Madras High Court
M.Vasuki vs The Principal Secretary on 14 February, 2025
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.961 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.961 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.1173 of 2025
M.Vasuki ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Principal Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Director,
Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, C and E Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.
4.The Assistant Director,
Coimbatore District Town and Country Planning Office,
Door No.50, FCI Road, Gandhimanagar Ganapathy,
Coimbatore – 641 004.
5.The Commissioner,
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/20
W.P.No.961 of 2025
6.The Assistant Commissioner,
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
Coimbatore. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of 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 and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.Prahalad K. Bhat
For R1 to R4 : Mrs.R.L.Karthika,
Government Advocate
For R5 & R6 : Mr.N.Velmurugan,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025
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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025
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 Regularisation Fee, the 6th Respondent vide the impugned order rejected her application for regularization of the plot without affording an opportunity of being heard.
10. 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 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.29069 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025
d) In the case of V.Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Managing Director, Office of Director Municipality, Chepauk, Near Anna Square, Chennai – 600 005 and others in W.P.No.29297 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022.
e) In the case of S.Ponnusamy and others Vs. The Director of Town & Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Second, Third and Fourth Floors, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 and others in W.P.No.30168 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022.
f) In the case of Ramesh Chand and others Vs. The Commissioner, Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Chengalvarayan Building, 4th Floor, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 and others in W.P.No.31752 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022.
g) In the case of M.Shanmugharaj Vs. The Director of Town & Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Second, Third and Fourth Floors, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 and others in W.P.No.30169 of 2022 dated 25.01.2023.
11. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 dated 31.01.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025
12. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted a written instructions of the Assistant Director, District Town and Country Planning Office, Coimbatore, 4th respondent herein dated 12.02.2025.
13. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
14. This Court passed a similar order in W.P.No.965 of 2025, wherein this Court held as follows:
“14. The orders relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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, which held as follows:
“5. This Court has consistently held that if the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publishing the detailed development plan in the Gazette, the concerned lands shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. In the present case, the respondents had failed to take any steps to acquire the subject land therefore, by operation of Section 38 of the Act, the scheme has lapsed.”
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, which held as follows:
“4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court is that the detailed development plan has lapsed as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, since the land has not been acquired within a period of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 three years from the date of publication of the notice under the Tamil Nadu Gazette.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell much on the entire allegation in the Writ Petition, since for the very same detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder :
“11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioner that the counter affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the writ appeal lacks merits.
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in WA(MD) No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on 02.03.2020.?”
6. This Court has consistently held that if the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publishing the detailed development plan in the Gazette, the concerned lands shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 Meera Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act reads as follows :
38. Release of land - If within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26 or section 27~ (a) no declaration as provided in sub~section (2) of section 37 is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or new town development plan covered by such notice; or (b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation.
7. In the present case, the detailed development plan was notified under Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007.
However, the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.”
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.29069 of 2022, which held as follows:
“4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court is that the detailed development plan has lapsed as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, since the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publication of the notice under the Tamil Nadu Gazette.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell much on the entire allegation in the Writ Petition, since for the very https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 same detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder :
?11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the counter affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the writ appeal lacks merits.
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in WA(MD) No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on 02.03.2020.?
6. This Court has consistently held that if the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publishing the detailed development plan in the Gazette, the concerned lands shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed Meera Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act reads as follows :
38. Release of land.- If within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26 or section 27~ (a) no declaration as provided in sub~section (2) of section 37 is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or new town development plan covered by such notice; or (b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation.
7. In the present case, the detailed development plan was notified under Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007.
However, the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.”
d) In the case of V.Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Managing Director, Office of Director Municipality, Chepauk, Near Anna Square, Chennai – 600 005 and others in W.P.No.29297 of 2022, which held as follows:
“4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court is that the detailed development plan has lapsed as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, since the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publication of the notice under the Tamil Nadu Gazette.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell much on the entire allegation in the Writ Petition, since for the very same detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the counter affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the writ appeal lacks merits.
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in WA(MD) No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on 02.03.2020.?
6. This Court has consistently held that if the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publishing the detailed development plan in the Gazette, the concerned lands shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed Meera Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act reads as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025
38. Release of land- If within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26 or section 27~ (a) no declaration as provided in sub~section (2) of section 37 is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or new town development plan covered by such notice; or (b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation.
7. In the present case, the detailed development plan was notified under Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007.
However, the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.”
e) In the case of S.Ponnusamy and others Vs. The Director of Town & Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Second, Third and Fourth Floors, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 and others in W.P.No.30168 of 2022, which held as follows:
“4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court is that the detailed development plan has lapsed as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, since the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publication of the notice under the Tamil Nadu Gazette.
5. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell much on the entire allegation in the Writ Petition, since for the very same detailed development scheme, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A (MD) No.485 of 2020 has held that the scheme had lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder :
11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the counter affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal with deemed lapse and in the considered https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 opinion of this Court, the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the writ appeal lacks merits.
12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in WA(MD) No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on 02.03.2020.?
6. This Court has consistently held that if the land has not been acquired within a period of three years from the date of publishing the detailed development plan in the Gazette, the concerned lands shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. It will be beneficial to provide the details of the cases, wherein this Court had reached such a conclusion :
1. M.Amsavalli v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2017) 2 CWC 418.
2. RM.Shanmuganathan v. Director of Town and Country Planning reported in (2018) 2 CWC 20.
3. W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019 (LKS Mohammed Meera Mohaideen v. Director of Town and Country Planning)
4. W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020 (The Director of Town and Country Planning and another v. Muthu and others) and
5. W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021 (Nagendran v. The Director of Town and Country Planning).
Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act reads as follows :
38. Release of land.- If within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26 or section 27~ (a) no declaration as provided in sub~section (2) of section 37 is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 designated for any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or new town development plan covered by such notice; or (b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation.
7. In the present case, the detailed development plan was notified under Section 37 of the Act in the year 2007.
However, the respondents failed to take any steps to acquire the land and therefore, by operation of Section 38, the scheme lapsed.”
f) In the case of Ramesh Chand and others Vs. The Commissioner, Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Chengalvarayan Building, 4th Floor, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 and others in W.P.No.31752 of 2022, which held as follows:
“4. Admittedly, though the scheme road was proposed to be constructed, no steps have been taken by the respondents to acquire the land as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town Country Planning Act, which reads as follows :
“38. Release of land.- If within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26 or section 27- (a) no declaration as provided in sub-section (2) of section 37 is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or new town development plan covered by such notice; or (b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation.”
5. Having regard to the above section and as steps has not been taken to acquire the land within three years as per the above section, the respondent shall, without reference to the original proposal of the ring road, is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners on its own merits.”
g) In the case of M.Shanmugharaj Vs. The Director of Town & Country Planning, Office of Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Second, Third and Fourth https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 Floors, E & C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 and others in W.P.No.30169 of 2022, which held as follows:
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only an extent of 4.85 acres have been developed as a layout. While developing the layout, necessary lands have been gifted by gift deed bearing No.10974/2019. According to him, as far as the land already gifted in respect of a layout forming 4.85 acres, he is not claiming any right over the gifted properties. Only he seeks the declaration in respect of the remaining properties as the acquisition has not happened within a period of three years, as contemplated under Section 38 of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that since the lands have already been gifted, the petitioner cannot have any right over the property. The entire extent of 7.04 acres was shown in a detailed development plan No.8 of the respondents for the purpose of constructing Elementary School, High school and Play ground. Though the declaration has been made on 15.07.1992, the land has not been acquired within a period of three years
6. It is relevant to note that Section 38 of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, reads as follows:-
“38. Release of land:- If within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Section 26 or Section 27- (a) no declaration as provided in sub-section 26 or section 27- (a) no declaration as provided in sub-section (2) of section 37 is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or new town development plan covered by such notice: or
(b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation.”
7. However, it is admitted case that the land has not been acquired within a period of three years. In such view of the matter, as per Section 38 of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, the remaining area other than the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 layout already developed shall be released from the development plan. It is also made clear that in future, if the Government intends to acquire the land for any other purposes, this order will not bar for the Government in view of the provision of Land Acquisition Act. Similarly, any application is filed or pending for regularisation of unapproved layout, such application shall be dealt as per Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, on its own merits, strictly in terms of the Rules.”
15. In view of the above ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.No.965 of 2025, the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 bearing Na.Ka.No.4070/2024/H1(Va) issued by the 6th respondent is hereby set aside, and this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:
(1) The petitioner is directed to give a fresh application to respondents 5 and 6.
(2) While considering his fresh application, the 5th and 6th respondents are directed to take into account any amount/fee paid by the petitioner.
In the result, this writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.02.2025 cda Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 To
1.The Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Floor, C and E Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.
4.The Assistant Director, Coimbatore District Town and Country Planning Office, Door No.50, FCI Road, Gandhimanagar Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 004.
5.The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore.
6.The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/20 W.P.No.961 of 2025 J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
cda W.P.No.961 of 2025 14.02.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/20