WP/46978/2025 of T.SARASWATHI Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 11 November 2026

1. T.Saraswathi W/o. Thulasimani, Residing at No.198C , Mullai Avenue, Sakthi Nagar East, Thindal Erode Taluk, Erode 638 012

2. K.P.Senthilarasu S/o. Paramanantham, No.11/6 Bakthavatchalam Nagar 3rd Street Adyar, Chennai 20 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Collector Office of the Collectorate, Erode District 638 011

2. The Assistant Director Directorate of Town and Country Planning Erode District 638 011

3. The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode 638 151

4. The Executive Officer Kodumudi Town Panchayat, Kodumudi, Erode 638 151

5. P.Ramanathan

S/o.Palanisamy, No.16, Velayudagounder Street, Kodumudi Post, Erode - 638151 (R5 impleaded vide Order dated 17.09.2026 made in WMP.No.1725/2026 in WP.46978/2025) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to grant final approval for the house site layout in RS No.710/6 measuring an extent of 4.64 ½ Acres and technical approval for sewage and rainwater drainage to petitioner’s layout in RS No.702/8 and 710/5 both situated at Kodumudi B Village, Kodumudi Taluk, and Erode District by considering the petitioner representations dated 06.04.2024, 21.12.2024, 03.09.2025 and 12.09.2025 pending before the 4th respondent within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Manokaran for Mr.S.Ananth For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Prabakaran for R1 to R4 Special Government Pleader Mr.K.Elango for R5 O RDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to grant final approval for the house site layout in RS No.710/6 measuring an extent of 4.64 ½ Acres and technical approval for sewage and rainwater drainage facilities for petitioner’s layout in RS No.702/8 and 710/5

both situated at Kodumudi B Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District by considering the petitioner’s representations dated 06.04.2024, 21.12.2024, 03.09.2025 and 12.09.2025 which are pending before the 4th respondent within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

2. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, made the following submissions:

2.1. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner purchased land from one Mr.K.N.Gopal by way of a registered Sale Deed in Document No.1199/2017 dated 05.10.2017, measuring 2.26 Punjai Acres, comprised in R.S. No.710/9 and another property comprised in R.S. No.710/6, measuring 0.92 Punjai Acre, through another registered Sale Deed in Document No. 68/2018 dated 12.01.2018, situated at Kodumudi B Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District.

2.2. According to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner is a co-owner of the ancestral property comprised in R.S. No.710/6, measuring 1.46½ Punjai Acres, situated at Kodumudi B Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District and he also obtained a Power of Attorney from the remaining co-sharers, viz., (1) Mrs.Vimala, (2) Mr.Ramanan and (3) Mrs.Indira, under Document No.121/2022 dated 21.01.2022 on the file of the SRO, Kodumudi.

2.3. According to the petitioners, based on the registered Sale Deeds, a joint patta was issued by the 3rd respondent/the Tahsildar, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode, vide Patta No.1381, measuring 1.88 Hectares (i.e., 4.64½ Acres). Further, they formed a house site layout in R.S.No. 710/6 consisting of 84 plots. Thereafter, they executed Gift Deeds in favour of the 4th respondent under Document Nos.116/2022 and 119/2022 dated 21.01.2022, for roads, public utility space and park facilities, measuring 5035.22 sq. mtrs., 84.96 sq. mtrs. and 1396.80 sq. mtrs., respectively.

2.4. Based on the request made by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent/the Assistant Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Erode District, granted approval through proceedings in Na.Ka. No.2012/2021/E.Ma.2 dated 24.02.2022, for R.S. No.710/6 situated at Kodumudi B Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District, subject to obtaining technical approval from the 4th respondent.

2.5. Though the 2nd respondent granted approval in the year 2022, the 3rd respondent passed an order in x.K.0508/2023/m1 dated 24.02.2023, permitting the use of the lands in R.S. Nos.702/8 and 710/5 for laying pipelines for sewage and rainwater drainage facilities. However, the 4th respondent had kept the application pending for more than 3½ years without granting final approval for the house site layout and for more than 2½ years without granting technical approval for the sewage and rainwater drainage facilities.

2.6. The petitioners have sent several representations, particularly on 06.04.2024 and 21.12.2024. Apart from that, they have also sent a representation to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister’s Camp Office on 03.09.2025. Since no orders were passed, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, Mr.P.Ramanathan, S/o.Palanisamy, was impleaded as the 5th respondent in this proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the 5th respondent had purchased the subject property from one Mr.K.N.Gopal, who is their predecessor and that the 5th respondent also has rights over the property. Therefore, the 5th respondent had raised certain objections before the 4th respondent, which prevented the 4th respondent from passing the final order.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the photographs annexed to the typed set of papers at pages 37 to 44, which show water pipelines laid along the sides of the road.

5. It is his further submission that in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 24.02.2023, an expert opinion was sought for laying the sewage channel. Pursuant to the proceedings dated 24.02.2023, a report was filed by the Junior Engineer, Kodumudi Town Panchayat, stating that, upon examining the land in question, it was found that a tar road existed on the eastern side of the site and that if the site were raised by three feet, more water would stagnate in the area abutting the tar road on the eastern side during the rainy season. It was suggested that laying the sewage channel would be feasible only if gravel were filled in the land. The report further pointed out that, at a distance of 516 metres from the site, there existed a passage in the north-eastern direction, which was the shortest route for laying the pipeline.

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, it was stated as follows: “9. I further respectfully submit that my family has been using the pathways situated in S.F. No. 706 and R.S. Nos. 702/8 and 710/5 to access our properties. The pathway in R.S. No. 706 is approximately 13½ feet in width, the pathway in R.S. No. 702/8 is approximately 16 feet in width, and the pathway in R.S. No. 710/5 is approximately 12 to 13½ feet in width, subject to verification with the relevant survey records. My family claims subsisting rights over the said pathways on the basis of the relevant title documents and the historical use thereof.”

... “12. I further submit that, upon a careful perusal of the aforesaid Sale Deeds, S.F. No. 710/5, wherein the common pathway/cart track does not appear to have been included in the schedules of the properties conveyed to the 1st Petitioner. Nor do the said documents expressly confer upon the Petitioner any proprietary right over S.F. No. 710/5 or any specific right to lay sewage or storm-water drainage pipelines through the said pathway. The vendors under the aforesaid Sale Deeds have not expressly conveyed S.F. No. 710/5 to the 1st Petitioner under the property schedules.”

7. He also pointed out issues relating to the chain of title reflected in the documents, wherein the right of the 5th respondent is arise from a clear title. Further he referred to the proceedings in W.P. No.46978 of 2025, wherein certain changes were made in Patta No.3099, in which the name of the 5th respondent’s father is reflected.

8. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 30.01.2026, a report was submitted by a committee constituted by the Directorate of Technical Education, Government College of Engineering, Erode, consisting of the Head of the Department-in-charge, an Assistant Professor (SR) and another Assistant Professor of the Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Erode. An inspection was carried out on 12.02.2026. The report was submitted on 14.02.2026. In the said report, the committee identified two possible routes and made a comparative assessment of the two routes. The same is extracted hereunder: Comparative Assessment Summary Parameter Route – 1 Route – 2 Distance : 200 m 600 m Natural Slope : Available (1.5 m drop) Not favorable/undulating Type of Drainage : Closed underground pipe Open drainage only Maintenance : Easy Difficult Risk of Blockage : Low High Road Crossings : Minimal Highway & Panchayat Road Cost implication : Economical Higher

9. This committee has suggested that Route 1 is feasible. The said suggestion is extracted hereunder: “Based on the detailed survey, level study, hydraulic design and technical evaluation, Route-1 is found to be technically feasible, hydraulically suitable, economically viable, and sustainable for providing a closed underground drainage system for disposal of sewage, sullage, and storm water from the approved layout bearing No. 57/2022 at R.S.F. No. 710/6, Kodumudi ‘B’ Village, in Kodumudi Town Panchayat and Taluk, Erode District.”

