land earmarked for 'Public Purpose' and gifted to the Local Body cannot be altered or reallocated. Furthermore, a road has already been extended to the adjacent land as well as to the plots belonging to the 5 th to 7 th respondents under the approval layout (Approval No.10/2023).” 10. A perusal of the aforementioned report reveals that though the petitioner had raised an apprehension that Shanthi Salai comes to a dead end, it had been pointed out that it has four connecting roads for free traffic movements and flow to the layouts developed by the 5 th and 7 th respondents. A perusal of the aforementioned report reveals that though the petitioner had raised an apprehension that Shanthi Salai comes to a dead end, it had been pointed out that it has four connecting roads for free traffic movements and flow to the layouts developed by the 5 th and 7 th respondents. It had been further stated that the road within the petitioner's layout is already connected to the Thanjavur Road via a 23-foot-wide road in the In-Principle Approved Layout (Approval Number:45/2019) obtained by the petitioner herself. Further the road network is well connected to the Thanjavur road through roads located within approved layouts obtained by the 5 th to 7 th respondents under Approval Number: 10/2023. It had been further stated that Shanthi Salai could be extended further, provided, either the petitioner or the 5 th to 7 th respondents compensate by providing alternate land from unsold plots within their respective authorized layouts. 11. The petitioner herein filed an additional affidavit with respect to that particular stand of the 2 nd respondent and stated that the writ petition has been filed questioning the granting of approval to the layout formed by the 5 th to 7 th respondents and therefore, the petitioner was not under any obligation to provide further land as compensation for formation of the road extending Shanthi Salai further. 12. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the 1 st to 4 th respondents and Mr.P.Sesubalan, learned counsel for the5 th to 7 th respondents. 13. Mr.ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strongly urged that the Court should direct revocation of the approval granted for the layout formed by the 5 th to 7 th respondents to the limited extent of there being no connectivity further for Shanthi Salai connecting the residents of the layout formed by the petitioner to the Thanjavur Main Road. The learned Senior Counsel stated that the petitioner had formed her layout earlier and the 2 nd respondent should have known that when the plan was put up by the 5 th to 7 th respondents, the area earmarked as park, blocked Shanthi Salai and this would directly affect the residents as there would be no free flow of traffic. The residents would have to take a detour to reach the Thanjavur Main Road. The residents would have to take a detour to reach the Thanjavur Main Road. The learned Senior Counsel asserted that this would be the contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Rules therein, which stipulated that there should be continuity in the roads between one layout and another and they should not end in a dead end. 14. Mr.P.Sesubalan, learned counsel for the 5 th to 7 th respondents, however, contended that there is connectivity from the plots in the layout of the petitioner to the Thanjavur Main Road and this fact had been confirmed during the course of inspection by the 2 nd respondent along with other officials as directed by the Court. The learned counsel further stated that the land had been earmarked for park and a Gift Deed had also been executed and there cannot be reversal of such approval at the whims and franchise of the petitioner. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner herself had developed two other layouts and there was connectivity from the petitioner's plots to those layouts. The learned counsel stated that the writ petition had been filed with mischievous intention and claimed that it should be dismissed. 15. Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the1 st to 4 th respondents contended that permission for layout of the lands of the 5 th to 7 th respondents had been granted after taking all the factors into consideration. He further contended that there is connectivity to reach Thanjavur Main Road from the plots of the layout of the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate further contended that once a Gift Deed had been executed earmarking a particular area as a park, the same cannnot be re-examined. However, he pointed out that connectivity for Shanthi Salai could be given, if the petitioner were to compensate equal area of land in any other place. The learned Government Advocate stated that the grant of approval does not warrant any re-visitation. 16. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the material records. 17. The petitioner herein was the owner of lands measuring 4.75 acres in S.Nos.477/3C and 458/2A in Kilapalur Village in Ariyalur District. She had applied for a layout by plotting out the lands into residential lands. Permission was granted in DTCP Approval No.8/2022. The petitioner had called her layout as Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar. 17. The petitioner herein was the owner of lands measuring 4.75 acres in S.Nos.477/3C and 458/2A in Kilapalur Village in Ariyalur District. She had applied for a layout by plotting out the lands into residential lands. Permission was granted in DTCP Approval No.8/2022. The petitioner had called her layout as Sri Lakshmi Kuberan Nagar. The petitioner had also developed yet another layout called Shree Raja Ganapathi Nagar. The 5 th to 7 th respondents were also holding lands in S.Nos.474/4, 474/5, 475/2 and 475/4 and they formed a layout called Vasan Nagar. As a pre-condition for grant of approval, the 5 th to 7 th respondents had executed a gift deed in favour of the panchayat / 3 rd respondent for land to be utilized as open space reserved area. The land so gifted was converted as park. Unfortunately, the park came just after the road of the petitioner's layout called Shanthi Salai. The petitioner could have taken this as an advantage that the residents of their layout can have easy access to a park. The petitioner could have also taken a positive view that, without reserving any area for a park at the end of Shanthi Salai, the residents who had purchased plots at