Single Judge allowed Writ Petition seeking release of land from reservation under the Town and Country Planning Act. Court held that as no acquisition occurred within three years of the plan's publication, the reservation lapsed and land was released.
Writ Petition allowed; property released from detailed development plan scheme under Section 38 of the Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.4125 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.4125 of 2023
1.K.V.Jayaraman
.. Petitioners
Versus
1.The Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 015
2.The Director
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Chennai – 600 002
3.The Member Secretary Coimbatore Local Planning Authority Raju Naidu Street, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012 .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to declare that the petitioner's land comprised in S.F.No. 24/3, 24/4, 25/1B, 25/2A, 25/2C, 26/1, 26/2A, 26/2B, 26/2D, 27/1A, 27/1B1, 27/1B2, 27/1C, 27/1D, Veerakeralam Village Perur Taluk Coimbatore measuring about 9 acres and 61 3/4 cents is deemed to be released from the reservation of Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and consequently direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders for release of the petitioner's land comprised in S.F.No. 24/3, 24/4, 25/1B, 25/2A, 25/2C, 26/1, 26/2A, 26/2B, 26/2D, 27/1A, 27/1B1, 27/1B2, 27/1C, 27/1D, Veerakeralam Village Perur Taluk Coimbatore measuring about 9 acres and 61 3/4 cents.
Page 1 / 7
W.P.No.4125 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr.Dhalapathy Vigneshkumar For Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents to declare
that the petitioners' land comprised in S.F.No. 24/3, 24/4, 25/1B, 25/2A, 25/2C, 26/1, 26/2A, 26/2B, 26/2D, 27/1A, 27/1B1, 27/1B2, 27/1C, 27/1D, Veerakeralam Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore measuring about 9 acres and 61 3/4 cents is deemed to be released from the reservation of Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and consequently direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders for release of the above lands.
Page 2 / 7
W.P.No.4125 of 2023
invoking the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Whereas, Section 38 of the said Act contemplates, if such acquisition is not made within a period of three years from the date of publication of the detailed development plan, the land will be deemed to have been released from such reservation from the detailed development plan. Hence, according to him, no such acquisition has been made within a period of three years, hence, the writ petition.
Page 3 / 7
W.P.No.4125 of 2023
the Writ Petition, since for the very same detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder :-
“11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the counter affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the writ appeal lacks merits.
Page 4 / 7
W.P.No.4125 of 2023
plan in the Government Order, the concerned lands shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the
cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed Meera Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act reads as
follows :
Page 5 / 7
W.P.No.4125 of 2023
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.
Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007. However, the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.
from the detailed development plan scheme, since it has lapsed under Section 38 of the Act.
14.02.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No dhk
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Page 6 / 7
W.P.No.4125 of 2023
dhk
To
1.The Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 015
2.The Director Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Chennai – 600 002
3.The Member Secretary Coimbatore Local Planning Authority Raju Naidu Street, Tatabad, Coimbatore – 641 012
Order in: W.P.No.4125 of 2023
14.02.2023 (1/2)
Page 7 / 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether lands reserved under a detailed development plan lapse from such reservation if not acquired within three years.
Whether the detailed development plan notified in G.O.Ms.No.661 dated 12.10.1994 has lapsed as per Section 38.
Whether the respondents ought to declare that the petitioner's land is released from the reservation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Director of Town and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and othersRelied on¶34
W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020
M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country PlanningReferred¶43
M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country Planning
RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and Country PlanningReferred¶44
RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and Country Planning
LKS Mohammed Meera Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country PlanningReferred¶45
W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019
Nagendran v. The Director of Town and Country PlanningReferred¶47
W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021
4 provisions across 2 enactments
K.V.Jayaraman
N.Gnanasoundari
The Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department
The Director Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning
The Member Secretary Coimbatore Local Planning Authority
N.SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
N.SATHISH KUMAR
Parties & counsel
