Allowed

M.Chandrasekaran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Madras HC18 Apr 2023WP/7061/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner's land reservation under the Approved Kasipalayam Detailed Development Plan, Map 1, has lapsed. The Court held that since the land was not acquired within three years of the Gazette publication, the reservation expired under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

What did the court decide?

The subject property belonging to the petitioners stands released from the detailed development plan. The writ petition is allowed.

M.Chandrasekaran Vs The Director of Town and Country… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P No.7061 of 2023

¶7

Mr.M.Chandrasekaran Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th Floors, E & C Market, Road, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 017.

¶10

2.The Member Secretary, Erode Local Planning Authority, Erode District. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, to declare the reservation made in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.443, 444/2, 447/1, 448/1, 464/1 and 469/1 at Erode Village, Erode Taluk, Erode District, forms the part of the Approved Kasipalayam Detailed Development Plan No.1 of Map 4 and 5 DDP (SR)/DTCP No.08/2009 vide Proceedings in ROC. No. 22592 / 2008 DP1 in the year of 2009 to have lapsed in light of Section 38 of the Tamil Nad Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the decision of this court in the case of

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Kannabiran Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning, W.P.(MD) No. 8515

¶13

¶14

of 2021, dated 25.06.2021.

¶15

For Petitioners : Ms.S.Mahalakshmi

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ayyathurai Government Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to declare the reservation made in respect of petitioner's land comprised in Survey No.443, 444/2, 447/1, 448/1, 464/1 and 469/1 at Erode Village, Erode Taluk, Erode District, forms the part of the Approved Kasipalayam Detailed Development Plan No.1 of Map 4 and 5 DDP (SR)/DTCP No.08/2009 vide Proceedings in ROC. No. 22592 / 2008 DP1 in the year of 2009 have lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').

¶19

Heard Ms.S.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.A.M.Ayyathurai, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

¶20

The case of the petitioners is that Kasipalayam Detailed Development Plan No.1 scheme was announced and it was approved by the first respondent in the year 2009. According to the petitioner, no steps were taken to acquire the lands

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and it continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Hence,

¶22

¶23

according to the petitioners, the development plan itself has lapsed in view of Section 38 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought for a declaration to declare that the development plan No.1 has lapsed.

¶24

The main issue that has been urged before this Court is that the detailed development plan has lapsed under Section 38 of the Act, since the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publication of the notice under the Tamil Nadu Gazette.

¶25

This Court has consistently held that if the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publishing the detailed development plan in the Gazette, the concerned lands shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. In the present case, the respondents had failed to take any steps to acquire the subject land therefore, by operation of Section 38 of the Act, the scheme has lapsed.

¶26

In view of the above discussion, the subject property belonging to the petitioners stands released from the detailed development plan.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

¶29

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. ssr

¶30

In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶31

18.04.2023

¶32

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No ssr To

¶33

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th Floors, E & C Market, Road, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 017. 2.The Member Secretary, Erode Local Planning Authority, Erode District.

¶34

W.P No.7061 of 2023

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Chandrasekaran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Chandrasekaran 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

Vengadessaperumal Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner

Mohammed Bilal Vs The commissioner

V.L. Srinivasan Vs The commissioner

T.a.Senthil vel Vs The Union of India

Balamurugan (a) Murugan Koil Trust Vs The District Collector

R.Rani Vs The Secretary