Madras High Court

Unknown vs The Director Of Town And Country ... on 24 June, 2025

WP.No.12838 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

WP.No.12838 of 2025

1.S.Ulaganayaki
W/o. Subramaniam,
Door No.74/A Karur Main Road,
Kolathupalayam, Dharapuram T.K.
Tiruppur District-638661.

2.A.Howia Banu
W/o.Abdul Rahiman,
Door No.78 Old Police Station Road,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District -638656.

3.A.Abdul Rahiman
S/o. Ameer Hamza,
Door No. 78, Old Police Station Road,
Dharapuram Town, Dharapuram T.K,
Tiruppur District -638656.

4.A.Sulaiman,
S/o. Ameer Hamza,
Door No. 92 Old Police Station,
Dharapuram,
Tiruppur District -638656.

1/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )
WP.No.12838 of 2025

5.S.Kamar Nisha,
W/o. Sulaiman,
Door No. 92, Old Police Station Road,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District -638656.

6.S.Asha Barveen,
W/o.Sheikh Mohammed Kaiyasudeen,
Door No. 93, Old Police Station Road,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District -638656.

7.M.Shameen Farveen,
W/o.Mohammed Ansari, ...Petitioners
Door No. 54/82-Velan Nagar,
Dharapuram Road, Udumalaipettai,
Tiruppur -642126.

1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning
Second, Third and Fourth Floors, E And C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai -600 107.

2.Assistant Director,
Town and Country Planning ,
Office of the District Town and Country Planing,
First Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex, Tirupur.

3.Member Secretary,
Dharapuram Local Planning Area,
Office of Local Planning Area,
Dharapuram.

2/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )
WP.No.12838 of 2025

4.The Commissioner,
Dharapuram Municipality, Tirupur District. Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to declare that the property
comprised in Old S.Nos.360 and 361 and ward No.7, Block No.7, T.S. No.14
part and Old S.Nos.358/1 and 357/2 and ward No.7, Block No.7 and T.S.No.
13/2 part of Chitravithanpalayam village together measuring to an extent of acre
3.59 cents, situated at Chitravithanpalayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk,
Tiruppur District (property) forming part of Tiruppur Local Planning Area 6
Dharapuram Detailed Development Plan-10, approved by the regional Deputy
Director of Town and Country Planning Tiruppur in DDP/R(S) No.4/93 dated
30.07.1993, presently redesignated as Assistant Director District Town and
Country Planning Tiruppur, the Second Respondent herein, the Petitioners land
falls on for the purpose of forming the “C1 C1-50 Feet Road and C3 C- 50 feet
road to have lapsed in the light of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971(TN Act 35 of 1974) and the decision of this Honble
Court in W.P.(MD)No.8515 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021 W.P.No.106 of 2022
dated 07.01.2022, WP.No.538/2022 dated 19.01.2022, W.P.No.22384/2023
dated 22.08.2023 and W.P. No.32815/2024 dated 14.02.2025.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Tamilmani

For Respondents: Mr.M.Rajendiran,
Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to

declare that the property comprised in Old S.Nos.360 and 361 and ward No.7,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

Block No. 7, T.S.No.14 part and Old S.Nos.358/1 and 357/2 and ward No.7,

Block No.7 and T.S.No.13/2 part of Chitravithanpalayam village together

measuring to an extent of acre 3.59 cents, situated at Chitravithanpalayam

Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District (property) forming part of

Tiruppur Local Planning Area 6 Dharapuram Detailed Development Plan-10,

approved by the regional Deputy Director of Town and country Planning

Tiruppur in DDP/R(S) No.4/93 dated 30.07.1993, presently redesignated as

Assistant Director District Town and Country Planning Tiruppur, the Second

Respondent herein, the Petitioners land falls on for the purpose of forming the

C1, C1-50 Feet Road and C3 C3 50 feet road to have lapsed in the light of

Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971(TN Act 35

of 1974).

2. The Petitioners are absolute owners of lands situated in Chitaravithan

Palayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District, comprising Old Survey

Nos. 360, 361, 358/1, and 357/2 and T.S. Nos.13/2 and 14, totalling an extent of

3.59 acres, having purchased the same through various registered sale deeds

between 19.02.2005 and 09.06.2005. They have been in continuous possession

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

and enjoyment of the said lands. When the Petitioners recently attempted to

develop their properties, they were informed by the Respondents that the said

lands fall within the area earmarked for roads (C1C1 and C3C3 - 50’ feet roads)

under the Tiruppur Local Planning Area 6 Dharapuram Detailed Development

Plan-10, approved in DDP/R(S) No.4/93 dated 30.07.1993. However, despite

the lapse of over 30 years since such reservation, the lands have not been

acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, nor have they been released

from reservation.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in view of Section 38

of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the reservation made

under the Detailed Development Plan automatically lapsed as no acquisition

proceedings were initiated within three years from the date of plan approval,

i.e., by 30.07.1996. The Petitioners further rely on various judgments of this

Hon’ble Court, including W.P.(MD) No.8515 of 2021, W.P. No.106 of 2022,

W.P. No.538 of 2022, W.P. No.22384 of 2023, and W.P. No.32815 of 2024,

wherein similarly situated lands were declared to have been released from

reservation owing to the inaction of the planning authorities. Despite repeated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

representations and lapse of reservation by operation of law, the Respondents

have failed to officially release the Petitioners’ lands. Hence, this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, although a

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

acquisition has been taken by the authorities. Consequently, the petitioner has

made several representations to the respondents, requesting the release of his

lands, as the same have not been acquired and no public purpose is presently

involved. In view of the deemed proviso under Section 38 of the Act, the land is

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

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

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

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:

“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: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 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: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 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: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 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: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 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: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 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)

4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

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.

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 Gazette.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

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.”

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

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 in Old S.Nos.360 and 361 and ward No.7, Block

No.7, T.S.No.14 part and Old S.Nos.358/1 and 357/2 and ward No.7, Block

No.7 and T.S.No. 13/2 part of Chitravithanpalayam village together measuring

to an extent of acre 3.59 cents, situated at Chitravithanpalayam Village,

Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District, 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 in Old S.Nos.360 and 361

and ward No.7, Block No.7, T.S. No.14 part and Old S.Nos.358/1 and 357/2 and

ward No.7, Block No.7 and T.S.No.13/2 part of Chitravithanpalayam village

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

together measuring to an extent of acre 3.59 cents, situated at

Chitravithanpalayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District 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.




                                                                                                24-06-2025
                Cda/gv                                                                              (½)
                Index:Yes/No
                Speaking/Non-speaking order








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )





                To

                1.The Director of Town and Country Planning,

Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning Second, Third and Fourth Floors, E And C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai -600 107.

2.Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning , Office of the District Town and Country Planing, First Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex, Tirupur.

3.Member Secretary, Dharapuram Local Planning Area, Office of Local Planning Area, Dharapuram.

4.The Commissioner, Dharapuram Municipality, Tirupur District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )

N.MALA., J.

Cda/gv

24-06-2025 (½)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 02:38:04 pm )