Madras High Court
N.Govindaraj vs The Secretary on 28 April, 2025
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
WP.No.15311 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
WP.No.15311 of 2025
and
WMP.No.17298 of 2025
N.Govindaraj
S/o.Natarajathevar,
D.No.26, Karuppan Thevar Street,
Ramanathapuram,
Coimbatore-641 045.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 015.
2.The Director,
Town Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Member Secretary,
Coimbatore Local Planning Authority Corporation Shopping
Complex, Raju Naidu Street,
Tatabad, Sivananda Colony,
Coimbatore-641 012.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
WP.No.15311 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 petitioners land comprised in survey Nos.196/A1,200/A2,
546/1,2,191/2,200/A2,200/A3,196/A1,191/2,546/1,548/B and 546/2
Coimbatore is deemed to be released from the reservation of petitioner's 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.
196/A1,200/A2, 546/1,2,191/2,200/A2,200/A3,196/A1,191/2,546/1,548/B and
546/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore and
pass such further orders.
For Petitioner: Mr.K.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents: M/s.P.Aishwarya,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents to declare that the petitioners land comprised in
survey Nos.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2, 200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2,
546/1, 548/B and 546/2 Coimbatore is deemed to be released from the
reservation of petitioner's land for formation of public road as per the provision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2, 200/A3,
196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and 546/2 in Ramanathapuram Village,
Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of land
measuring 2.21 acres situated in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South
Taluk, comprising Survey Nos.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2,
200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and 546/2. The land has been in the
petitioner’s continuous possession and used for agricultural purposes. In the
year 1990, under a Town Planning Scheme for the Coimbatore urban area,
portions of the petitioner’s land were earmarked for formation of 80-feet wide
"AA Scheme Road" and 60-feet wide "BB Scheme Road." However, even after
the Master Plan was approved in 1994, no development has taken place, and no
acquisition or compensation process was initiated. The petitioner has made
repeated representations to the respondents for release of the land, notably on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
22.06.2000 and 03.06.2022. Despite a letter from the 3rd respondent dated
20.05.2019 indicating that the Scheme Road would be reviewed in consultation
with landowners, no further action has been taken. Further, the High Court in
W.P.No.21041 of 2010 had already quashed the starting and ending portions of
the same Scheme Road in 2016.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that as per
Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, land
reserved under a planning scheme must be acquired within three years of the
final publication of the plan; otherwise, it is deemed to be released. Since over
30 years have passed without acquisition or development, the petitioner argues
that the reservation has lapsed by operation of law. The continued reservation of
the petitioner’s land in the Master Plan is arbitrary and unreasonable, especially
when major portions of the Scheme Road have already been cancelled by a
court order. Hence, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the reservation stands
lapsed and a consequential direction for the release of the land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
4. Learned counsel further submits 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:
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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
nd rd th
of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2 , 3 and 4 Floor, E &
C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 and others in
W.P.No.25243 of 2021, which held as follows:
“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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
“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
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 :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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.”
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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.
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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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,
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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.
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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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:
“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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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 Nos.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2,
200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and 546/2 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 and
Country Planning Act, and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate
orders in releasing the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.196/A1,
200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2, 200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and
546/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
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.
28-04-2025
cda
To
1.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 015.
2.The Director,
Town Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Member Secretary,
Coimbatore Local Planning Authority Corporation Shopping
Complex, Raju Naidu Street,
Tatabad, Sivananda Colony,
Coimbatore-641 012.
4.The Commissioner
Coimbatore Corporation,
Town Hall, Coimbatore-641 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD J.
cda
28-04-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
