Allowed

L.S.Saravanakumar v. The Secretary

Madras HC21 Apr 2023WP/9691/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that the reservation of properties in a Detailed Development Plan lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, as the authorities failed to acquire the land within the stipulated three-year period.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the reservation of properties in Detailed Development Plan No.7 has lapsed and the property stands released from the plan.

L.S.Saravanakumar Vs The Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Writ Petition No.9691 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Writ Petition No.9691 of 2023

¶7

1.L.S.Saravana Kumar S/o.L.R.Subbarayan

¶8

2.L.S.Rajesh Kumar S/o.L.R.Subbarayan

¶9

3.Padmapriya W/o.Ramachandran

¶10

...Petitioners

¶11

¶12

The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 015.

¶13

The Director of Town and Country Planning, Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Second, Third and Fourth Floor, C&E Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

¶14

The Member Secretary, Erode Town and Country Planning Authority Office, Chennimalai Road, Opposite to Govt ITT Erode – 638 009.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶17

1/4

¶18

Writ Petition No.9691 of 2023

¶19

Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of declaration to declare the reservation made in respect of the properties in R.S.Nos.78/1, 78/2 & 78/3 in Punjailakkapuram Village, Modakkurichi Taluk, Erode District forming part of Punjailakkapuram Detailed Development Plan No.7 to have lapsed in view of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by appreciating the above stated facts.

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondents : Mr.S.Arumugam

¶21

Government Advocate

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to declare the

¶24

reservation made in respect of property in R.S.Nos.78/1, 78/2 & 78/3 in Punjailakkapuram Village, Modakkurichi Taluk, Erode District forming part of Detailed Development Plan No.7 has lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').

¶25

Heard Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for petitioners and

¶26

Mr.S.Arumugam, learned Government Advocate for respondents.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶28

2/4

¶29

Writ Petition No.9691 of 2023

¶30

The case of the petitioners is that B2-B2 and B3-B3 40 feet road

¶31

scheme was announced and it was approved by the third respondent through proceedings in ROC No.77/2005/ELPA dated 16.04.2008. According to the petitioners, no steps were taken to acquire the lands and it continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. Hence, according to the petitioners, the development plan itself has lapsed in view of Section 38 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners have sought for a declaration to declare that the development plan No.7 has lapsed.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶35

Writ Petition No.9691 of 2023

¶36

¶37

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

¶38

In view of the above discussion, the subject property belonging

¶39

to the petitioners stands released from the detailed development plan.

¶40

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶41

21.04.2023

¶42

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm To

¶43

The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 015.

¶44

The Director of Town and Country Planning, Office of the Directorate of Town and County Planning, Second, Third and Fourth Floor, C&E Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

¶45

The Member Secretary, Erode Town and Country Planning Authority Office, Chennimalai Road, Opposite to Govt ITT Erode – 638 009.

¶46

Writ Petition No.9691 of 2023 (2/2)

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

¶48

4/4

L.S.Saravanakumar v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.S.Saravanakumar v. The Secretary

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

D.P.Thangaraj Vs State of TamilNadu

Ms. TamilSelvi Balan Vs The District Collector

Yuvaraj R Vs The Transport commissioner

Greenwood Owners Association Vs Rajesh Lakhani and another

R.Natarajan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Hassan Ali Vs Rafiullah and another