The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, if no acquisition proceedings are initiated within the prescribed period, the land shall be deemed to have been released from the reservation.

1. Heard Mr.N.Damodaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent and perused the material documents available on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the properties of the petitioners comprised in S.Nos.276/1, 276/2, 276/3, 278/2 and 278/3 situated at No.20, Thudiyalur Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District.

3. According to the petitioners, one Late Marappan, was the original owner of the properties comprised in S.Nos.276/1 and 276/2, to an extent of 3.09 acres and 11 <cents in Thudiyalur Village. After the demise of the said Marappan, on 16.11.1988, the properties devolved on the petitioners, as such they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

4. The petitioners would further state that the lands were sought to be included in the Detailed Development Plan of Thudiyalur Village and a document was prepared and registered as document No.3306 of 1991, dated 21.11.1991, by the Coimbatore Local Planning Authority in the Sub Registrar's Office, Periyanaickenpalayam, in respect of the land in S.Nos.276/1, 276/2 of Thudiyalur Village. The petitioners would further state that the second petitioner had sold the partition of his property in S.Nos.276/1 and 276/1A to some third parties.

5. The further case of the petitioners is that except issuing notification dated 09.05.1971, under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), no further steps were taken under the provisions of Sections 27, 29 and 31 of the said Act. Further, as per the proviso to Sub Section (2) of 37 of the said Act, after a lapse of three years from the date of such notification, no declaration should be made under Sections 26 or 27 of the Act.

6. Therefore, the petitioners sent the representations dated 25.2.2014 and 28.2.2014, requesting the respondents to take appropriate steps to cancel the document No.3306 of 1991, dated 21.11.1991. Since, no order was passed, the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly except issuing a notification under Section 23 of the Act on 21.01.1991 and registration of the documents, no action has been taken within the period of three years to acquire the land, hence, the Government has to lease the land as per Section 38 of the Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel produced the judgment of this Court made in W.P.No.136 of 2015, dated 15.10.2015, reported in http://indiankanoon.org/doc/194164168/.

8. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that since a notification was already issued under the Act, the petitioners are not entitled for release of the land.

9. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the land referred above. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly contending that the respondents issued notification under Section 23 of the Act in the year 1991, however, subsequently, the lands were not acquired by following the procedure under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act till date and after lapse of three years of the notification, the respondents have no authority to acquire the land. It is not the case of the respondents that pursuant to the notification under Section 23 of the Act, the lands of the petitioners were acquired by following the procedure within three years.

10. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra. This Court has consistently held that if no acquisition proceedings were initiated in terms of Section 37 (2) of the Act, the land shall be deemed to have been released from the reservation. In a judgment reported in Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/194164168/, it has been held as follows:-

"7. It is perti