Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. RAMANATHAN
V. Nagamani & Another
Versus
The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai & Others
W.P.(MD)No.5221 of 2009
Decided on : 08-09-2009
Town and Country Planning Act - Land Acquisition - Section 27, 26, 28, 38 - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, particularly focusing on the process of land acquisition, publication of plans, and the release of land from acquisition. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the timelines specified in the Act for land acquisition and the consequences of non-compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought approval for constructing a hospital building on their land, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent citing that the land falls within the ambit of a proposed road under the Ponmeni Part-III Extension Development Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the 2nd respondent's order, emphasizing that the land should have been released from acquisition as per the deeming provision of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, due to the lack of action by the authorities within the stipulated time.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the rejection of the approval for construction based on the inclusion of the land in the proposed road scheme, and the non-compliance with the land acquisition process specified in the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, particularly Section 38, and the application of the deeming provision for the release of land from acquisition due to the authorities' inaction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the 2nd respondent's order and allowed the petition.
Heard both sides.
2. Thepetitioners are the owners of the land ad-measuring, an extent of 0.41 acres comprised in Survey No.R.S.No.66/5A2B, 66/5A2A & 66/4, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai, and they wanted to construct a building in that land. The petitioners submitted a plan for the construction of a hospital building, the 2nd respondent without approving the plan submitted by the petitioners returned the same on 02.06.2009 on the ground that lands for which the approval is sought for comes within the ambit Ponmeni DD Plan No.III AA Scheme Road and the same has not been removed by the Town & Country Plan Authority and therefore, approval cannot be granted.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first respondent conceived a plan for the Ponmeni Part-III Extension Development Scheme, under which 100 Feet AA Scheme Road was also proposed and the Local Planning Authority passed the Resolution No.962, dated 27.09.1990 and the same was notified in the District Gazette on 10.01.1991 and the notification was also published in the Dina Thanthi Daily, dated 15.01.1991.
4. Accordingto the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners though the notification was published in the District Gazette in the year 1991, the respondents have not taken any action, to purchase or acquire the land, for the purpose of the scheme road in accordance with Section 27(i) of the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that after the publication in the District Gazette and the local newspaper, the Authority must invite objections and suggestions, in writing, from any person in respect of the said plan, within the period specified in the notice and after the expiry of the period given in that notification, the Local Planning Authority shall allow a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person and shall submit the plan with or without modification to the Government as per the Section 26 of the said Act. Thereafter the Government may approve the plan with such modification has deemed it as per Section 28 of the Act.
6. Further the entire process of acquisition shall be completed within a period of three years and if no declaration under section 27(2) was not made within a period of three years for the purpose of acquisition of the land, the Government shall release the land. Hence, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that from 1991, nothing has been done by the respondents either to acquire the land or to pass any declaration and on the other hand, when the petitioners submitted a plan, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order by the proceedings, dated 05.06.2009 rejecting the approval of the plan on the ground that 100 Feet AA Scheme Road in Ponmeni Part-III Extension Development Scheme is not removed in the sketch by the Town Planning Authority and the land comes within the road area and therefore, no approval can be granted for the construction of the building in the place ear-marked as 100 feet AA Scheme Road. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.
7. Mr. Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 filed a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioners property situate in R.S.No.66/4pt, 5A2A, 5A2Bpt is lying in the approved Ponmeni Detailed Development Plan No.III in which, it is proposed a 100 feet "AA Road" and during the preparation of the D.D. plan, the petitioners never gave any objection or suggestion to the notifications and as the acquisition process involves huge fund, the Local Planning Authority was not in a position to acquire the land immediately and as and when the land owners in the concerned area seeks for approval for their lands, the required portion of land in the proposed scheme road would be acquired by way of gift deed and the proposed road would be formed gradually.
8. It is further
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.