Erode HC Orders Final Layout And Drainage Approvals For 4.64-Acre Site, Rejecting Adjoining Owner’s Objection As No Prejudice Was Shown

The petitioners sought mandamus directing the Executive Officer of Kodumudi Town Panchayat to grant final approval for a 84-plot layout on R.S. No. 710/6 and technical approval for sewage and rainwater drainage facilities involving R.S. Nos. 702/8 and 710/5.

The layout had received approval from the Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning in 2022, subject to technical approval from the Town Panchayat.

The petitioners said their applications and representations remained pending; the fifth respondent, who claimed rights over adjoining property and pathways, objected to the proposed pipeline route.

A committee constituted by the Court assessed two possible routes and found Route 1—shorter, with a natural slope and suitable for a closed underground drainage system—technically feasible and economically preferable.

The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It applied the principles that drainage and sewage facilities are matters of public convenience, that basic amenities are necessary for a developed layout, and that such provision should not be denied solely because of an objection unsupported by a satisfactory demonstration of inconvenience or prejudice.

The Court also treated technical feasibility, as assessed in the reports before it, as relevant to determining the appropriate drainage route.

The Court considered the engineering committee’s assessment favouring Route 1, including its shorter distance, natural slope, suitability for underground drainage, and lower cost, alongside the Junior Engineer’s report.

It noted that the petitioners and fifth respondent had rights over their respective properties, but found that the fifth respondent had not demonstrated the inconvenience or prejudice that would result from laying the pipelines.

Given the need to provide basic services to the layout’s future residents, the Court held that the objections did not justify withholding approval.

It directed the fourth respondent to grant final approval for the layout on R.S. No. 710/6 and technical approval for sewage and rainwater drainage facilities for the layout involving R.S. Nos. 702/8 and 710/5, by considering the petitioners’ specified representations, within twelve weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

No costs were ordered.