Madras High Court
N.Govindaraj vs The Secretary on 28 April, 2025
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
WP.No.15311 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
WP.No.15311 of 2025
and
WMP.No.17298 of 2025
N.Govindaraj
S/o.Natarajathevar,
D.No.26, Karuppan Thevar Street,
Ramanathapuram,
Coimbatore-641 045.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 015.
2.The Director,
Town Planning,
No.807, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
3.The Member Secretary,
Coimbatore Local Planning Authority Corporation Shopping
Complex, Raju Naidu Street,
Tatabad, Sivananda Colony,
Coimbatore-641 012.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )
WP.No.15311 of 2025
4.The Commissioner
Coimbatore Corporation,
Town Hall, Coimbatore-641 001.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to declare
that the petitioners land comprised in survey Nos.196/A1,200/A2,
546/1,2,191/2,200/A2,200/A3,196/A1,191/2,546/1,548/B and 546/2
Coimbatore is deemed to be released from the reservation of petitioner's 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.
196/A1,200/A2, 546/1,2,191/2,200/A2,200/A3,196/A1,191/2,546/1,548/B and
546/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore and
pass such further orders.
For Petitioner: Mr.K.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents: M/s.P.Aishwarya,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to declare that the petitioners land comprised in survey Nos.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2, 200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and 546/2 Coimbatore is deemed to be released from the reservation of petitioner's land for formation of public road as per the provision 2/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 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.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2, 200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and 546/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of land measuring 2.21 acres situated in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, comprising Survey Nos.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2, 200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and 546/2. The land has been in the petitioner’s continuous possession and used for agricultural purposes. In the year 1990, under a Town Planning Scheme for the Coimbatore urban area, portions of the petitioner’s land were earmarked for formation of 80-feet wide "AA Scheme Road" and 60-feet wide "BB Scheme Road." However, even after the Master Plan was approved in 1994, no development has taken place, and no acquisition or compensation process was initiated. The petitioner has made repeated representations to the respondents for release of the land, notably on 3/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 22.06.2000 and 03.06.2022. Despite a letter from the 3rd respondent dated 20.05.2019 indicating that the Scheme Road would be reviewed in consultation with landowners, no further action has been taken. Further, the High Court in W.P.No.21041 of 2010 had already quashed the starting and ending portions of the same Scheme Road in 2016.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, land reserved under a planning scheme must be acquired within three years of the final publication of the plan; otherwise, it is deemed to be released. Since over 30 years have passed without acquisition or development, the petitioner argues that the reservation has lapsed by operation of law. The continued reservation of the petitioner’s land in the Master Plan is arbitrary and unreasonable, especially when major portions of the Scheme Road have already been cancelled by a court order. Hence, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the reservation stands lapsed and a consequential direction for the release of the land. 4/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
4. Learned counsel further submits 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 representations several times to the respondents to release the lands belonging to him, as the same are 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 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 12.12.2022.5/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
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.
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, 6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 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.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. 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 nd rd th of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, 2 , 3 and 4 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:7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 “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 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 :8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
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 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 9/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 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 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 20.10/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
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 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.11/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
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 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) 12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
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.”
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 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 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 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) 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
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.”
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 15/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 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 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, 1971.16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
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 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.” 17/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025
8. In view of the plethora of decisions of this Court as quoted above, the law is well settled in this regard, as the issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res integra. Once the three-year period is lost within the meaning of Section 37(2) proviso thereafter, Section 38 can very well be pressed into service and ultimately, the land is deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment, or designation.
9. Therefore, in view of the legal provisions as well as the categorical decisions made by this Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner's land comprised in Nos.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2, 200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and 546/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore, shall be deemed to be released from such reservation or allotment or designation under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in releasing the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos.196/A1, 200/A2, 546/1, 2, 191/2, 200/A2, 200/A3, 196/A1, 191/2, 546/1, 548/B and 546/2 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore South Taluk, Coimbatore, 18/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the result, this writ petition stands allowed with the above observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28-04-2025 cda To
1.The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 015.
2.The Director, Town Planning, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.
3.The Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority Corporation Shopping Complex, Raju Naidu Street, Tatabad, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore-641 012.
4.The Commissioner Coimbatore Corporation, Town Hall, Coimbatore-641 001.
19/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) WP.No.15311 of 2025 J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD J.
cda WP.No.15311 of 2025 28-04-2025 20/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm )