JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. (Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14600 of 2014, dated 27.02.2017.) By consent, the Writ Appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. The respondents/writ petitioners claim to be the owners of the land comprised in Survey Nos.82/3, 82/4 and 82/5, admeasuring to an extent of 2 acres 65 cents and they succeeded to the said estate by way of inheritance and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same and in recognition of the same, they were also issued with patta No.118. The respondents/writ petitioners would further submit that the official respondents had formulated a scheme viz., “Kochadai Detailed Development Scheme” and after issuing necessary notices in the year 1997 calling for suggestions and objections, the official respondents have failed to take any steps. The respondents/writ petitioners had proposed to establish a community centre over their land and also proposed to lay 100 feet road running through their land under Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the officials also proposed to establish a community centre over the land of the writ petitioners and proposed to lay 100 feet road running through their land under Section 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and also sent a communication dated 07.03.2005 as to the preparation and sanction of the detailed development plan, which included the properties of the writ petitioners. It is pointed out by the respondents/writ petitioners that despite the communication was sent on 07.03.2005, no steps have been taken by the Government either to acquire the land or issue any notice for acquisition of lands under Sections 36 and 37 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and also pointed out the formalities to be complied with as per Sections 20 and 21 of the said Act. 3. The respondents/writ petitioners would further state that in terms of Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, there is deem release of the property, in the event of not acquiring the lands within the stipulated time of three years as per the provision of Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and therefore, pray for appropriate orders to release the land from the said Scheme. 4. In the light of the provisions under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the writ petition was entertained and the second respondent filed counter affidavit dealing with the merits of the case and pleaded that the purpose is to secure amenity and traffic convenience to the present and future residents in connection with use of layout and also for further developments. 5. The learned Judge had taken up the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 14456 of 2014 filed by the respondents along with the writ petition with similar prayer in W.P.(MD)No.14600 of 2014 and passed a common order dated 27.02.2017. The learned Judge has also taken note of the decision of this Court reported in 2017(1) CTC 175 (S.Anand Vs. the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and others) and also extracted paragraph No.23 of the said judgment and having found that the facts and circumstances as well as the ratio laid down in the said decision are having application to the case on hand, allowed the writ petition as prayed for. 6. Challenging the legality of the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 7. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that the underlying object is of the drastic and benefit of the public and the stand taken by the writ petitioners is hyper technical in nature and considering the laudable object of the development scheme, he prays for interference. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in the writ petition and admittedly as to the deemed lapse, nothing has been stated in the counter affidavit and the learned Judge has rightly applied the ratio of the decision reported in 2017(1) CTC 175 (S.Anand Vs. the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and others) and allowed the writ petition and hence prays for dismissal of the writ appeal with costs. 9. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. It is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph No.23 of the decision reported in 2017(1) CTC 175 (S.Anand Vs. the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and others): “23. 9. This Court carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. It is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph No.23 of the decision reported in 2017(1) CTC 175 (S.Anand Vs. the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and others): “23. In view of the plethora of decisions of this Court as has been quoted above, the law is well settled in this regard as the issue raised in the writ petition is no more res integra. Once the three years period is lost within the meaning of Section 37(2) proviso thereafter, Section 38 can very well be pressed in service and ultimately the land is deemed to be released from such reservation, allotment or designation. Therefore, in view of the legal provisions as well as the categorical decisions made by this Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner's land as claimed in this writ petition, shall deemed to be released from such reservation or allotment or designation under Section 38 of the Act and therefore, the petitioner will succeed in the writ petition.” 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners that the counter affidavit proceeds on the merits of the claim and in no way deal with deemed lapse and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Judge, on correct appreciation of facts and by applying the legal position as enumerated in the above said judgment, allowed the writ petition. This Court, on going through the reasons assigned in the impugned order, is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record for the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds that the writ appeal lacks merits. 12. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that the writ appeal filed by the official respondents in W.A.(MD)No.340 of 2020, against the order dated 27.02.2017 in W.P.(MD)No.14456 of 2014 was also dismissed on 02.03.2020. 13. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 27.02.2017, passed in W.P.(MD)No.14600 of 2014. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. This Court grants ten weeks time for compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14600 of 2014, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.