K.Gous Basha Vs the Director

2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, The District Town and Country Planning Office, New Collectorate Complex, 4^th Floor, D Block, Vedhanarayanapuram, Chengalpattu District 603 111. .. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner representation dated 05.08.2024 seeking to release the petitioner land namely plot No.46B admeasuring to an extent of 3200 square feet situated at No.51, New no.28, Vallancheri Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and District comprised in Old Survey No.122/1 new survey No.122/20B and now sub-divided as Survey No.122/20B1B comprised in Patta No.651 treating the Vignarajapuram Lay out approval in DTP No.15/76 issued by the second respondent as lapsed in view of

¶16

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

¶17

2

¶18

Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town Country Planning Act, 1971.

¶19

For Petitioner .. Mr.G.Mageshkumar For Respondents .. Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner representation dated 05.08.2024 seeking to release the petitioner land namely plot No.46B admeasuring to an extent of 3200 square feet situated at No.51, New no.28, Vallancheri Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and District comprised in Old Survey No.122/1 new survey No.122/20B and now sub-divided as Survey No.122/20B1B comprised in Patta No.651 treating the Vignarajapuram Lay out approval in DTP No.15/76 issued by the second respondent as lapsed in view of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town Country Planning Act, 1971.

¶22

2.Heard Mr.G.Mageshkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶23

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that under Section 38 of the Act, the land should be released if within three years from the date of publication of

¶24

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

¶25

3

¶26

the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the land had not been acquired.

¶27

4.In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on an earlier order in W.P.(MD)No.9118 of 2009 [A.George (died) and

¶28

another vs The Member Secretary, Thanjavur Local Planning Authority and

¶29

others) , wherein, this Court had examined the very same issue and had finally stated as follows.

¶30

“12.Likewise, there is no disputation or disagreement that there is no acquisition of aforesaid land that was reserved in the instant case.

¶31

13.Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, it follows as an indisputable sequitur that the land reserved in the instant case ie., case on hand also stands released by operation of Section 38 of T.N.T.C.P.A Act.

¶32

14.The further sequitur is that the impugned order made by the third respondent has to be set aside.

¶33

15.In the light of narrative thus far, instant writ petition is allowed. There shall be no costs.”

¶34

5.It is also stated that another learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.29118-29120 of 2022, [Rahman Beevi vs the Director, Directorate

¶35

of Town and Country Planning and another] , dealt with Karanthai Detailed

¶36

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

¶37

4

¶38

Development Plan Part-VI and by an order, dated 20.01.2023 had stated as follows:

¶39

“2.The petition mentioned land was reserved for road purposes in the detailed development plan in the year 1988. Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is follows:-

¶40

“38. Release of land.- If within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26 or section 27- (a) no declaration as provided in sub-section (2) of section 37 is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or new town development 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.”

¶41

3.In this case, within three years from the date of publication of the detailed development plan, the land was not acquired. Since consequential steps were not taken, it is declared that the reservation made in respect of the petition mentioned land is deemed to have lapsed. It stands released from such reservation in view of the aforesaid statutory provision. The respondents are

¶42

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

¶43

5

¶44

directed to make the necessary changes in the revenue record.

¶45

4.These writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs.”

¶46

6.The reasons therein enure to the petitioner also.

¶47

7.It is also stated by the learned Government Advocate that the land acquisition proceedings had not moved forward at all and that it is an admitted fact that three year period has been lapsed.

¶48

8.Accordingly, since the land had not been acquired within a period of three

¶49

years from the date of publication of the detailed development plan and since consequential steps have not been taken, I hold that the land stands released from such reservation. The respondents are directed to make necessary changes in the revenue records.

¶50

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

¶51

6

¶52

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶53

ssr

¶54

9.The Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

¶55

02.01.2025

¶56

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

¶57

To

¶58

1.The Director, The Directorate of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning, 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th Floor, C & E Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.

¶59

2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, The District Town and Country Planning Office, New Collectorate Complex, 4^th Floor, D Block, Vedhanarayanapuram, Chengalpattu District 603 111.

¶60

W.P.No.38893 of 2024

¶61

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

K.Gous Basha v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gous Basha v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.K H Exports India Private Limited Vs Government of India

M/s. N.M.Hashim and Co. Vs Government of India

S.Mohan Babu Vs State Rep by

Sekar Vs the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation

Gubhappriya Jayaraman Vs the District Collector Cum Appellate Tribunal

K.Vaithilingam Vs the Secretary