ORDER : This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings in Ma.Thi1/M2/36971/13 dated Nil.01.2014 passed by the second respondent and also to direct the respondents to approve the plan submitted by the petitioner for construction of a house in the land in S.No.15/2, Door No.12, 20th Street, Alameen Nagar, Madurai Corporation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a land in Survey No.15/2, Door No. 12, 20th Street, Alameen Nagar, Madurai from one Sumathi. In order to construct a house, he submitted a plan to the concerned authority for approval, along with necessary fee. But, the second respondent rejected the said plan on the ground that the said land has been reserved for public purpose under Perathikulam Extension Scheme, by way of passing the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the said scheme was notified in the year 2002 and the State Government has not taken any steps to acquire lands till now and on the expiry of three years, i.e., with effect from 2005, as per Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the land of the petitioner is deemed to have been released from such reservation. Under the said circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, the said land is deemed to have been released from any reservation made under the scheme and therefore the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that approval could not be given, as the said land is reserved for constructing a park under the scheme. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani and Others v. State of Maharshtra and Others reported in (2005)11 Supreme Court Cases 222, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court made it so clear that once the authority fails to acquire the land, the right of the appellant cannot be deprived of the use of the land for residential purpose. Since the issues are one and the same, following the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the impugned order in MaThi1/M2/36971/13, dated Nil.01.2014 passed by the second respondent is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.