JUDGMENT : Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.20905/07 DP 3 dated 12.02.2008 of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the third respondent from treating the land situated in Survey No. 1583/3B1, Block No.41, New Ward No.1, Thanjavur Town, Thanjavur Taluk and District of the scheme called Karanthai detailed development scheme having lapsed by virtue of Section 38 of Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act. Prayer amended vide Court order dated 22.03.2011 in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2009) Mr. M.Mahaboob Athiff, learned Counsel of M/s Ajmal Associates (law firm) on behalf of writ petitioner and Mr. M.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 are before this Court. 2. In the light of the submissions made at the time of hearing, the matter now turns on a very narrow compass. 3. Central theme of entire writ petition is 'Karanthai Detailed Development Plan Part-III' (hereinafter 'said development plan' for brevity) and about 44.5 cents of land designated for specific purposes qua said development plan. 4. It is submitted without any disputation or disagreement that publication of notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette within the meaning of Sections 26 and 27 the 'Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971' (hereinafter 'T.N.T.C.P. Act' for brevity) was on 23.11.1977 and therefore, three years lapsed on 22.11.1980. 5. When the writ petitioner who has interest qua said land, applied for change of use for putting up residential superstructure, the same was negatived vide order dated 12.02.2008 bearing reference Na.ka.No.20905/07 DP 3, made by the third respondent (hereinafter 'impugned order' for brevity). 6. Be that as it may, the pivotal point that falls for consideration centres around Section 38 of T.N.T.C.P. Act. 7. It is the case of writ petitioner that the aforesaid land has not been acquired within three years from the date of publication of notice in the Government Gazette ie., within three years from 23.11.1977. 8. From the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it emerges clearly that there was no acquisition even as of 17.08.2010, which is the date of counter affidavit, it is nobody's case that there was any acquisition between 17.08.2010 and today. 8. From the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it emerges clearly that there was no acquisition even as of 17.08.2010, which is the date of counter affidavit, it is nobody's case that there was any acquisition between 17.08.2010 and today. Relevant portions of counter affidavit of second respondent, wherein this aspect is articulated are paragraph Nos.10 and 11, which read as follows: '10. It is submitted that as per Sec.38 of Town and Country Planning Act 1971, if within three years from the date of the publication of the notice in the Tamil Nadu Gazette U/s 26 or 27 such land is not acquired by agreement such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. No request was made by the petitioner to release the said land U/s 38 of the Act. 11. It is submitted that the land earmarked as health centre in the Karanthai Detailed Development part III has to be acquired by appropriate planning authority on behalf of Thanjavur Municipality ie., the 2nd respondent as per the act of T.N.T.C.P.1972 U/s 39. Hence the acquisition by 2nd respondent does not arise.' 9. That there is deemed release of land from reservation, allotment or designation if the same is not acquired within three years from the date of publication of notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette as adumbrated in Section 38 of T.N.T.C.P. Act has been explained in a plethora of judgments. In this hearing, a judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India in Pillayar P.K.V.K.N. Trust Thiru Ramanathan Vs. Karpaga N.N.U.S. Represented by Secretary and Others made in Civil Appeal Nos.7305 – 7306 of 2010, being order dated 01.09.2010 is pressed into service. Relevant paragraph is paragraph No.16 and the same reads as follows: '16. Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 runs as under:- '38. Karpaga N.N.U.S. Represented by Secretary and Others made in Civil Appeal Nos.7305 – 7306 of 2010, being order dated 01.09.2010 is pressed into service. Relevant paragraph is paragraph No.16 and the same reads as follows: '16. Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 runs as under:- '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; or (b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. In view of the admitted position that the land is not acquired by agreement till the date of the judgment of the High Court, the deeming clause would certainly come into force and, therefore, the concerned land would certainly be deemed to have been released. The High Court has also referred to the reported decision in Raju S.Jethmalani & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ 2005 (11) SCC 222 ], where this Court has clearly held that the owner of the special land cannot be prohibited from using it since it is the private property and Government cannot deprive the persons from using their private property and, therefore, the acquisition of the property is a must before any such person is restrained from using the land. The High Court has again extensively referred to the earlier two decisions of this Court in Bangalore Medical Trust V. B.S.Muddappa & ors. [ 1991 (4) SCC 54 ] and Balakrishna H.Sawant & Ors. V.Sangli Miraj & Kupwad City Municipal Corporation & Ors.