Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
Singai N. Muthu – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent
W.P. No. 1779 of 2016 and W.M.P. No. 1607 of 2016
Decided On : 31-07-2018
Land Acquisition - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act - Section 38 - Deemed release of land - Writ petition filed to quash resolution and proceedings for release of land - Court directed release of land based on deeming provision of Section 38
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the resolution and proceedings for the release of their land and requested the respondents to release the land measuring 32.675 cents in a specific village.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land should be released based on the deeming provision of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, as the respondents failed to acquire the land within the stipulated three-year period.
Issues: The main issue was whether the land should be released based on the deeming provision of Section 38 of the Act due to the failure of the respondents to acquire the land within the specified time frame.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions and held that if the authorities failed to acquire the land within three years, the proceedings would be deemed to have lapsed, leading to the release of the land.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to release the petitioner's land within two weeks, based on the deeming provision of Section 38. No costs were awarded.
1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the resolution of the second respondent dated 22.4.1991 and the entire proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 2854/12/VuThiKu-3, dated 03.09.2012 and to direct the respondents to release the land of the petitioner measuring an extent of 32.675 cents in S. No. 282/1 Part, Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore.
2. Heard Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Richardson Wilson, for the petitioner, Mr. S.T.S. Murthy, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. V. Shanmuga Sundar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 3, 5 and 6, Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr. K. Magesh, learned Standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the property in S. No. 282/1 Part in Vilankurichi Village was purchased by his mother, vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.1990. Since then, she was in possession and enjoyment of the property and by virtue of settlement deed dated 04.08.2011, the petitioner became the absolute owner and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.
4. The petitioner would state that the second respondent prepared a Detailed Development Plan No. 6, for the purpose of formation of B4-B4 Scheme Road in Vilankurichi Village and based on the resolution dated 17.12.1990, a Draft Map No. 2 had been prepared. The said Draft Map was approved by the Deputy Director, Coimbatore, Nilgiris Region by resolution dated 04.04.1991. Subsequently, under Rule 7 of the Preparation, Publication and Sanction of Detailed Development Plan (Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area) Rules, 1975, a consultation process was convened and thereafter, the fifth respondent passed a Resolution No. 33, dated 13.5.1991, to seek approval from the third respondent under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.
5. According to the petitioner, after submitting the draft plan by the second respondent, the third respondent has not taken any further action and the publication was effected as per Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decisions of this Court reported in S. Kanagam Achi vs. The Director, Town and Country Planning, 2014 (6) CTC 60 : 2014 (4) LW 469 : MANU/TN/1572/2014, V. Nagamani and Another vs. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, 2010 (2) CTS 510, K.S. Kamakshi Chetty and Others vs. Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality, Aruppukottai and Another, 2008 (2) MLJ 184 and Casa Granade Private Ltd. Rep. by its Director M. Arun Kumar, Chennai vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), Rep. by its Member Secretary, Chennai, 2007 (3) MLJ 647, submitted that if the lands are not acquired within a period of three years, the entire proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed under Section 38(b) of the Act.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General by referring the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, submitted that layout approval was granted for the properties of the petitioner in S. No. 282/1, on the condition that if the scheme road is formed, the applicant shall handover the scheme road to the fourth respondent / local body with gift deed and that there is no time limit to enforce the Detailed Development Plan and he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
8. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent, the power to reclassify the land is vest with the Government. With regard to release of land as per Section 38 of the Act, the issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pillayar P.K.V.K.N. Trust vs. Karpaga N.N.U.S. and Others (supra) and it has been held as follows:-
"26. Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Ac
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
