Allowed

Marimuthu.K v. the Director of Town and Country Planning

Madras HC2 Feb 2021WP(MD)/205/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench declared that lands reserved in the Virahanur Detailed Development Plan were released because acquisition proceedings were not initiated within three years as required by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the reservation of the petitioner's lands stands lapsed in light of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

Marimuthu.K Vs the Director of Town and Country Planning — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.02.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2021

¶7

K.Marimuthu ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the reservation made in respect of the petitioner's land, in Revenue Survey Nos.80/9A, 9B1, 81/1A1 and 1A1A, Virahanur Village, Madurai Sough Taluk, Madurai in the Virahanur Detailed Development Plan to have lapsed in light of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (TN ACT 35 of 1974).

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohaboob Athiff.M

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.G.Arjunan, Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶16

2.The petition mentioned lands belonging to the petitioner were notified in Virahanur Detailed Development Plan published in the year 2002 as scheme road. There is no dispute about the fact that consequential acquisition proceedings were not taken. Therefore, Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act will definitely come into play. Section 38 of the said Act reads as follows:-

¶17

“38. Release of land.- If within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26 or section 27- (a) no declaration as provided in sub-section (2) of section 37 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or

¶18

1/2

¶19

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2021

¶20

designated for any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or new town development plan covered by such notice; or (b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation.”

¶21

3.The learned Government Advocate for the respondents has filed his written instructions. In the written instructions submitted by the respondents, the averments of the petitioner have not at all been controverted. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the declaration sought for. This Court declares that the reservation made in respect of the petition mentioned lands stands lapsed in the light of Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, (TN Act 35 of 1974).

¶22

4.The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶23

ias

¶24

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶25

To:

¶26

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶27

2.The Member Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai.

¶28

+1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-3327[F] dated 04/02/2021 )

¶29

W.P(MD)No.205 of 2021 02.02.2021

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2/2

Marimuthu.K v. the Director of Town and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marimuthu.K v. the Director of Town and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivakasi Shaji Madahab Peria Vs D.Syed Sarbudeen

Mahalingam Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Mariammal, Vs the Special Deputy Collector

Nagendran Vs the Director of Town and Country Planning

R. Balasubramanian,(Died) Vs Secretary to Government

Nixon Gold Robert Singh. a Vs The Inspector General of Registration