C OMMON O RDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 26.03.2021, thereby rejected the request made by the petitioners to revoke the cancellation of approval for their respective plots.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioners had purchased the vacant house plots comprised in survey No.745/1A1A, New survey No.745/7 situated at Chennathor Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District from the original owners of the property by a registered sale deed. The vendors of the said plots were issued patta and they were absolute owners of the said property. Since, it is unapproved house plots, as per G.O.No.78, Town Planning (UD3)(3) Department dated 04.05.2017 and G.O.No.122, Town Planning (UD3) (3) Department dated 03.10.2017, the petitioners had applied for regularisation of their respective plots. Initially, the first respondent approved their respective plots and applied for regularisation. However, subsequently, the same was cancelled, in view of the fact that the said land was earmarked as school and play ground as per the original layout 61/1982, and therefore, it cannot be converted into house plots. It was challenged before this Court and this Court, by setting aside the said order, directed to issue notice to the petitioners, after giving an opportunity to submit their explanation and pass final orders in accordance with law. As directed by this Court, the petitioners were given opportunity to submit their explanation along with the documents and the request made by the petitioners was rejected and confirmed the order of cancellation of regularisation for their respective plots. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the original layout plan 61/1982, the subject land was earmarked as school and play ground. However, the said land was not gifted to the second respondent at any point of time. All the revenue documents shows that the land stands in the name of the original owners. It was never gifted to the second respondent. In fact, the petitioners' vendors had executed gift deeds dated 02.05.1989, 03.05.1989 and 07.05.1990 in favour of the second respondent registered vide Document Nos.2591/89, 2590/89 and 1920/90 in respect of the land comprised in survey Nos.743, 744 and 745 to an extent of 15570 sq.ft and 19200 sq.ft. for roads. Insofar as the land admeasuring 16440 sq.ft. is concerned, it was gifted for the purpose of park. Though in the approved layout, the land is earmarked for school and play ground, it was not utilized for the said purpose.

5. As per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, if no acquisition of land, as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 37, is made within five years from the date of layout approval in respect of any land reserved, alloted and designated for any purpose specified in a Regional Plan, Master Plan, such land would be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. Since the subject land was originally earmarked to school and play ground purpose, it was not acquired and utilised by the second respondent so far, it automatically stands released as per Section

38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

6. He further submitted that the total extent of land as per the original layout was 7.37 acres, in which 76 house plots and 2.12 acres were alloted for common area. The land admeasuring 1.25 acres was earmarked for school and play ground. The land admeasuring 37 cents was earmarked for park and 1.04 acres was earmarked for road. Accordingly, three settlement deeds were executed insofar as the road and park. It is more than 15% of the total areas. Therefore, more than 15% of land was already gifted in favour of the second respondent and the lands, which was originally earmarked for school and play ground, were not gifted in fav