Madras High CourtWP/18676/2023disposed of

Sagunthala v. The Secretary

2023-06-23Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P Nos.18676 of 2023 Sagunthala ... Petitioner vs.

The Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St. George Chennai 600015.

The Director of Town & Country Planning Office of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning Second, Third and Fourth Floor C & E Market Road Koyambedu Chennai 600 107 The Member Secretary Erode Town and Country Planning Authority Office Chennimalai Road Opposite to Govt. I.T.T., Erode 638 009.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare that reservation made in respect of the properties in R.S.No.78/1, Plot No.20 (Mayur

Garden) in Punjailakkapuram Village, Modakkurichi Taluk, Erode District forming part of Punjailakkapuram Detailed Development Plan No.7 to have lapse, in view of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondents : Mr.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to declare that reservation made in respect of the properties in R.S.No.78/1, Plot No.20 (Mayur Garden) in Punjailakkapuram Village, Modakkurichi Taluk, Erode District forming part of Punjailakkapuram Detailed Development Plan No.7 to have lapse, in view of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 2.

Heard Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that 'B2- B2 40 feet road scheme was announced and it was approved by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, no steps were taken to acquire the lands and it continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. Hence, according to the petitioner, the development plan itself has lapsed in view of Section 38 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought for a declaration to declare that the Punjailakkapuram Detailed Development Plan No.7 has lapsed.

4. The main issue that has been urged before this Court is that the detailed development plan has lapsed under Section 38 of the 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. 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 and therefore, by operation of Section 38 of the Act, the scheme has lapsed.

6. In view of the above discussion, the subject property belonging to the petitioner stands released from the detailed development plan.

7. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 23.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order rka

To The Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Fort St. George Chennai 600015.

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rka W.P Nos.18676 of 2023 23.06.2023