10. Mr.K.Elango, learned counsel for the 5th respondent raised objections primarily with regard to the report filed by the Civil Engineering Department, Government College of Engineering, Erode. The objection raised by the private respondent, viz., the 5th respondent, was that the second route suggested by the Committee would be feasible for him, which would not affect his access to his land.

11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ land has now been converted into a layout, and that the 5th respondent owns the adjoining property. The title deeds placed before this Court show that the petitioners’ title and the 5th respondent’s rights over the property, which is not disputed by the petitioners and the 5th respondent.

13. A perusal of the respective claims of title reveals that the petitioners have rights over the property, as that of the 5th respondent. The claim made by the petitioners is only for laying sewage pipelines underground. Once the pipelines are laid, a tar can be laid over the same. Even if there is an objection to the laying of the tar road, after laying the pipeline, the earth can be filled and the surface restored to its original condition.

14. There are two reports available, one submitted by the Town Panchayat and the other by the Directorate of Technical Education, Government College of Engineering, Erode. In the report submitted by the Directorate of Technical Education, Government College of Engineering, Erode, two routes have been suggested, one adjoining the main road and the other following a longer route.

15. It is not the case of either the petitioners or the 5th respondent that the property does not belong to them. However, both the petitioners and the 5th respondent have rights over their respective properties.

16. Water channels, drainage and sewage facilities are all matters of public convenience. Moreover, when a property is developed as a layout, public convenience and the provision of basic amenities to the inhabitants, which are essential for the layout, shall take priority with regard to laying pipelines for water and sewage. The report submitted by the Directorate of Technical Education, Government College of Engineering, Erode, who was appointed pursuant to the order of this Court, suggests that Route 1 is feasible, as it is nearer to the tar road and the flow is in accordance with the principles of science and technology. Therefore, the technical feasibility favours Route 1.

17. The 5th respondent has not demonstrated the inconvenience or prejudice that would be caused if the pipelines are laid. On the other hand, there cannot be a layout without providing pipelines for water and sewage. Therefore, the objections raised by the 5th respondent, who claims right through the tile, where the petitioner’s predecessor in title, had the right of usage. In my considered view, the 5th respondent have little relevance, however, in the light of the technical report submitted by the Directorate of Technical Education, Government College of Engineering, Erode and the other report submitted by the Junior Engineer, Town Panchayat, the possibility of laying the pipeline will pave way for the layout.

18. Taking into consideration the paramount interests of the people who are likely to purchase the plots in the layout, the provision of pipelines for water and sewage is necessary and is also a statutory right. Such a right cannot be denied merely because an objection has been raised by the 5th respondent. Therefore, such objections raised by the 5th respondent will not stand in the eye of law in the absence of any satisfactory demonstration of inconvenience or prejudice.

19. In view of the same, the objections raised by the 5th respondent are hereby rejected, and the 4th respondent is directed to grant final approval for the house site layout in R.S. No.710/6, measuring an extent of 4.64½ Acres and technical approval for sewage and rainwater drainage facilities for the petitioners’ layout in R.S. Nos. 702/8 and 710/5, both situated at Kodumudi B Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District, by considering the petitioners’ representations dated 06.04.2024, 21.12.2024, 03.09.2025 and 12.09.2025, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. 11.11.2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes sai

To

1. The District Collector Office of the Collectorate, Erode District 638 011

2. The Assistant Director Directorate of Town and Country Planning Erode District 638 011

3. The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode 638 151

4. The Executive Officer Kodumudi Town Panchayat, Kodumudi, Erode 638 151

5. P.Ramanathan S/o.Palanisamy, No.16, Velayudagounder Street, Kodumudi Post, Erode - 638151

N.SENTHILKUMAR J. sai Pre-delivery order made in WP No. 46978 of 2025 Dated: 11.11.2026