W.P.No.29148 of 2026 Page Nos.1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR W.P.No.29148 of 2026 S.Murugesan S/o.Sellamuthu ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu O/o. Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009. 2. The Director of Town and Country Planning Office of Directorate of Town and Country Planning Second, Third and Fourth Floors E & C Market Road, Koyambedu Chennai-600 107. 3. The Assistant Director Town and Country Planning District Town & Country Planning Officer 1st Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex Tiruppur. 4. The Member Secretary Dharapuram Local Planning Authority Office of Local Planning Authority Dharapuram. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29148 of 2026 Page Nos.2/7 5. The Commissioner Dharapuram Municipality Dharapuram Tiruppur District. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.1534/2025/F1 dated 07.04.2026, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the 4th respondent to regularise Plot No.38, comprised in Ward No.6, Block No.28, Old Town Survey No.189/3, New Survey No.23/1, Dharapuram Municipality. For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Muthu Visakan For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan Government Counsel, for R1 to R4 Mr.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel, for R5 ***** O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 07.04.2026 issued by the fifth respondent, whereby the petitioner’s application for regulation of Plot No.38, Survey No.6, Block No.28, Town Survey No.23/1, Dharapuram Municipality was rejected. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29148 of 2026 Page Nos.3/7 2. The petitioner purchased the said property in an unapproved layout. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for regulation of the plot by paying the prescribed fee. The application was rejected on the ground that, under Approved Detailed Development Plan No.2, the property falls within the proposed scheme road. The said Detailed Development Plan was published in the year 2006. 3. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the respondents could reject the petitioner’s application on the ground that the property is reserved for a scheme road, even though no steps have been taken to acquire the land for nearly two decades. 4. Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 provides that where land reserved, allotted or designated for any public purpose under a development plan is not acquired within the prescribed period of three years from the publication of the relevant notification, such land shall be deemed to have been released from the reservation. 5. The above legal position is no longer res integra. This Court, in W.P.(MD) No.8515 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021, after considering several earlier decisions, held that if the authorities fail to acquire the land within the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29148 of 2026 Page Nos.4/7 period stipulated under Section 38 of the Act, the reservation automatically lapses by operation of law. The said view has consistently been followed in: (i) M. Amsavalli vs. Director of Town and Country Planning, (2017) 2 CWC 418; (ii) R.M. Shanmuganathan vs. Director of Town and Country Planning, (2018) 2 CWC 20; (iii) L.K.S. Mohammed Meera Mohaideen vs. Director of Town and Country Planning, W.P.(MD) No.5652 of 2019; (iv) The Director of Town and Country Planning and another vs. Muthu and others, W.A.(MD) No.485 of 2020; and (v) Nagendran vs. The Director of Town and Country Planning, W.P.(MD) No.166 of 2021. 6. In the present case, the Detailed Development Plan was published in the year 2006. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s property has not been acquired till date. Therefore, by virtue of Section 38 of the Act, the reservation over the petitioner’s property is deemed to have lapsed. 7. Once the reservation has lapsed by operation of law, the respondents cannot reject the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that the property forms part of a proposed scheme road. The impugned order is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29148 of 2026 Page Nos.5/7 therefore legally unsustainable. 8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has already paid the prescribed fee for regulation of the plot. Therefore, the petitioner’s application deserves to be considered on its own merits, without reference to the lapsed reservation. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings dated 07.04.2026 issued by the fifth respondent are quashed. The fifth respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for regulation of the plot on its own merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 30.07.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29148 of 2026 Page Nos.6/7 To 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu O/o. Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009. 2. The Director of Town and Country Planning Office of Directorate of Town and Country Planning Second, Third and Fourth Floors E & C Market Road, Koyambedu Chennai-600 107. 3. The Assistant Director Town and Country Planning District Town & Country Planning Officer 1st Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex Tiruppur. 4. The Member Secretary Dharapuram Local Planning Authority Office of Local Planning Authority Dharapuram. 5. The Commissioner Dharapuram Municipality Dharapuram Tiruppur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29148 of 2026 Page Nos.7/7 HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mk W.P.No.29148 of 2026 30.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis