Madras High Court
S.Mehdi Ispahani vs The Member Secretary on 24 April, 2026
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On: Pronounced On:
26.02.2026 24.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos.1384, 1387 & 1388 of 2026
W.P.No.1183 of 2026:
1.S.Mehdi Ispahani
2.Ranjini Ispahani
3.Firuzeh Ispahani .. Petitioners
Petitioners 1 to 3 are represented by
their Power Agent Mr.P.Kesan
Vs.
The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008. .. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned letter dated 25.11.2025 of the respondent
under file No:CMDA/PP/NHRB/N/0161/2025 and quash the same as
illegal in so far as the condition of execution of gift deed for street
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
alignment is concerned and consequently direct the respondent to issue
Planning Permission in pursuant to the application submitted by the
petitioners dated 11.03.2025.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandran
for CMDA
W.P.No.6888 of 2026:
R.Sabapathy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to
consider the application of the petitioner for Planning Permission vide
SBC No.CMDA/PP/NHRB/S/0031/2026 dated 09.01.2026 and issue
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
Planning Permission to his premises at Chennai without insisting to
execute a registered Gift Deed Road in favour of competent authority.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thiruvengadam
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandran
for CMDA
COMMON ORDER
These two writ petitions present a common issue. Hence, they are
disposed by way of this common order.
2.The issues that are presented are:
(i)Whether the Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘CMDA’) can call upon
an owner of a property to execute a gift deed for a portion of
land that it proposes to reserve or already reserved under
Section 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as ‘T & CP Act’), as a condition
precedent for grant of planning permission?
3/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
(ii)Whether Section 35-A of the T & CP Act empowers the
planning authority to enforce such a claim?
3.I heard Mr.A.E.Ravichandran for the petitioners in W.P.No.1183
of 2026, Mr.S.Thiruvengadam for the petitioner in W.P.No.6888 of 2026
and Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr.B.Sanjay Balachandran for CMDA representing respondents in both
cases.
Facts in W.P.No.6888 of 2026:-
4.The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the
property situated at Door No.79/1 & 128, Velachery Main Road and
Gulmohar Avenue, Velachery, Chennai – 600 032. He had purchased the
same by way of registered sale deed dated 29.10.2025 from one M/s.Leo
enterprises. The petitioner intends to put up a residential construction
therein. In furtherance thereof, he made an application to the CMDA on
09.01.2026. CMDA responded to the said application on 20.01.2026. It
had imposed several conditions for the grant of permission. One such
condition is being impugned here. The condition being, street alignment
portion is to be gifted to CMDA, before issuance of planning permission.
4/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
5.The petitioner states that he has kept the area covered by the
proposed road alignment free from any development. He adds he is
willing to hand over the said area to the CMDA provided fair and
reasonable compensation is paid for the same. He assures that he will file
an affidavit of undertaking before the CMDA to the effect that he will not
put up any construction in the area so reserved and would also execute a
gift deed if just, fair and reasonable compensation is paid for the same.
6.He further points out that, till date, no notification reserving the
area has been issued by the CMDA. Hence, he seeks a mandamus to
direct the application for planning permission to be considered, without
insisting upon a registered gift deed transferring his property, free of cost,
in favour of CMDA.
Facts in W.P.No.1183 of 2026:-
7.The petitioners claim that they are the joint owners of the
property situated in Door No.1, Purasaiwakkam High Road-Ritherdon
Road, Chennai – 600 007. This property is comprised in Old Survey
No.442, New Survey T.S.No.812/2, Block No.14, Ward No.01,
5/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
Purasaiwakkam Village, Chennai. The extent of the property is 5 grounds
and 69 sq.ft. The petitioners claim title to the property by virtue of a
settlement deed executed in their favour on 31.03.1970. The settlement
deed was for an extent of 12170 sq.ft, of which the petitioners had
alienated 6170 sq.ft and retained the remaining extent of 6000 sq.ft.
8.In order to develop the property under their possession, the
petitioners filed an application before the CMDA for sanction of a
building plan. This application was made on 11.03.2025. The CMDA
responded to this application on 20.04.2025, calling upon the petitioners
to execute a gift deed for the land earmarked for street alignment, as a
condition precedent for sanctioning of the building plan. This was in
addition to the other conditions with, which we are not concerned, in this
writ petition.
9.Insofar as execution of gift deed is concerned, the petitioners
filed an affidavit of undertaking, dated 02.05.2025, stating that the
portion earmarked for street alignment will be fully secured and no
construction will be put up over the same nor will any third party interest
be created. The petitioners further undertook that they will not object to
6/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
the acquisition of the said land, as and when, it is required for widening
purposes. The petitioners, yet again sent a reminder on 13.06.2025,
requesting the respondents not to insist upon execution of a gift deed as a
condition precedent for sanction of planning permission. They drew the
attention of the respondents to a judgment of this Court in the case of
P.Vijayakalyani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, W.P.No.30905
of 2015, dated 05.06.2024 in support of their plea.
10.In response to this reminder, the petitioners were called upon to
submit a revised plan, which they did so, along with receipt for payment
of scrutiny fee. Despite such intimation, the respondents by the impugned
letter, while imposing other conditions, directed as follows:-
“The land left for street alignment shown in the
site plan to be gifted before issue of Planning
permission.”
11.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
This Court entertained the writ petitions and called upon the respondents
to file a counter.
7/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
12.The 2nd respondent in W.P.No.6888 of 2026 filed a counter. The
counter states that as per the Second Master Plan for the Chennai
Metropolitan Area (CMA), it has been decided that the street alignment
would be 45 metres. The road width in front of the petitioner’s site, varies
between 14.95 metres and 15 metres. Therefore, the land to an extent of
15 metres on either side of the central line is required to be reserved and
surrendered for the purpose of street alignment. It claims that the Second
Master Plan has been approved by the State of Tamil Nadu on 02.09.2008
and came into operation in terms of Section 30 of the T & CP Act. It
pleads that on such publication, street alignment of 45 metres for
Velacherry Main Road becomes a binding statutory control regulating
development. The counter further refers to the Development Control
Rules for Madras Metropolitan Area, 1975 framed under Section 122 of
the T & CP Act. Relying upon Rule 18(b) thereof, the counter urges that
if the applicant, for development hands over the land belonging to him, he
will be entitled to additional Floor Space Index to the extent of land so
transferred.
13.It also points out that Rule 18(b) has been retained in the
Development Regulations of 2008 and is the precursor of Rule 26(22)
8/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
thereof. It refers to the latest statutory Rules, namely, the Tamil Nadu
Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 (TNCBDR, 2019), to
urge that as per Rule 35(19), the space set apart and notified for formation
of a new road or road widening or street alignment, should be transferred
to the local body, through a registered gift deed, before actual issuance of
building permit. The counter then refers to Section 35-A of the T & CP
Act to point out that if any area is surrendered free of cost, the planning
authority is entitled to give a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in
proportion to the land area surrendered.
14.Hence, the counter claims that the CMDA is entitled to insist on
a gift deed, for the land affected by street alignment, as a condition
precedent for plan approval. It is so, according to CMDA, since there is a
clear statutory compensation mechanism and the same cannot be
characterized as arbitrary or confiscatory.