[ 2005 (3) SCC 61 ]. However, we do not find any answer in these judgments. The respondents had specifically raised these questions in view of the fact that the concerned property has not so far been acquired. [ 1991 (4) SCC 54 ] and Balakrishna H.Sawant & Ors. V.Sangli Miraj & Kupwad City Municipal Corporation & Ors.[ 2005 (3) SCC 61 ]. However, we do not find any answer in these judgments. The respondents had specifically raised these questions in view of the fact that the concerned property has not so far been acquired. Therefore, it is clear that Section 38 will come in the way of the Government, and the appellant Trust could not have been stopped from using the property on the spacious ground that the said property was reserved for construction of school way back in the year 1975 and thereafter in 1992.' 9. An order passed by a Honourable Single Judge of this Court being order dated 16.04.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.5652 of 2019 under circumstances and facts akin to case on hand was also placed before this Court and the said order reads as follows: 'Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The petition mentioned lands were shown in the Melapalayam Detailed Development Plan No.1 which was published in the year 1994. However, no follow up action was taken for acquiring the petition mentioned lands. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and he invokes Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in the remarks column, it has been mentioned that the petition mentioned road is to be developed and formed by the owners and that is why the authorities did not initiate steps for acquiring the said lands. 4. I am not persuaded by the said submission. The remarks made by the authority are not in consonance with Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. When certain land are sought to be shown as a scheme road, after showing the same, the respondents ought to have acquired the said lands. Otherwise the consequence will be that it would be deemed to have lapsed. 5. The learned standing counsel brought to my notice that the petitioner has given an undertaking affidavit that he would hand over the petition mentioned lands in favour of the local body free of cost. He therefore, wanted this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Section 38 of the Act reads as under : “38. 5. The learned standing counsel brought to my notice that the petitioner has given an undertaking affidavit that he would hand over the petition mentioned lands in favour of the local body free of cost. He therefore, wanted this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Section 38 of the Act reads as under : “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; or (b) such land is not acquired by agreement, such land shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation.” 7. Therefore, I hold that since within a period of three years from the date of publishing the detailed development plan, the consequential steps have not been taken, the petition mentioned lands shall be deemed to be released from such reservation. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the declaration sought for. However, the writ petition is partly allowed as mentioned above. As regards the other prayer for approval, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies before the competent forum. No costs.' 10. To be noted, there is no disputation or disagreement about the obtaining legal position qua Section 38 of T.N.T.C.P. Act and the fact that instant case is akin to the case in which, the Honourable Single Judge has passed the aforesaid order. 11. With regard to elucidation of Section 38 of T.N.T.C.P. Act and deemed release from reservation, allotment or designation, the aforesaid case of Pillayar P.K.V.K.N. Trust Thiru Ramanathan Vs. Karpaga N.N.U.S. Represented by Secretary and Others of Honourable Supreme Court of India, is instructive. 12. Likewise, there is no disputation or disagreement that there is no acquisition of aforesaid land that was reserved in the instant case. 13. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, it follows as an indisputable sequitur that the land reserved in the instant case ie., case on hand also stands released by operation of Section 38 of T.N.T.C.P.A Act. 14. 13. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, it follows as an indisputable sequitur that the land reserved in the instant case ie., case on hand also stands released by operation of Section 38 of T.N.T.C.P.A Act. 14. The further sequitur is that the impugned order made by the third respondent has to be set aside. 15. In the light of narrative thus far, instant writ petition is allowed. There shall be no costs.