ORDER : ANITA SUMANTH, J. Mr.Prasanna Venkat, appearing for the promoter/petitioner in W.P.Nos. 21362 & 21363 of 2015, reports no instructions. 2. That apart, a reading of the impugned order dated 16.06.2015 under which the sub-division of various properties as well as grant of building plans stands cancelled, proceeds on the basis that the orders of sub-division and building plans had been obtained in suppression of various government proceedings and in connivance with the officers of the Town Planning Section. 3. The Commissioner, in the impugned order points out that since proposed development was on land exceeding 1000 sq m, power to grant approval for sub-division does not vest with the local authority but only in the planning authority i.e., CMDA. Hence, order of sub-division had been rightly cancelled and we see no justification in intervening in the same. Impugned orders dated 16.06.2015 are confirmed. 4. Equally importantly, we had sought the status of the disciplinary proceedings initiated qua the officers of the Town Planning Section, who have found to have connived with the petitioner in issuing the illegal orders. Mr.Srinivas filed a memo dated 16.02.2026, reading as follows:- “1. The Writ petition Numbers 20800, 21362, 21363, 21460 & 21461 of 2015 had been filed challenging the cancellation of the approvals of the year 2010. 2. The departmental action against the concerned Town Planning Inspectors had been initiated by issue of Charge memos and after enquiries, the punishment of Stoppage of increments had been imposed withholding their increments for a period of one year without cumulative effect. 3. Petitions to review the said punishments are pending before the Revisional Authority.” 5. On 30.01.2017, the First Bench of this Court has passed the following order:- “The initial planning permissions, which were granted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority are confined only to a specific area preceded by sub-division. But it appears that subsequently, sub-division was permitted by the Tiruverkadu Municipality. On the basis of the same, construction had been made and third parties’ interest created. Subsequently, the CMDA sought to take a stand that there was no authority vested in the Municipality to grant permission for sub- division. 2. We are of the prima facie view that this complexity is by reason of the action of the Government authorities themselves and some endeavour must be made to resolve the issue. Subsequently, the CMDA sought to take a stand that there was no authority vested in the Municipality to grant permission for sub- division. 2. We are of the prima facie view that this complexity is by reason of the action of the Government authorities themselves and some endeavour must be made to resolve the issue. The respondent authorities may look into the issue whether and how in such a situation can it be regularised and subject to what terms and conditions. 3. We are informed that Tiruverkadu Municipality has taken action against some officers. But after more than 1 ½ years, the enquiry proceedings are pending. We would like to know the result of the enquiry by the next date. 4. List on 07.03.2017 in the same category.” 6. On the question of regularization, Mr.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, confirms that the question of regularization would not arise since the impugned order has been rightly passed, to undo illegal actions committed by the petitioner and the authorities in obtaining planning permits and in sub-dividing land by the town planning authority, when power vests only with CMDA. We record the same. 7. There is no appearance for petitioners in W.P.No. 21460 & 21461 of 2015. Mrs.Gandhimathi, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for Mr.L.Palani Muthu in W.P.No. 20880 of 2015, representing fourteen (14) flat owners, would argue that they had exercised due diligence in purchasing the flats and hence, the impugned order which has been passed without any notice to them would impact them adversely and cause great hardship. 8. Considering their submissions, we grant them liberty to approach the concerned authority by way of representations seeking necessary relief. 9. Representations, if any, filed within four (4) weeks from date of receipt of the order shall be considered by the authority and appropriate orders passed within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter, after affording opportunity of hearing and in accordance with extant rules and regulations. The liberty granted to petitioners in W.P.No. 20800 of 2015 is applicable to the petitioner in W.P.No.21460 & 21461 of 2015 as well. 10. These writ petitions stand dismissed with liberty in terms of this order. No costs.