Madras High Court
R.Rajan vs The Secretary on 8 April, 2025
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
WP.No.12543 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
WP.No.12543 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.14132 of 2025
R.Rajan
S/o Ramasamy Nadar,
D.No.225, Perumal Koil Street,
Nanjundapuram, Coimbatore 641 036.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.
2.The Director,
Town And Country Planning,
2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai 107.
3.The Member Secretary,
Town And Country Planning Coimbatore Region,
Gandhi-Ma-Nagar, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore 641 004.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
WP.No.12543 of 2025
4.The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Town Hall, Coimbatore-641 001.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to declare
that the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 in
Ramathapuram Village, Coimbatore, is deemed to be released from the
reservation of petitioner land for formation of public road as per the provision
of Section 38 of Town and Country Planning Act and consequently direct the
respondents to pass an appropriate order or release of the petitioner's land
comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 in Ramanathapuram Village,
Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Naveen Kumar,
Government Advocate
for R1 to R3
Mr.N.Velmurugan,
Standing Counsel
for R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to
declare that the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 in
Ramathapuram Village, Coimbatore, is deemed to be released from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
reservation of petitioner land for the formation of a public road as per the
provision of Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act and
consequently direct the respondents to pass an appropriate order or release of
the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 in
Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property
comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 at Ramanathapuram Village,
Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore, to the total extent of 2.45 acres. The
lands are under his possession and enjoyment and are put into use for
agricultural purposes. The grievance of the petitioner is that, when the Town
Planning Scheme was prepared in 1990 for Coimbatore Urban area, the town
planning authorities earmarked a portion of the petitioner's lands comprised in
Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 in Ramathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk,
Coimbatore, for formation of 80 feet AA proposed Scheme road and another 60
feet BB Proposed Scheme road. But so far, the Government has not taken any
initiative to acquire the petitioner’s lands. Therefore, the petitioner approached
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
the third respondent for the release of the land from this scheme. He was
informed that the lands earmarked for the formation of the proposed road in the
development plan No.45, MAP 2 the Coimbatore Town Planning Scheme, will
be implemented after a review by the Member Secretary of the Coimbatore
Town and Country Planning in consultation with the landowners and further
decisions will be taken by the Town Planning officers. The petitioner also made
several representations to the respondents to release the land, but the same was
not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with the
present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
aforesaid scheme was prepared in the year 1990, and it was stated that the said
land would be acquired by the respondents as provided under the provisions of
Chapter IV of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act). However, the Government had not taken any steps to acquire the
land. It is also informed to the petitioner that the proposal to form the road has
not been given effect or implemented. It was also informed that under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
25 of the Act, the Town Planning authority should have obtained approval from
the Government within three years from the date of the publication of the
scheme, but they have not done so. Therefore, the Government, after having
prepared the master plan for the Coimbatore Local Planning Area and issued the
same in the Gazette notification in G.O.Ms.No.661, Housing and Urban
Development (UDIV) Department, dated 12.10.1994, has not done anything.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though
such a notification was issued under Section 30 of the Act, no follow-up action
of acquisition has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner had made
representations several times to the respondents to release the lands belonging
to him, as the same are not acquired and no more public purpose is involved
under the deemed proviso, viz., under Section 38 of the Act, land would be
deemed to be released from reservation, allotment or designation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would then place reliance on the
similar orders passed by this Court, which are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
a) In the case of A.Kondasamy Vs. The Director of Town & Country
Planning, Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2nd, 3rd
and 4th Floor, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 and
others in W.P.No.25243 of 2021 dated 29.11.2024.
b) In the case Alagirisamy Vs. The Director of Town & Country Planning,
807, Anna Salai, Chennai, Chennai District and others in W.P.No.27672
of 2022 dated 12.12.2022.
c) In the case of M/s.C.Vasanthadevi and another Vs. The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai –
600 015 and others in W.P.No.29069 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022.
d) In the case of V.Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Managing Director, Office of
Director Municipality, Chepauk, Near Anna Square, Chennai – 600 005
and others in W.P.No.29297 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022.
e) In the case of S.Ponnusamy and others Vs. The Director of Town &
Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning,
Second, Third and Fourth Floors, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107 and others in W.P.No.30168 of 2022 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
12.12.2022.
f) In the case of Ramesh Chand and others Vs. The Commissioner,
Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Chengalvarayan Building, 4th
Floor, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 and others in W.P.No.31752 of
2022 dated 12.12.2022.
g) In the case of M.Shanmugharaj Vs. The Director of Town & Country
Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Second,
Third and Fourth Floors, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai –
600 107 and others in W.P.No.30169 of 2022 dated 25.01.2023.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The orders relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
case of A.Kondasamy Vs. The Director of Town & Country Planning, Office
of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, E &
C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 and others in
W.P.No.25243 of 2021, which held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
“5. 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.”
b) In the case Alagirisamy Vs. The Director of Town & Country
Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai, Chennai District and others in
W.P.No.27672 of 2022, which held as follows:
“4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court
is that the detailed development plan has lapsed as per Section
38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning 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.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell much on the
entire allegation in the Writ Petition, since for the very same
detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed
by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are
extracted hereunder :
“11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/writ petitioner that the counter
affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way
deal with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this
Court, the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and
by applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said
judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going
through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the
considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned
Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the
writ appeal lacks merits.
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that
the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in WA(MD)
No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in
W.P.(MD) No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on
02.03.2020.”
