Madras High Court
Gnanabaskar vs The Director on 21 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.4797 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD)No.4797 of 2025
Gnanabaskar : Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP),
CMDA Office Complex,
E & C, Market Road, Srinivasa Nagar,
Virugambakkam, Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107.
2. The Deputy Director,
O/o.Deputy Director of District Town
and Country Planning Office,
Opp. RTO Office, Kattuputhukulam,
Pudukottai. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of declaration to declare the reservation made
in respect of the petitioners land comprised in Survey No. 32/1 and 44/1
situated at Vedhathiri Nagar, Kalappakkadu Village, Aranthangi Taluk,
Pudukkottai District of Aranthangi Detailed Development Plan No.21 to
have lapsed in the light of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.4797 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Leninkumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel for
the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission itself.
2. The petitioner's case is that he inherited the property in
Survey Nos. 32/1 and 44/1 at Kalappakkadu Village from his grandfather
and father and has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the
property. In 2006, the petitioner formed a layout named "Vedhathiri
Nagar" with 134 plots and sold 44 plots. In 2016, the Tamil Nadu
Government enacted a rule for regularization of unapproved layouts. The
petitioner applied for regularization of 90 unsold plots in 2018, paying
the necessary fee. The second respondent informed the petitioner that the
first respondent had proposed a 40-foot road between the plots, requiring
the petitioner to widen the road from 20 feet to 40 feet, which would
require demolishing over 200 buildings already constructed. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the
learned counsel on both sides, submitted that the issue involved in this
writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated
19.09.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.16353 and 16359 of 2018. The
relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“7. In order to avoid repetition of the aforesaid
decision, this Court thinks it fit to refer the operative
portion of the order, namely, Paragraph Nos.7 to 13,
which are extracted hereunder:
“7.Heard both sides and perused the materials
available on record.
8.Sections 37 and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971 read as follows:-
“37.Power to purchase or acquire lands specified in
the development plan.- (1) Where after the publication of
the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette of
preparation of a regional plan, master plan, detailed
development plan or a new town development plan, as the
case may be, any land is required, reserved or designated
in such plan, the appropriate planning authority may,
either enter into agreement with any person for the
acquisition from him by purchase of any land which may
be acquired under section 36 or make an application to the
Government for acquiring such land under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1984):
Provided that if the value of such land exceeds fifty
thousand rupees the appropriate planning authority shall
not enter into such agreement without the previous
approval of the Government.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.?
9.A plain reading of sections 37 and 38 of the Tamil
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (herein-after
called as Act) would reveal that after publication of the
notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette of
preparation of a regional plan, master plan, detailed
development plan or a new town development plan, any
land is required, reserved or designated in such plan,
acquisition of the land shall be made either under section
36 of the Act or following the procedures under Land
Acquisition Act. If the acquisition proceedings are not
completed within three years from the date of such notice,
the entire proceedings would lapse.
10.In 2008(2) MLJ 184 [K.S.Kamakshi Chetty and
others vs. Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality,
Aruppukottai and another], this court has held that as
follows:-
“9.On the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the petitioners have clearly stated in the affidavit
that even under the old Act VII of 1920, no steps were
taken for the purpose of completing the acquisition within
three years and the same has not been denied in the
counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. Even
assuming that the said Scheme has been taken over under
the Act 35 of 1972, even from the date of coming into
effect of the Act within the period stipulated under
Section 38, no steps have been taken by the respondents
for acquiring the property for the purpose of “open space”
stated to have been reserved under the North-East
Extension Town Planning Scheme Part II, Aruppukottai,
sanctioned under G.O.Ms.No.474 LA, dated 2.3.1969.
10.This has been the consistent view taken by this
Court in various cases also. In W.P.No.5630 of 2000
(SV.P.N.S.S.Sivaramalingam v. Commissioner,
Virudhunagar Municipality and Another)
K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM,J, by order, dated 20.2.2001,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
while dealing with detailed development plan under Act
35 of 1972 has held that after publishing the said plan on
23.5.1984, the property ear-marked for the purpose has
not been utilized in terms of Notification and no steps
have been taken by the authority to acquire the property
and therefore, as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town
and Country Planning Act 1971, the property is deemed to
be released from such reservation, allotment or
designation. The same view was subsequently, followed
by P.D.DINAKARAN,J in W.P.No.12105 of 2003
(R.Jeyapal V. Sattur Municipality rep. by its
Commissioner, Sattur and Another) in the order, dated
3.3.2004.”
The same view was taken by this court in the subsequent
judgment reported in CDJ 2017 MHC 2551.
11.In the case on hand, it is specifically stated by the
petitioner that the Siruthur Detailed Development Plan
Part III was published in the year 1999. However, the
acquisition proceedings are not completed within the
stipulated time of three years. Hence, the reservation
made under the detailed development plan lapses by
operation of Section 38(2) of the Act.
12.In view of the categorical admission made by the
respondents that the land in question has not been
acquired so far, as per section 38 of the Act, keeping in
mind the provisions of the Act and the consistent view
taken by this court in the decisions referred supra, I am of
the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to
succeed in this writ petition.
13.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to release the petitioner's land,
situated in survey No.24/2C, Ward No.25, Sirudhur
Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai in the Sirudhur
detailed development plan part (III) by passing a specific
order within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of the order copy and communicate the same to the
petitioner. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. From the pleadings and the materials as disclosed
in the writ petitions, this Court is of the view that the
above decision of the learned Judge of this Court can be
squarely applied to the factual matrix of the present case
and therefore, the present writ petitions are liable to be
allowed.
9. In view of the above, these writ petitions are
allowed and it is declared that the reservation made in
respect of the petitioners' respective lands, comprised in
Survey Nos.24/2B, 24/3B, 24/3C, 31/1 and 32/2,
measuring an extent of 6 Acres and 71 Cents and the land
comprised in Survey No.29, measuring an extent of 6
Acres and 81 Cents, situated at Sirudhur Village, Madurai
North Taluk, Madurai, for Sirudhur Detailed Development
Plan Part (III) is deemed to have lapsed in the light of
Section 38 of the Act. No costs.”
3. In view of the above decision, this Writ Petition is
allowed and it is declared that the Survey No. 32/1 and 44/1 situated at
Vedhathiri Nagar, Kalappakkadu Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai
District of Aranthangi, Detailed Development Plan No.21 is deemed to
have lapsed in the light of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971.
21.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Director,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP),
CMDA Office Complex,
E & C, Market Road, Srinivasa Nagar,
Virugambakkam, Koyambedu,
Chennai – 600 107.
2. The Deputy Director,
O/o.Deputy Director of District Town
and Country Planning Office,
Opp. RTO Office, Kattuputhukulam,
Pudukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
PKN
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
