Disposed

Arjuna Raja v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Madras HC11 Dec 2024WP(MD)/11794/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a Writ Petition seeking declaration that land reservation under a Detailed Development Plan had lapsed. The court directed respondents to consider petitioner's plans for approval within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider plans submitted by petitioners for approval within two weeks.

Arjuna Raja Vs The Director of Town and Country… — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.11794 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.11794 of 2024

¶7

1.Arjuna Raja

¶8

2.S.A.Muthelu Ammal

¶9

3.A.Indrani

4.M.Jamuna

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶14

2.The Assistant Director / Member Secretary, District Town and Country Planning Office, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents

¶15

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 in respect of the lands of the petitioners 1 to 4 situated in T.S.No.4/1A, 2,3 and 6 (Old S.No. 460/1, 2 and 3), T.S.No.15/1A1, 2 to 4 (Old S.No. 478/ 1,2,3 and 4) T.S.No. 6 (Old S.No. 462), T.S.No. 5/1 and 2 (Old S.No. 461/1

¶16

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.11794 of 2024

¶18

and 2) and T.S. No. 6 /2 and 1 (Old S.No. 462/1 and 2) at Block No. 8, Ward No.5, Athikulam Senkulam village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, under the Srivilliputhur Railway station area detailed development plan to have lapsed in light of Section 38 of the Tamilnadu town and Country Planning Act 1971.

¶19

For Petitioner

¶20

: M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin, For M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶21

For Respondents

¶22

: Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Government Advocate

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the reservation in respect of the lands of the petitioners 1 to 4 situated in T.S.No.4/1A, 2,3 and 6 (Old S.No. 460/1, 2 and 3), T.S.No.15/1A1, 2 to 4 (Old S.No. 478/ 1,2,3 and 4) T.S.No. 6 (Old S.No. 462), T.S.No. 5/1 and 2 (Old S.No. 461/1 and 2) and T.S. No. 6 /2 and 1 (Old S.No. 462/1 and 2) at Block No. 8, Ward No.5, Athikulam Senkulam village, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District, under the Srivilliputhur Railway station area detailed development plan which is claimed to have been announced by the 1^st respondent as early as in the year 2016 as having lapsed.

¶26

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.(MD).No.11794 of 2024

¶28

2.Heard the learned counsels on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶29

3.However, even after the lapse of eight years, the said scheme is not notified and hence, the petitioner required this Court to declare the reservation in respect of the said area as having lapsed.

¶30

4.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate, Mr.T.Amjad Khan, on written instructions from the 2^nd respondent submitted that though there had been a proposal for development of such a scheme, the detailed development scheme has not been conceived at all, and the same was also not notified later. In view of the same, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the claim of the petitioner to declare the said lands to have lapsed in terms of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, for the scheme will not arise.

¶31

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the case be so, the respondents should not have resisted, the petitioner's claim for approval of the lands comprised in the aforesaid properties, the said exercise is continuously and consistently being done by the respondents without

¶32

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.11794 of 2024

¶34

approving the plan submitted by the petitioner for approval with respect to the said lands.

¶35

6.Hence, recording the submissions made by either parties, the respondents are directed to consider the plans, if any, submitted by the petitioner for approval within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

7.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶37

11.12.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Sml To

¶39

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶40

2.The Assistant Director Cum Member

¶41

Secretary, District Town and Country Planning Office, Virudhunagar.

¶42

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.11794 of 2024

¶44

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

¶45

Sml

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.11794 of 2024

¶47

11.12.2024

¶48

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arjuna Raja v. The Director of Town and Country Planning

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjuna Raja 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

Chelladurai.R Vs The District Collector

Kavitha Vs The Superintending Engineer (H)

K.G.Jeyakumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer

A.Kalavathy Vs The Executive Engineer

Mani Balan Vs The Branch Manager

Rawther Naina Vs The Consular