that surrounding place now had a park for them to enjoy. The park would provide adequate lung space for the residents for their peaceful enjoyment. On the other hand, the petitioner viewed it with sore eyes. The petitioner claimed that owing to the park Shanthi Salai came to an abrupt end. It is therefore contended that connectivity must be provided for Shanthi Salai to go on and on till wherever there is a connectivity road is available. In effect, the petitioner seeks the park to be abolished and be converted into a road. But however, Shanthi Salai was not the only way out from the plots of the petitioner. There are connecting roads. While forming the layout, the petitioner necessarily had to form roads connecting the residential area to the main road. 18. It is contended on behalf of the 5 th to 7 th respondents, that the petitioner did not show the Thanjavur Main Road as the access road but rather the Kilapalur – Thirumazhabadi Road as the approach road. It is on the basis of that approach road that the petitioner get the approval for her layout. 19. 18. It is contended on behalf of the 5 th to 7 th respondents, that the petitioner did not show the Thanjavur Main Road as the access road but rather the Kilapalur – Thirumazhabadi Road as the approach road. It is on the basis of that approach road that the petitioner get the approval for her layout. 19. The 2 nd respondent was directed to conduct an inspection and after conducting inspection they again affirmed that the residents and the plots of the petitioner's layout have a connecting road leading to the Thanjavur Main Road. The 2 nd respondent also gave an alternate suggestion. The 2 nd respondent stated that the park could be converted as an existing road, if the petitioner surrenders land from unsold land of equal area. The petitioner was not prepared to surrender any such land. It was contended that it is the 5 th to 7 th respondents who should surrender the land. 20. This Court cannot direct either the petitioner or the 5 th to 7 th respondents to surrender lands to the panchayat, particularly when the panchayat was satisfied with the Gift Deed already gifted to it. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over and above the 2 nd respondent after granting approval, granted after taken into consideration the ground reality that the land of the petitioner had connectivity to the Thanjavur Main Road. In order to understand this fact better, it would only be appropriate that the layout itself is produced below: 21. It is seen that even though Shanthi Salai ends with a park, there are other connecting roads leading outwards. Further, it is the contention of the 2 nd respondent that there is yet another plot for which In-Principle approval had been granted in DTCP No.45/2019 and a road had been formed in that particular layout. The claim of the petitioner, that the park should be converted as a road, cannot be acceded to by this Court, particularly when the petitioner has an alternate road leading outside. I do not find any reason why the residents could not take advantage of the park for their convenience. This is a litigation which had been launched more with ulterior motive rather than with any bonafide. 22. Further Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act is as follows: “54. I do not find any reason why the residents could not take advantage of the park for their convenience. This is a litigation which had been launched more with ulterior motive rather than with any bonafide. 22. Further Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act is as follows: “54. Power of revocation and modification of permission to development.- (1) If it appears to an appropriate planning authority that it is expedient, having regard to the development plan prepared, that permission for any development granted under this Act or any other law, should be revoked or modified, the said planning authority may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard against such revocation or modification, by order, revoke or modify the permission to such extent as may be necessary: Provided that- (a) where the permission relates to the carrying of building or other operation, no such order shall affect such of the operations as have been previously carried out, or be passed after those operations have been completed; (b) where the permission relates to a change of use of land or building, no such order shall be passed at any time after the change has taken place. (2) When permission is revoked or modified under sub-section (1), and if the owner claims from the appropriate planning authority, within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed, compensation for the expenditure incurred in carrying out the development after the grant of permission and in accordance with such permission, which has been rendered abortive by the revocation or modification, the said planning authority shall, after giving the owner reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess and offer such compensation to the owner as it thinks fit. (3) If the owner does not accept the compensation and gives notice, within such time as may be prescribed, of his refusal to accept, the appropriate planning authority shall refer the matter for adjudication of the Tribunal, and the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall, subject to any appeal, revision or review as provided for in this Act, be final and binding on the owner and the appropriate planning authority.” 23. It very clearly states that were the permission seeking modification relates to a change of use of land or building no such order shall be passed after the change had taken place. It very clearly states that were the permission seeking modification relates to a change of use of land or building no such order shall be passed after the change had taken place. This would effectively meant that once the land had been allotted as park, that land should be used only as a park and should not converted as a road wherein the flow of traffic only cause pollution. But, retention as a park would be of much benefit to the adjacent plot owners of the petitioner's layout. I do not find any merits in the Writ Petition to warrant interference of the order granting planning permission in DTCP No.10 / 2023 to the layout formed by the 5 th to 7 th respondents. 24. With the above reasoning, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.