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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
M. Vasuki - Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department - Respondent
W.P. No. 961 of 2025, W.M. P. No. 1173 of 2025
Decided On : 14-02-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prahalad K. Bhat
For the Respondents: R.L. Karthika, N. Velmurugan

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.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 38 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Petition for regularization of unapproved plot rejected by authorities citing designation for a proposed road - Court held that if land is not acquired within three years of notification, it is deemed released from reservation - Petitioner had paid requisite fees and was not afforded a hearing before rejection. (Paras 1-15)

(B) Right to property - Article 300A of the Constitution - The court emphasized that failure to acquire land after a significant period violates the petitioner's rights. (Paras 8, 15)

(C) Judicial consistency - The court referred to previous judgments establishing that unacquired land is released from reservation after three years. (Paras 10-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to regularize her plot purchased in 1996, which was partially reserved for a road since 1994. Despite payment of fees, her application was rejected without a hearing.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to reconsider the application, taking into account the fees already paid.

Issues: The main issues included whether the land reservation lapsed due to non-acquisition and the legality of the rejection without a hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to acquire land within three years results in its release from reservation, and the petitioner’s rights under Article 300A were violated by the rejection of her application without a hearing.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to reconsider the application.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed to for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 bearing Na.Ka.No.4070/2024/H1(Va) issued by the 6th respondent herein and quash the same as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd to 6th respondents to consider the petitioner’s application dated 14.11.2018 bearing Registration No.DTCP/P/068972/2017 in the light of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and consequently regularise the petitioner’s unapproved plot in S.No.522(part), Sanganur Village, Block 13, Coimbatore Ward No.18, Coimbatore North, forming a part of Sanganur Detailed Development Plan No.7.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that she is the owner of the land in B. No.5/22(Part), Sanganur Village, Block 13, Coimbatore Ward No.18, Coimbatore North Taluk. The said property was purchased from Mr. C.Soundrajan, vide a Sale Deed dated 22.02.1996 registered as Doc.No. 1791 of 1996, on the file of the Gandhipuram SRO (hereinafter referred to as 'Subject Land').

3. The Petitioner approached the 4th to 6th Respondents for regularisation of the unapproved Plot by filing an application dated 14.11.2018 bearing reference number DTCP/P/0689722/2017 under the Regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Layouts Rules, 2017. Upon scrutiny of the application, the Petitioner was informed that her application is eligible for granting Regularisation. The Petitioner was issued a Challan dated 07.02.2024 for a sum of Rs.1,79,500/- payable to the 5th Respondent Corporation and another Challan dated 07.02.2024 for a sum of Rs.62,825/- payable to the 3rd Respondent towards Regularisation Fee.

4. Pursuant thereto, on 09.02.2024, the Petitioner deposited the said sum of Rs.1,79,500/- in the 5th Respondent Corporation's Bank Account. Similarly, on 09.02.2024, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.62,825/- in favour of the 3rd Respondent towards Regularisation Fee vide Challan No.20140207019560 through the State Bank of India, Treasury Branch.

5. Subsequently, the 6th Respondent vide the impugned order dated Nil.12.2024 (signed on 12.12.2024) bearing Na.Ka.No.4070/2024/H1(Va) rejected the Petitioner's application for regularization of the plot by stating that a portion of the Petitioner's plot is designated for a proposed 'Scheme Road’. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that she was informed that the Regularisation of the Plot could not be granted, as a detailed development plan had been approved by the 3rd Respondent under Section 29 of the Act as early as in the year 1994, with part of the Subject Land (approximately 1 cent) reserved for a proposed Scheme Road.

7. The subject land has been in possession and ownership of the Petitioner since its purchase in the year 1996. Though it appears that a portion of the Subject Land was notified under the Act as early as in the year 1994, wherein a part of the Subject Land (approximately 1 cent) was reserved for a proposed Scheme Road, the subject land continued to remain in possession of the Petitioner and the same has not been acquired by the concerned Respondents till date.

8. It is submitted that despite the lapse of nearly 31 years now, the land has not been acquired for the purpose for which it was reserved/designated. It would therefore be in contravention of the scheme and Section 38 of the Act to not regularise the unapproved plot under the garb of the Subject Land being reserved/designated for a Scheme Road. Further, the same would contravene her right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

9. It is further submitted that the application for regularisation was filed in the year 2018, and the requisite fee, as directed by the respondents, was paid in the month of February 2024. Despite having received a total sum of Rs.2,42,325/- towards Regular

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