6. 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. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the
cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country
Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and
Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed
Meera Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town
and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The
Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country
Planning Act reads as follows :
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
7. In the present case, the detailed development plan was
notified under Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007. However,
the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and
therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.”
c) In the case of M/s.C.Vasanthadevi and another Vs. The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai –
600 015 and others in W.P.No.29069 of 2022, which held as follows:
“4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court
is that the detailed development plan has lapsed as per Section
38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning 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.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell much on the
entire allegation in the Writ Petition, since for the very same
detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed
by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are
extracted hereunder :
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the counter
affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal
with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this Court,
the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by
applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said
judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going
through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the
considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on
the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned
Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the
writ appeal lacks merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that
the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in WA(MD)
No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in
W.P.(MD) No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on
02.03.2020.
6. 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. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the
cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country
Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and
Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed Meera
Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town
and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The
Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country
Planning Act reads as follows :
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.
7. In the present case, the detailed development plan was
notified under Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007. However,
the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and
therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
d) In the case of V.Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Managing Director, Office
of Director Municipality, Chepauk, Near Anna Square, Chennai – 600 005
and others in W.P.No.29297 of 2022, which held as follows:
“4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court
is that the detailed development plan has lapsed as per Section
38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning 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.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell much on the
entire allegation in the Writ Petition, since for the very same
detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed
by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are
extracted hereunder :
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the counter
affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal
with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this Court,
the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by
applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said
judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going
through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the
considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on
the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned
Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the
writ appeal lacks merits.
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that
the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in WA(MD)
No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in
W.P.(MD) No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on
02.03.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
6. 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. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the
cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country
Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and
Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed Meera
Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town
and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The
Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country
Planning Act reads as follows :
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.
7. In the present case, the detailed development plan was
notified under Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007. However,
the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and
therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.”
e) In the case of S.Ponnusamy and others Vs. The Director of Town &
Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
Second, Third and Fourth Floors, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107 and others in W.P.No.30168 of 2022, which held as
follows:
“4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court
is that the detailed development plan has lapsed as per Section
38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning 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.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell much on the
entire allegation in the Writ Petition, since for the very same
detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed
by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are
extracted hereunder :
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the counter
affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal
with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this Court,
the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by
applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said
judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going
through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the
considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on
the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned
Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the
writ appeal lacks merits.
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that
the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in WA(MD)
No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in
W.P.(MD) No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on
02.03.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
6. 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. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the
cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country
Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and
Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed Meera
Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town
and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The
Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country
Planning Act reads as follows :
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.
7. In the present case, the detailed development plan was
notified under Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007. However,
the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and
therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.”
f) In the case of Ramesh Chand and others Vs. The Commissioner,
Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Chengalvarayan Building, 4th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
Floor, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 and others in W.P.No.31752 of
2022, which held as follows:
“4. Admittedly, though the scheme road was proposed to
be constructed, no steps have been taken by the respondents to
acquire the land as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town
Country Planning Act, which reads as follows :
“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.”
5. Having regard to the above section and as steps has not
been taken to acquire the land within three years as per the
above section, the respondent shall, without reference to the
original proposal of the ring road, is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioners on its own merits.”
g) In the case of M.Shanmugharaj Vs. The Director of Town &
Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning,
Second, Third and Fourth Floors, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107 and others in W.P.No.30169 of 2022, which held as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that only an extent of 4.85 acres have been developed as a
layout. While developing the layout, necessary lands have been
gifted by gift deed bearing No.10974/2019. According to him,
as far as the land already gifted in respect of a layout forming
4.85 acres, he is not claiming any right over the gifted
properties. Only he seeks the declaration in respect of the
remaining properties as the acquisition has not happened within
a period of three years, as contemplated under Section 38 of
Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that since the lands have already been gifted, the petitioner
cannot have any right over the property. The entire extent of
7.04 acres was shown in a detailed development plan No.8 of
the respondents for the purpose of constructing Elementary
School, High school and Play ground. Though the declaration
has been made on 15.07.1992, the land has not been acquired
within a period of three years.
6. It is relevant to note that Section 38 of Tamilnadu
Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, reads as follows:-
“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 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.”
7. However, it is admitted case that the land has not
been acquired within a period of three years. In such view of the
matter, as per Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country
Planning Act, the remaining area other than the layout already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
developed shall be released from the development plan. It is
also made clear that in future, if the Government intends to
acquire the land for any other purposes, this order will not bar
for the Government in view of the provision of Land
Acquisition Act. Similarly, any application is filed or pending
for regularisation of unapproved layout, such application shall
be dealt as per Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act,
1971, on its own merits, strictly in terms of the Rules.”
8. In view of the plethora of decisions of this Court as quoted above, the
law is well settled in this regard, as the issue raised in the writ petition is no
longer res integra. Once the three-year period is lost within the meaning of
Section 37(2) proviso thereafter, Section 38 can very well be pressed into
service and ultimately, the land is deemed to be released from such reservation,
allotment, or designation.
9. Therefore, in view of the legal provisions as well as the categorical
decisions made by this Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the
petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos. 68/1 and 69/2 in Ramanathapuram
Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore, shall be deemed to be released
from such reservation or allotment or designation under Section 38 of the Town
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
and Country Planning Act, and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate
orders in releasing the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2
in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above
observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
08-04-2025
cda
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD J.
cda
To
1.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.
2.The Director,
Town And Country Planning,
2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai 107.
3.The Member Secretary,
Town And Country Planning Coimbatore Region,
Gandhi-Ma-Nagar, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore 641 004.
4.The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Town Hall, Coimbatore-641 001.
08-04-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
