Land reserved for public purpose is deemed released if not acquired within three years as per Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to declare that the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 in Ramathapuram Village, Coimbatore, is deemed to be released from the reservation of petitioner land for the formation of a public road as per the provision of Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act and consequently direct the respondents to pass an appropriate order or release of the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the property comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 at Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore, to the total extent of 2.45 acres. The lands are under his possession and enjoyment and are put into use for agricultural purposes. The grievance of the petitioner is that, when the Town Planning Scheme was prepared in 1990 for Coimbatore Urban area, the town planning authorities earmarked a portion of the petitioner's lands comprised in Survey Nos.68/1 and 69/2 in Ramathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore, for formation of 80 feet AA proposed Scheme road and another 60 feet BB Proposed Scheme road. But so far, the Government has not taken any initiative to acquire the petitioner’s lands. Therefore, the petitioner approached the third respondent for the release of the land from this scheme. He was informed that the lands earmarked for the formation of the proposed road in the development plan No.45, MAP 2 the Coimbatore Town Planning Scheme, will be implemented after a review by the Member Secretary of the Coimbatore Town and Country Planning in consultation with the landowners and further decisions will be taken by the Town Planning officers. The petitioner also made several representations to the respondents to release the land, but the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid scheme was prepared in the year 1990, and it was stated that the said land would be acquired by the respondents as provided under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, the Government had not taken any steps to acquire the land. It is also informed to the petitioner that the proposal to form the road has not been given effect or implemented. It was also informed that under Section 25 of the Act, the Town Planning authority should have obtained approval from the Government within three years from the date of the publication of the scheme, but they have not done so. Therefore, the Government, after having prepared the master plan for the Coimbatore Local Planning Area and issued the same in the Gazette notification in G.O.Ms.No.661, Housing and Urban Development (UDIV) Department, dated 12.10.1994, has not done anything.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though such a notification was issued under Section 30 of the Act, no follow-up action of acquisition has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner had made representations several times to the respondents to release the lands belonging to him, as the same are not acquired and no more public purpose is involved under the deemed proviso, viz., under Section 38 of the Act, land would be deemed to be released from reservation, allotment or designation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would then place reliance on the similar orders passed by this Court, which are as follows:

a) In the case of A.Kondasamy Vs. The Director of Town & Country Planning, Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 and others in W.P.No.25243 of 2021 dated 29.11.2024.

b) In the case Alagirisamy Vs. The Director of Town & Country Planning, 807, Anna Sal