N.Mohammed Maroof vs The Commissioner

W.A.No.3282 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
WA No. 3282 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012198602026}
N.Mohammed Maroof
S/o.Late Fazlur Rahman N,
No.14/55, 1st Street,
Pernambut Town,
Vellore District-635 810.
Appellant
Vs
The Commissioner
Pernambut Municipality,
Pernambut
Vellore District-635 810.
Respondent
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside
the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23254 of 2026,
dated 24.6.2026.
For Appellant: Mr.J.Prakasam
______________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:09 pm )

W.A.No.3282 of 2026
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by G.Arul Murugan,J. )
This intra-Court appeal assails the order dated 24.6.2026 passed
in W.P.No.23254 of 2026, whereby the challenge made to the order
dated 8.4.2026 came to be rejected.
2. The appellant has submitted an application to voluntarily gift
an extent of 0.05 acres, i.e. 23 feet wide pathway, to the respondent/
Municipality for public use, after entering into an agreement dated
10.9.2022 with the other co-owners. The appellant wanted to gift the
said land to the local body to resolve future differences, if any, that
may arise with the other land owners and to ensure that all the land
owners could have access to the pathway that is intended to be
provided.
3. The application submitted by the appellant was considered by
the respondent and, by the order dated 8.4.2026, the same was
rejected by holding that any land forming part of road pattern/
unauthorized layout cannot be developed or transferred without the
DTCP approval and, therefore, the voluntary gift sought to be given by
the appellant cannot be considered.
______________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:09 pm )

W.A.No.3282 of 2026
4. Assailing the said order, the appellant knocked the doors of
the writ court and the learned Single Judge, by order dated
24.06.2026, dismissed the writ petition upholding the view taken by
the respondent/Municipality that development cannot be made without
the approval of the DTCP. The appellant was, however, granted liberty
to approach the DTCP for layout approval.
5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
no development is sought to be made over the land in question and
the appellant along with other land owners wanted to voluntarily gift a
portion of the land for future use as pathway and, therefore, the
respondent was not right in rejecting the request of the appellant.
5.2. He further contended that, in similar circumstances, for
some other area, already NOC was granted and, therefore, the
respondent is not right in arbitrarily discriminating the appellant alone
and rejecting the request.
5.3. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Rule 47
of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019
______________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:09 pm )

W.A.No.3282 of 2026
and contended that when the Rules provide for gifting of the road, the
order passed by the respondent runs athwart the statutory provision
and the said fact was not considered by the learned Single Judge and,
therefore, the impugned order warrants interference.
6. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, it needs
to be noted that many of the grounds raised in this appeal were not
urged before the learned Single Judge.
7. From a perusal of records, we find that the appellant along
with certain other land owners joined together and entered into an
agreement dated 10.9.2022, whereby all the co-owners have decided
to voluntarily dedicate an extent of 0.05 acres, i.e. by providing 23
feet wide pathway for public use. From the very nature of the
transaction entered into between the appellant and the other land
owners, it is clear that all the land owners wanted to join together and
form a common pathway, whereby they could enjoy each of the
properties without any hindrance. In other words, the very nature of
the transaction shows that the land owners joined together and
intended to develop the lands to form a layout.
______________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:09 pm )

W.A.No.3282 of 2026
8. Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,
1971 contemplates that no person other than any State Government
or Central Government or any local authority shall use or cause to be
used any land or carry out any development in that area otherwise
than in conformity with such development plan. Section 47 of the Act
reads as follows:
“47. Use and development of land to be in conformity
with development plan.
- After the coming into operation of any development
plan in any area, no person other than any State
Government or the Central Government, or any local
authority shall use or cause to be used, any land or
carry out any development in that area otherwise than
in conformity with such development plan:
Provided that the continuance of the use of any land
for the purpose and to the extent for, and to which it is
being used on the date on which such development
plan comes into operation, may be allowed for such
period and upon such terms and conditions as may be
specified in such development plan.”
9. The manner of obtaining permission is set out in Rule 6 of the
Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 (in short
______________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:09 pm )

W.A.No.3282 of 2026
“2019 Rules”). Any person intending to obtain planning permission or
building permission for development of the land or a building has to
submit an application under Rule 6 along with fees prescribed under
Rule 7, which would be processed under 2019 Rules. Rule 47 of the
2019 Rules relied on by the appellant only sets out the minimum
requirements of road width, when the application filed under Rule 6 is
considered by the authorities.
10. When the appellant wanted to join together with the other
land owners and make a development in the land, whereby they
wanted to form a pathway/road giving public access to all the property
owners and intended to gift the same to the local body, the same could
be done only after obtaining appropriate approval from the competent
authorities either under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act or under Rule 6 of 2019 Rules. The appellant
wanted to camouflage the transaction in question as a simple
agreement between the land owners, which, in our considered opinion,
is nothing but a development where they want to form a layout for
better use. When the Act and the Rules specifically contemplate that
no such development can be made without prior approval, the attempt
made by the appellant to just make a voluntary gift of 23 feet wide
______________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:09 pm )

W.A.No.3282 of 2026
pathway to the respondent is only an attempt to circumvent the
provisions of the Act and the Rules.
11. For the aforegiven reasons, we are of the view that the
learned Single Judge, by taking note of the provisions, has rightly
dismissed the writ petition relegating the appellant to obtain proper
approval from DTCP and thereafter approach the local authorities for
gifting of the land in question.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
28.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
To:
The Commissioner
Pernambut Municipality,
Pernambut
Vellore District-635 810.
______________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:09 pm )

W.A.No.3282 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
bbr
W.A.No.3282 of 2026

28.10.2026
______________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 03:49:09 pm )