Failure to initiate acquisition proceedings within the specified period results in the deemed release of the land from the Detailed Development Plan.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's land shown as scheme road and park and other public purposes in the Melapalayam Detail Development Plan in S.No.85/4A, Melapalayam Village, Tirunelveli District under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus, directing the respondents to release the petitioner’s land shown as scheme road and park and other public purposes proposed in Melapalayam Detailed Development Plan in Survey No.85/4A, Melapalayam Village, Tirunelveli District under Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

2. According to the petitioner, an extent of 1.02 acres in Survey No. 85/4A belonged to one Haji Sappani Mohamed Abubucker, who sold the same to one M.A.Hader Maideen under a registered sale deed, dated 28.06.2005. The petitioner had purchased 40 cents out of 1.02 acres on the eastern side from the above said Hader Maideen under a registered sale deed, dated 22.08.2011.

3. According to the petitioner, his predecessor in title had constructed a compound wall on four sides and there are row of houses inside the compound wall. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent corporation even without giving any prior notice, inspected the site and started to demolish the compound wall. On verification, the petitioner came to know that the third respondent had given technical approval for a layout on 17.10.2007 and in the said layout, the property now in possession of the petitioner was shown as a road and a park. However, the conditions imposed in the said technical approval were not complied with by the predecessor in title of the petitioner and hence, it has not fructified into a confirmed layout approval. The conditions imposed in the said technical approval were not accepted by his predecessor in title and he has dropped the said proposal. The petitioner has further contended that not a single plot was sold out as per the said technical approval of the layout. The entire land was enjoyed by his predecessor in title as a single parcel.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that since the land in possession of the petitioner was shown as a road and a park in the technical layout approval, the said land was shown as a road in Melapalayam Detailed Development Plan No.5 issued under Section 27 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The said notification was issued on 13.07.1994.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the said Detailed Development Plan was approved by the director as contemplated under Section 29 of the Act on 31.03.1998. Thereafter, certain variations were introduced in the Detailed Development Plan as contemplated under Section 33 (1) of the said Act on 25.06.2008.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, within five years from the date of publication of notice under Section 27 of the said Act, acquisition proceedings should have been initiated as contemplated under Section 37 (2) of the said Act. In case, if no acquisition proceedings were initiated, the land shall be deemed to have been released from such reservation, allotment or designation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the present case, Section 27 notice has been issued on 13.07.1994 and the lands ought to have been acquired within a period of five years and hence, the lands are deemed to have been released from the Detailed Development Plan. He further contended that the petitioner has purchased the property only on 22.08.2011 after the deemed release.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that when the technical approval was subjected to various conditions and the said conditions were