15.Referring to Sections 32 and 36 to 38 of the T & CP Act, it is
urged that a notified street alignment, forming part of an approved Master
Plan, is not a land reserved in order to attract the consequences of deemed
release contemplated under Section 38. Hence, the counter pleads that in
9/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
case, the land owner executes a gift deed, the additional FSI or TDP
would be granted. The counter further urges that as several persons have
executed gift deeds, the petitioner should also follow suit. In case, he
does not do so, it would result in unplanned development of the planning
area and could lead to mismanagement of traffic flow. On these pleas, it
seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
16.It is the submission of Mr.A.E.Ravichandran that the impugned
letter is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
P.Vijayakalyani Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, in
W.P.No.30905 of 2015, dated 05.06.2024, which dealt with the similar
power under the Development Control Regulations, 2008, found in
Regulation 26(22). He relies upon Sections 36 to 39 of the T & CP Act, to
urge that the land so reserved can be acquired, but there cannot be an
insistence to execute a gift deed for a property, which is worth about
91.04 lakhs, free of cost.
17.Mr.S.Thiruvengadam, while adopting these pleas, relied upon a
very recent judgment of this Court to the very same effect in B.K.K.Prem
Vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and others, in
10/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
W.P.No.23523 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025, to urge that the writ petition
must be ordered as prayed for.
18.Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General, pleaded
that once a detailed development plan is developed and approved in terms
of Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the T & CP Act, the same comes into force
as per Section 30 of the T & CP Act. He states that revocation or variation
is possible only in terms of Sections 32 & 33. He relies upon Section
35-A to point out that if the petitioners surrender their land free of cost,
CMDA will grant the land owners transferable rights which they can
utilize to develop their property. He states that as per the TNCDBR, 2019,
framed under the T & CP Act, transferable rights will be given over a
private land, when any road widening or new road formation is proposed
and notified. He states that the petitioners are not entitled to seek a
mandamus or certiorari as prayed for.
Discussion, Analysis and Conclusion
19.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and
gone through the records.
11/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
20.Right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of
the Constitution of India. In terms of this Article, no person, which
includes a non citizen or a legal person can be deprived of his / her or its
property, without authority of law.
21.In terms of Article 300A, a person is protected from being
deprived of his property through a mere executive order. In order to be so
deprived, the People’s Representatives in the State Legislature or the
Parliament should pass a legislation authorising a takeover. Interpreting
the word “authority of law” in Article 300A, the Supreme Court in
Kolkata Municipal Council vs Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 INSC 435,
held that authority of law is not merely existence of a statute, but includes
a constitutional net of seven sub-rights that the State must follow to
deprive a person of his property. They are:
i. Right to notice – Informing the person who would be affected by
the acquisition regarding the intention to acquire;
ii. Right to be heard – The acquiring authority should hear the
objections of the affected person(s);
iii. Right to a reasoned decision – The acquiring body should
inform the person about why the land is being acquired;
12/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
iv. Duty to acquire only for a public purpose – The acquisitionbody cannot exercise the power of acquisition casually, but should
demonstrate that the acquisition serves a larger public interest;
v. Right of restitution or fair compensation – The authority
acquiring the land must pay just/ fair/ reasonable compensation for
the land acquired;
vi. Right of an expeditious process – The acquiring body cannot sit
upon on the acquisition for years on but must stick to statutory
timelines;
vii. Right to conclusion – Ensuring that the acquisition process
ends with the formal vesting of the property on the acquiring body.
The attempt of CMDA in calling upon the parties to execute a gift deed as
a condition precedent for grant of permission, is an attempt to by-pass the
constitutional right and the sub rights so declared by the Supreme Court.
22.It is a principle of administrative law which has been in vogue
since the time of Romans, captured in the Latin maxim quando aliquid
prohibetur ex directo prohibetur et per obliquum, which means whatever
is prohibited directly is also prohibited indirectly. By virtue of this
principle, when the CMDA cannot walk into the land without adherence
13/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
to the procedure established by law, it certainly cannot bypass the
constitutional obstacles, which prevent the executive from reaching out to
the property of a person by indirect method of staging, unless and until a
gift deed is executed, the application for planning permission will not be
considered. The role of the Constitutional Courts is in the nature of a
guard or watchman of the rights of the citizens from being encroached
upon by the executive. Hence, the then Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri,
speaking for the Constitution Bench in State of Madras vs VG Row, 1952
INSC 19, declared courts should function as a sentinel on the qui vive or
meaning a watchman to be always on the alert to ensure the rights
guaranteed under the Constitution are not trampled upon. If this Court
were to permit CMDA to adopt such indirect tactics as being attempted in
the present cases, it would be failing in the duty as a sentinel on the qui
vive. While CMDA has the right to state how an area must be developed,
in exercise of that power, it cannot indirectly attempt to usurp the land
and property of individuals.
