Judgment T. Raja, J. 1. The claim of the petitioners is that the petitioners have jointly purchased the property covered in old town Survey No. 724, Survey Ward No. 2, Pollachi Town, to an extent of 1 acre (43,600 sq. ft.) on 11.09.1996. One of the joint owners of the property, namely, S. Devaseetha, relinquished her share in favour of the first petitioner. Thereafter, all of them filed a partition suit in O.S. No. 156 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, whereby, a compromise decree dated 01.07.2003 was passed in I.A. No. 828 of 2003 in O.S. No. 156 of 2003 and as per the compromise decree, separate shares were also allotted to each of the parties. Subsequently, the petitioners were issued with a patta on 07.01.2004. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for building permission before the third respondent the Commissioner, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi, on 09.03.2004, but, the same was rejected on 24.03.2004, citing a reason that the lands in question have been reserved for park in the Pollachi Town Development Planning Scheme No. 11 of Pollachi Town Development Plan. In these circumstances, the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that when the petitioners, right from the date of purchase of the property on 11.09.1996, have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties, without there-being any notice whatsoever, it is not open to the third respondent to say that the properties covered in Survey No. 724 have been reserved for Park in the Pollachi Town Development Planning Scheme No. 11 of Pollachi Town Development Plan. 2. In his further submissions, by referring to a Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (in short Act), learned counsel contended that as per Section 38 of the Act, if steps for the acquisition of the lands which are required for any plan, are not taken within a period of three years from the date of notice of preparation of plans by declaration as provided in sub-section 2 of Section 37 in respect of the land reserved, or if such lands are not acquired by agreement, within 3 years from the date of publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee under Section 26 or Section 27, such lands shall be deemed to have been released from acquisition. By citing the above said mandatory provision, he contended, in the case on hand, the respondents have not complied with the conditions found in Section 38 of the Act. Concluding his argument, learned counsel by heavily emphasising on the proviso of Section 37(2) of the Act, which mandates the respondents to make a declaration under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act within three years from the date of notice issued under Section 26 or Section 27 of the Act, submitted that, in the present case, there is no semblance of initiation made by the respondents as provided under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the petitioners land, within a period of three years from the date of notice issued under Section 26 on 07.10.2002 or under Section 27 on 09.04.2003. Even in the counter affidavit, the respondents are maintaining absolute silence as to whether any steps have been taken to acquire the land under the land acquisition proceeding as contemplated under Sections 37 and 38 of the Act, therefore, the properties deemed to have been released from such reservation, allotment or designation as Park. 3. In support of his submissions, he has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Casa Granade Private Limited vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, (2007) 3 MLJ 647 for a proposition that although a State can prepare development plan covering the private lands, but, no development plan can be made on that land unless the private land is acquired for development purpose. 4. He has also relied upon yet another judgement in the case of K.S. Kamakshi Chetty and others vs. Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality and another, (2008) 2 MLJ 184 to contend that when there was no acquisition proceeding taken within three years after the notification issued under Section 14(3) of the old Act 7 of 1920 and even after the new Act of 1971 has come into effect, no step has been taken within the stipulated period for acquiring the property for the purpose of open space stated to have been reserved under the said Scheme, in view of Section 38 of the Act of 1971, the property would be deemed to be released from such reservation. 5. 5. Again, referring to a judgment of this Court in the case of V. Nagamani and another vs. the Director of Tow & Country Planning, Chennai and others, 2010 (2) CTC 510 , learned counsel contended that as per Section 38 of the Act, if within three years from the date of publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Section 26 or 27, no declaration as per Section 37(2) shall be published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the petitioners representation dated 09.03.2004 for grant of building permission before the third respondent was considered and it was rightly rejected by the third respondent on 24.03.2004 on the ground that the properties have been reserved for Park in the Pollachi Town Development Planning Scheme No. 11 of Pollachi Town Development Plan. Since the Scheme 11 was approved in the year 2002 itself by the Director of Town and Country Planning at Chennai, the petitioners ought not to have filed the present writ petition. It is further contended that before approving the scheme, the Municipality has also called for objections and suggestions from the public. But, unfortunately, the petitioners have not given any representation whatsoever to the third respondent for reclassifying their land for residential purpose. That apart, the impugned order was passed only in the light of the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 156 of 2000 and 45 of 2003, dated 12.04.2007, wherein this Court observed that the lands reserved for public purpose in a layout or in a development plan or in a master plan approved by the Local Body cannot be used for any other purpose other than one specified therein. According to the above said order of this Court, the petitioners' request for grant of permission to construct residential complex was rightly turned down by the respondents, therefore, mere technical objections raised by the petitioners cannot be looked into, for, the lands in question have already been reserved for Park. On that basis, he prayed for no interference. 7. According to the above said order of this Court, the petitioners' request for grant of permission to construct residential complex was rightly turned down by the respondents, therefore, mere technical objections raised by the petitioners cannot be looked into, for, the lands in question have already been reserved for Park. On that basis, he prayed for no interference. 7. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the purchase of the reserved site by the petitioners along with others and their subsequent partition and allotment of separate share pursuant to a compromise decree dated 01.07.2003, passed in I.A. No. 823 of 2003 in O.S. No. 156 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, will not give any right or title to the petitioners to construct a building in the reserve site by getting permission, since the reserve site is allotted for the purpose of Park in the development plan no. 11 of Pollachi Town, therefore, the respondents are not in a position to accord permission to the petitioners for construction of building. He further contended that since the said Park site has been allotted for public purpose, this will be useful for the entire general public, therefore, the claim of the petitioners for conversion of the said site into a residential one cannot be considered. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have jointly purchased the properties covered in Survey No. 724 on 11.09.1996. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to their purchase, they have also applied for building permission before the third respondent on 09.03.2004, but, the same was rejected by the said authority on 24.03.2004 on the ground that the said properties have been reserved for Park in the Pollachi Town Development Planning Scheme No. 11 of Pollachi Town Development Plan. In these circumstances, the question needs to be answered is whether the rejection order of the third respondent deserved to be accepted. In this context, it is more appropriate to extract Sections 37 and 38 of the Act: With the aforesaid submissions and ratios, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. In these circumstances, the question needs to be answered is whether the rejection order of the third respondent deserved to be accepted. In this context, it is more appropriate to extract Sections 37 and 38 of the Act: With the aforesaid submissions and ratios, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. “Section 37 – Power to purchase or acquire lands specified in development plan – (1) Where after the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette of preparation of a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new tow development plan, as the case may be, any land is required, reserved or designated in such plan, the appropriate planning authority may, either enter into agreement with any person for the acquisition from him by purchase of any land which may be acquired under Section 36 or make an application to the Government for acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (Central Act I of 1984): Provided that if the value of the land exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the appropriate planning authority shall not enter into such agreement without the previous approval of the Government. (2) On receipt of an application made under sub-section (1), if the Government are satisfied that the land specified in the application is needed for the public purpose specified therein, they may make a declaration to that effect in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, in the manner provided in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), in respect of the said land. The declaration so published shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, be deemed to be a declaration duly made under the said section 6 of the said Act: Provided that no such declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notice under section 26 or section 27 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such notice. (3) On the publication of such declaration, the Collector of the district within whose jurisdiction the land is situate shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of such land under the said Act; and the provisions of that Act shall, so far as may be apply to the acquisition of the said land, with the modification that the market value of the land shall be the market value prevailing on the date of publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under section 26 or section 27, as the case may be. Section 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. (b) Such land is not acquired by agreement such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. A bare reading of the proviso of Section 37(2) clearly depicts that no such declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notice under Section 26 or Section 27 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of such notice. As per Section 38, if within three years from the date of publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Section 26 or Section 27, no declaration as per Section 37(2) is published in respect of any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. The second condition shows again that 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, such land is not acquired by agreement, the same shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. In the case on hand, it is very crystal clear that after the issuance of notice under Section 26 on 07.10.2002 and one another notice issued under Section 27 on 09.04.2003, they have not taken steps for completing the acquisition proceedings within three years. In the case on hand, it is very crystal clear that after the issuance of notice under Section 26 on 07.10.2002 and one another notice issued under Section 27 on 09.04.2003, they have not taken steps for completing the acquisition proceedings within three years. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have not mentioned anything about the steps taken for initiation of land acquisition proceedings under the provision of Land Acquisition Act. They have also not produced any records whatsoever to prove that any declaration, as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 37, is published in respect of the land in question within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Section 26 or Section 27 of the Act. 10. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, while dealing with a similar and identical issue, in K.S. Kamakshi Chetty's case (cited supra) held that where no steps have been taken for completing the acquisition within three years period and when the property ear-marked for the purpose has not been utilized as per the Notification, the property would be deemed to have been released from reservation, allotment or designation as per Section 38 of the Act. Therefore, from the above said judgment and Sections referred hereinabove, it is very clear that when there is no acquisition proceeding within three years from the date of publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Section 26 or Section 27, and when there is no declaration as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 37, such land shall be deemed to have been released from such reservation, therefore, the legal fiction as provided under Section 38 of the Act for an automatic release of the land will take effect. 11. 11. Hence, looking at any angle, I am of the considered view that the property reserved for Park in the Pollachi Town Development Planning Scheme No. 11 of Pollachi Town Development Plan was not utilised even beyond three years from the date of publication of notice under Section 26 or Section 27 of the Act and no steps were taken by the authority to acquire the land till now, therefore, as per Section 38 of the Act, the lands are deemed to have been released from the acquisition, hence, the respondents cannot reject the approval on the ground that the land has been utilized for public purpose. 12. In fine, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands allowed by setting aside the impugned order. Consequently, the respondents are directed to grant planning permission to the petitioners to put up construction in the said property in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.