K.ARJUNA RAJA Vs. DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent / Municipality.

(2.) The petitioner had purchased the land in question wayback in the year 1966. He wanted to put up a commercial building in Survey No.239/1 in Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. The third respondent is the competent Authority to sanction the plan. When the application dated 07.09.2017 was submitted, the third respondent returned the application on the ground that the site in question has been earmarked for the scheme road in the Railway Area Development Plan. This order returning the Application is put to challenge in this Writ Petition.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the detailed development plan was published in the Gazette some time in the year 1994. The petitioner states that the site in question was included in the said plan and earmarked for forming a scheme road. But then the Authority was bound to have taken steps for acquiring the land within three years. Such acquisition steps have not been taken. Therefore, as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the land is deemed to have been released. Section 38 of the said Act reads as under: