The Madras High Court directed authorities to compensate 39 individuals with Rs 5,000 each for land parcels earmarked for acquisition but left undeveloped, citing a lack of implementation of development plans by the state government. Justice B Pugalendhi expressed dissatisfaction with the government's failure to acquire properties within the stipulated five-year period, deeming them lapsed reservations. The judge ordered the release of petitioners' lands from the respective development plans and mandated the Director of Town and Country Planning to pay compensation within a month, highlighting broader concerns about the government's commitment to plan implementation and the need for just compensation.
In a significant ruling last week, the Madras High Court issued a directive compelling authorities to compensate 39 individuals with a payment of Rs 5,000 each. This compensation was ordered for individuals whose land parcels had been earmarked for acquisition under various development plans across different districts but had neither been acquired nor utilized for the intended development purposes. Justice B Pugalendhi presided over the case, expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of complete implementation of development plans by the state government. The judge, while dealing with a series of petitions filed by individuals seeking the release of their lands, cited Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. This legal provision allows landowners to seek the release of their properties if they were not acquired for the specified purpose outlined in the development plans. The judge took note that the properties of the petitioners had been identified for future development a decade ago under the development plans. According to Sub-Section 2 of Section 38, any property identified and notified as required for development plans should have been acquired within five years. Failure to do so results in the lapse of the reservation on such properties. Justice Pugalendhi expressed concern that authorities had merely gone through the motions by notifying the lands for public purposes without taking sincere steps to acquire them. The government, he noted, played a role in this by failing to allocate funds. Consequently, the petitioners, the landowners, were unfairly deprived of utilizing their properties for an extended period, and it is the government's responsibility to adequately compensate them for this injustice. The judge highlighted that the court had previously directed authorities to provide responses regarding the number of master plans, regional plans, and detailed development plans notified in the past, as well as the extent to which these plans were implemented. Unfortunately, no response was filed, leading the court to draw an adverse inference that none of the development plans had been fully implemented by the state in terms of acquiring the designated lands for public purposes. In light of these findings, the judge ordered the release of the lands belonging to the petitioners from the respective development plans. Additionally, the Director of Town and Country Planning was instructed to pay a compensation cost of Rs 5,000 to each petitioner within a month. This landmark decision not only addresses the specific grievances of the petitioners but also raises questions about the overall effectiveness and sincerity of the state's approach to implementing development plans and the need for appropriate compensation for those affected by lapses in the acquisition process.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
