IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
Cherukoori Jagannathan and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.6437 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.7080 of 2025
Decided On : 26-02-2025
ORDER :
(J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.)
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to the the respondents to declare that the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.491, 499 and 500, Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Singanallur Sub-registration District, Coimbatore, is deemed to be released from the reservation for formation of public road as per the provision of Section 38 of Town and Country Planning Act and consequently prepare new map for Singanallur Detailed Development Plan No.11, wherein the AA-80 feet scheme road to be removed from petitioner's properties at S.F.Nos.491, 499 and 500, Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk, Singanallur Sub- Registration District, Coimbatore and make appropriate entries in all relevant revenue records.
2. The case of the petitioners are that they have jointly purchased the properties situated in Survey Nos.491, 499, and 500 at Uppilipalayam Village, Coimbatore South Taluk vide Sale Certificate dated 11.03.2024, on the file of SRO, Singanallur, and ever since the date of purchase, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The grievance of the petitioners are that they encountered interference from the authorities, who claim that the property was earmarked for a public road as part of the Town Planning Scheme. The authorities refrained from permitting construction on the land and threatened possible acquisition. Upon filing an RTI, the Petitioner discovered that the land was indeed listed for an 80 feet road under the Singanallur Detailed Development Plan No.11. However, the petitioner asserts that this earmark became invalid as per the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act and the orders passed by this Court. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the aforesaid scheme prepared in the year 1990, it was stated that the said land would be acquired by the respondents as provided under the provision of Chapter IV of Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as Act). However, the Government had not taken any steps to acquire the land. It is also informed to the petitioners that the proposal to form the road has not been given effect to 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 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 petitioners would 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 petitioners had made representation several times to the respondents to release the lands belonging to him as the same is 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 petitioners 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 Salai, Chennai, Chennai District and others in W.P.No.27672 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022.
c) In the case of M/s.C.Vasanthadevi and another Vs. The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai ? 600 015 and others in W.P.No.29
Failure to acquire land within three years results in automatic release from reservation under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
Land is deemed released from reservation if not acquired within three years as per Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Failure to acquire land within three years from publication of a development plan results in deemed release from reservation under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Failure to acquire land within three years from the publication of a detailed development plan results in automatic release from reservation under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planni....
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.
Land reserved under planning laws is deemed released if not acquired within three years, as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Failure to acquire land within three years from the publication of a detailed development plan results in automatic release from reservation under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planni....
Failure to acquire land within three years under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act results in the lapse of reservation.
Failure to acquire land within three years results in its release from reservation under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, violating property rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.