SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 155

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
The Director, Town & Country Planning, Chennai & Another - Appellant
Versus
M. Dasarathan & Another - Respondent
W.A(MD)No. 340 of 2020 in W.P.(MD)No. 21326 of 2017 & C.M.P.(MD)No. 2319 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:VR.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader. For the Respondents:R. Karunanidhi, Advocate.

Private land reserved for public purpose must be acquired within three years of the development plan's publication, as per the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 - Land Reservation for Public Purpose - Interpretation of Sections 37 and 38

Fact of the Case:

The respondents purchased a property reserved for public purpose in a development plan. The plan was published in the Government Gazette in 2005, but the land was not acquired within three years as required by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that if private land is reserved for public purpose in a development plan, it must be acquired within three years from the date of publication of the plan. Failure to do so results in the land being released and dereserved from such reservation.

Issues: Interpretation of Sections 37 and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which require the acquisition of privately owned land reserved for public purpose within three years of the plan's publication.

Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, and the respondents' writ petition was allowed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.21326 of 2017, dated 21.12.2018.)

S.S. Sundar, J.

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.21326 of 2017, dated 17.07.2018.

2. The following facts are not in dispute:

2.1. The respondents / writ petitioners purchased a property measuring to an extent of 21 cents in S.No.101/5 in Kochadai Village, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai District. The property purchased by the writ petitioners has been shown in the Detailed Development Plan, as a land reserved for public purpose. It is also admitted that the Detailed Development Plan was published in the Government Gazette in 2005, though it was approved in the year 1999.

3. It is open to the Town and Country Planning Authority to prepare a Detailed Development Plan or a master plan or any other plan under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 showing a private patta land, as a land reserved for a public purpose as part of any development plan or scheme. When private land is reserved for public purpose in the plan prepared by the Town and Country Planning Authorities, Sections 37 and 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act will apply. If the land is reserved for a public purpose as per the development plan and the said land belongs to a private owner, the same has to be acquired within a period of three years from the date of publication of notice in the Government Gazette regarding preparation of Regional Plan or Master Plan or Detailed Development Plan, etc., as the case may be. If the land is not acquired following the procedure contemplated under Section 37 of the Act within three years, the land shall be deemed to be released and dereserved from such reservation as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This position is well settled and the learned Judge has allowed the Writ Petition after referring to few precedents and Sections 37 and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

4. We find that the order of learned Single Judge is perfectly in order and therefore, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order in W.P.(MD)No.21326 of 2017, dated 17.07.2018 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top