Madras High Court

N.Govindaraj vs The Secretary on 21 February, 2025

Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad

                                                                                       W.P.No.2958 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 21.02.2025

                                                         CORAM :
                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

                                        Writ Petition No.2958 of 2025
                                            and W.M.P.No.3243 of 2025

                    N.Govindaraj                                                           ... Petitioner

                                                               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 Shoppoing Complex,
                      Raju Naidu Street, Tatabad,
                      Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore – 641 012.

                    4.The Commissioner,
                      Coimbatore Corporation,
                      Town Hall,
                      Coimbatore – 641 001.                                           … Respondents



                    PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India


                    Page No.1 of 22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )
                                                                                           W.P.No.2958 of 2025

                    praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
                    declare that the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.230/2, 231/1, 231/2
                    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.230/2, 231/1, 231/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South
                    Taluk, Coimbatore.

                              For Petitioner             :     Mr.Sharath Chandran
                                                    for K.Ramesh Kumar

                              For Respondents 1 to 3 :     Mr.N.Naveen Kumar,
                                                 Government Advocate

                              For Respondent 4             :          Mr.Mukilan


                                                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to the

respondents to declare that the petitioner's land comprised in Survey

Nos.230/2, 231/1, 231/2 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

comprised in Survey Nos.230/2, 231/1. 231/2 in Ramanathapuram Village,

Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the the absolute owner of the

property comprised in Survey Nos.230/3, 231/1, 231/2 at Ramanathapuram

Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore to the total extent of 2.21

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.230/3, 231/1, 231/2, 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 the third respondent for release of the land from this scheme. He

was informed that the lands earmarked for formation of proposed road in the

development plan No 11. 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 land owners and further

decision will be taken by the Town Planning officers. The petitioner also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

made several representation 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 for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid

scheme prepared in the year 1990, it was stated that the said land would be

acquired by the respondents as provided under the provision of Chapter IV of

Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as 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 to or implemented. It was also informed that under Section 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 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 submit that though such a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

notification was issued under Section 30 of the Act, no follow-up action of

acquisition has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner had made representation

several times to the respondents to release the lands belonging to him as the

same is 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.

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 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 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, 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 the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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:

''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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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 :

1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

designation.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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)

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 :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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.

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: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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 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 &

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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.”

8. In view of the plethora of decisions of this Court as had been quoted

above, the law is well settled in this regard as the issue raised in the writ

petition is no more res-integra. Once the three years period is lost within the

meaning of Section 37(2) proviso thereafter, Section 38 can very well be

pressed in service and ultimately, the land is deemed to be released from such

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

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.230/2, 231/1, 231/2 in

Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore, shall

deemed to be released from such reservation or allotment or designation

under Section 38 of the Act and consequently, the respondents are directed to

pass appropriate orders in releasing the petitioner's land comprised in Survey

Nos.230/2, 231/1, 231/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South

Taluk, Coimbatore within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order.

10. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above

observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

21.02.2025

vm Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 08:03:18 pm )

Neutral Citation : Yes/No

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 Shoppoing Complex, Raju Naidu Street, Tatabad, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore – 641 012.