(Prayer: To set aside the Impugned Order dated 25-01-2023 passed in W.P.No.20672 of 2016 and dismiss the Writ Petition.)

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. Under assail is the writ order dated 25.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.20672 of 2016.

2. Salt Corporation of India is the appellant before this Court. Respondents 1 and 2 have initiated writ proceedings seeking a relief to accord building plan permission, based on the application submitted by the respondents 1 and 2. Since the writ Court not only directed the Chennai Corporation to consider the application, but directed the Corporation to grant building plan permission which resulted in filing of the present intra-Court Appeal.

3. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf the appellant would mainly contend that the subject land belongs to Salt Corporation of India. Vast extent of land in a particular area belongs to the Salt Corporation of India and several encroachments were identified. S.No.337/9 belongs to appellant and in this context, the Salt Corporation of India had been suo-moto impleaded as a party in the writ proceedings. When a dispute regarding title exists, the writ Court ought not to have directed the Commissioner, Chennai Corporation, to grant building plan permission which would infringe the property right of the appellant Corporation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would oppose the above contention stating that in similar circumstances, a direction was given to the Salt Corporation to approach the Civil Court. Instead of approaching the Civil Court, they are raising objection in the present Appeal. Yet another case was also considered for grant of building plan permission. Thus, the Writ Appeal is to be rejected.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India would submit that similar case in which a direction was granted was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot avail the order of the learned single Judge to secure a similar order.

6. This Court heard the parties to the lis.

7. If any title dispute exists between the parties, then the local authority may not grant building plan permission for construction. Preliminary documents are to be submitted between the parties and the Corporation Chennai has to examine the records and in the event of any dispute regarding title or ownership, then the competent authorities of Corporation, Chennai are bound to relegate the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title in the manner known to law.

8. The Writ Court has not considered the counter filed by the appellant is one of the ground raised. It is contended that the subject land belongs to Salt Corporation of India. In such circumstances, the appellant is permitted to submit all the relevant documents to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, to consider the same. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, shall consider all the documents including the documents to be filed by the appellant Salt Corporation of India as well the documents already filed by the respondents 1 and 2 along with the application seeking building plan permission and take a decision whether any title dispute exists between the parties. If such title dispute exists, then the respondents 4 and 5 herein shall relegate the parties to approach the competent Civil Court of law to establish their civil rights in the manner known to law. However, the direction issued by the writ Court to grant building plan permission cannot be sustained. Therefore, the writ order dated 25.01.2023 is set aside.

9. In view of the above observation, both the appellant as well as the respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to submit their respective documents to establish their rights before the respondents 4 and 5, who in turn, shall consider the same, if necessary by conducting enquiry by providing personal hearing to the parties and thereafter, take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. If any civil dispute regarding title exists in the opinion of the authorities, then the parties are to be relegated to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their civil rights in the manner known to law. Till such time the decision is taken, no building plan permission shall be granted in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 based on their application.

10. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.