IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J
N.Govindaraj – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No.2958 of 2025 | W.M.P.No.3243 of 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims land release based on non-acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. counsel references multiple precedents on similar land release cases. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court affirms earlier rulings regarding automatic reservation lapse. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. ratio confirmed: non-acquisition validates petitioner's land release. (Para 9) |
| 5. writ petition allowed with directions to release land. (Para 10) |
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction to the respondents to declare that the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.230/2, 231/1, 231/2 Coimbatore is deemed to be released from the reservation of petitioner land for formation of public road as per the provision of Section 38 of 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.230/2, 231/1. 231/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the the absolute owner of the property comprised in Survey Nos.230/3, 231/1, 231/2 at Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore to the total extent of 2.21 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.230/3, 231/1, 231/2, 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 release of the land from this scheme. He was informed that the lands earmarked for formation of proposed road in the development plan No 11. 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 land owners and further decision will be taken by the Town Planning officers. The petitioner also made several representation 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 for the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner would then place reliance on the similar orders passed by this Court, which are as follows:
a) In the c
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.