Dismissed

M.Jeyamuthu v. Ishwarriya G.T

Madras HC14 Jul 2025WA(MD)/495/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed writ appeals challenging an order allowing review applications that set aside earlier orders releasing land reserved for roads under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The court held that since the promoters had voluntarily gifted the road portion and it was shown in the layout, Section 38 did not apply, and they could not resile from their stance.

What the court decided

AI extract

M.Jeyamuthu Vs Ishwarriya G.T — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.3989, 3990 & 3992 of 2024

¶7

W.A(MD)No.495 of 2024:

¶8

1.M.Jeyamuthu

¶9

2.M.Muthukumar

¶10

3.Hari Prasad

¶11

... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 3 / Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.Ishwarriya G.T

¶14

... 1^st Respondent / Review Petitioner / 3^rd Party

¶15

2.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶16

3.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai.

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024

¶20

4.The Members Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai.

¶21

5.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶22

... Respondents 2 to 5 / Respondents 4 to 7 / Respondents 4 to 7

¶23

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow this Writ Appeal setting aside the order dated 20.02.2024 in Rev.Aplw(MD)No.99 of 2022 in W.P(MD)No.25229 of 2022 passed by this Court.

¶24

For Appellants : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman for R.1

¶25

Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader for R.2 to R.4

¶26

Mr.K.K.Kannan for R.5

¶27

W.A(MD)No.496 of 2024:

¶28

1.M.Subbulakshmi 2.S.Meenakshi 3.B.Kalyani

¶29

4.M.Jeyamuthu

¶30

5.M.Thirumal

¶31

6.M.Nagalakshmi

7.M.Saraswathi

8.M.Subramani

... Appellants /

Respondents 1 to 8 / Petitioners

¶36

2/7

¶37

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

¶38

1.Ishwarriya G.T

¶39

Vs.

¶40

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024

¶41

... 1^st Respondent / Review Petitioner / 3^rd Party

¶42

2.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶43

3.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Chennai.

¶44

4.The Members Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai.

¶45

5.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶46

... Respondents 2 to 5 /

¶47

Respondents 9 to12 / Respondents 9 to 12

¶48

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 20.02.2024 in Rev.Aplw(MD)No.100 of 2022 in W.P(MD)No. 25229 of 2022 passed by this Court.

¶49

For Appellants : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman for R.1

¶50

Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader for R.2 to R.4

¶51

3/7

¶52

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

¶53

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024

¶54

Mr.K.K.Kannan for R.5

¶55

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶56

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶57

Heard both sides.

¶58

2.The appellants' power agent had submitted a layout approval way back

¶59

in the year 2006. Approval was granted by the competent authority on 08.08.2006. On 20.09.2006, gift deeds conveying the road portions were executed in favour of the local body. Based on the layout approval, plots were also subsequently alienated. Thereafter, the promoters of the layout filed W.P(MD)Nos.25228 of 2022 and 25229 of 2022 seeking release of the petition mentioned lands which had been earmarked as 80 feet road in the Kochadai Detailed Development Plan 2 and 3. Applying Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 the writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 10.11.2022. Subsequently, one of the plot purchasers, namely, Ishwarriya filed Rev.Aplc(MD)Nos.99 and 100 of 2022. The review applicant contended that Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 will apply only if the land in question had been earmarked for a public purpose in the Detailed Development Plan and the same was not

¶60

4/7

¶61

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

¶62

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024

¶63

acquired within three years. The case on hand, however, would not fall within that category, since the land in question had been specifically shown as road in the layout application by the promoters. Therefore, the case on hand would fall outside the scope of Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Accepting the contention of the review applicant, the learned single Judge vide order dated 20.02.2024 allowed the review applications. Aggrieved by the same, these Writ Appeals have been filed.

¶64

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that it would have been enough if the promoter had shown 30 feet road alone and that it was not necessary to show an 80 feet road in the layout application. He pointed out that the 80 feet road has been shown as a “scheme road”.

¶65

4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants does not impress us. Admittedly, the Detailed Development Plan was formulated in the year 1997. By the year 2000 itself, in view of the application of Section 38 the subject lands had been released from the reservation stipulated in the Detailed Development Plan. The layout applicants on their own had gifted an 80 feet road. Based on the same, plots had also been subsequently sold. Therefore, it is not open to the promoters at this stage to resile from the stand originally

¶66

5/7

¶67

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

¶68

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024

¶69

taken. The learned single Judge had rightly allowed the review applications

¶70

and the case on hand does not attract Section 38 of the Town and Country

¶71

Planning Act, 1971. There is no merit in these appeals.

¶72

5.These Writ Appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to

¶73

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶74

[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 14.07.2025

¶75

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA

¶76

¶77

1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶78

2.The Director,

¶79

Town and Country Planning, Chennai.

¶80

3.The Members Secretary, Madurai Local Planning Authority, Madurai.

¶81

4.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶82

6/7

¶83

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

¶84

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024

¶85

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J

¶86

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶87

MGA

¶88

W.A(MD)Nos.495 & 496 of 2024

¶89

14.07.2025

¶90

7/7

¶91

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

M.Jeyamuthu v. Ishwarriya G.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M.Jeyamuthu v. Ishwarriya G.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Santhi Vs the District Collector

Julius Jawahar Devakandan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

The Director of Collegiate Education Vs Dr J Daniel Gnanaraj

N.a.Kannan Raja Vs The Chief Educational Officer

Sujatha Vs Kamaraj Chinnadurai

The Secretary to Government Vs a.S.Ramachandran