23.Both the writ petitions do not pertain to a situation where the
petitioners have agreed voluntarily to transfer the property in terms of
Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, in favour of CMDA. Both
14/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
the writ petitioners insist that they will not put up any construction over
the area reserved for proposed road widening and that they are willing to
transfer the title to the extent, required for such widening, in case, they
are paid just, fair and reasonable compensation or if the land is acquired,
in exercise of the powers of any land acquisition legislations. Both the
petitioners have expressed their willingness to file an affidavit of
undertaking to the effect that they will not construct upon or alienate any
portion covered by street widening plan. In fact, the petitioners in
W.P.No.1183 of 2026 have already done so. The primary issue is whether
the CMDA can insist upon alienation by way of a gift deed as a condition
precedent for grant of planning permission.
Power and functions of CMDA under the T& CP Act
24.Let us now look at the scheme of T & CP Act. The CMDA is the
planning authority for the CMA as per Chapter-II-A of the T & CP Act.
The functions and powers of the CMDA are defined under Section 9-C.
25.Section 9-C(iv) entitles the CMDA to cause such works to be
carried out as contemplated in any development plan. As to what
constitutes “development plan” is defined under Section 2(15) of the
15/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
T&CP Act. “Development Plan” means a plan for development or
re-development or improvement of the area within the jurisdiction of a
planning authority and includes a regional plan, a master plan, a detailed
development plan, new town development plan and a land pooling area
development scheme prepared under the T & CP Act. Hence, the CMDA
is entitled to prepare a detailed development plan, insofar as Chennai area
is concerned.
26.Section 17 deals with Master Plan for an area; Section 18 deals
with new town development plan; Section 19 deals with a detailed
development plan; and Section 21 deals with submission of the detailed
development plan for approval by the Director of Town and Country
Planning. The Government can call upon the CMDA to prepare a detailed
development plan, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 17, 18,
27.The contents of the detailed development plan are given under
Section 20 of the Act. The CMDA while preparing a detailed
development plan, is entitled to propose or provide for construction,
diversion, extension, alteration, improvement or closure of lanes, streets,
16/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
roads, etc,. This is as per Section 20(1)(b). A detailed development plan
can also provide for acquisition by purchase, exchange or otherwise of
any land or other immovable property within the area included in the
detailed development plan whether “required immediately or not”. This
is as per Section 20(1)(d).
28.Once the detailed development plan is prepared, it has to be
submitted to the Government for consent under Section 24 of the T&CP
Act. The Government retains with itself the power to modify the plan, as
it thinks fit. Once such modification is made, the CMDA would have to
carry out the said modifications and re-submit the same to the
Government.
29.On such re-submission, under Section 26 of the T&CP Act,
publication would have to be made in all dailies and in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette, informing about such plan.
30.By virtue of Section 28, the Government may approve such
plan. Once approved, the plan has to be published by the Government in a
notification in the Tamil Nadu Gazette. On such notification, the plan
17/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
would come into operation from the date mentioned in the said
notification. The CMDA may at any time, after the notification, vary,
revoke or modify the plan by a subsequent plan prepared and approved in
the same manner as the master plan, regional plan or detailed
development plan.
31.It is the plea of CMDA that since there are proposals for
widening of the Purasaiwakkam High Road and Velachery Main Road, if
the owners of the land situated on the said roads, submit an application
for development, the CMDA can insist as a pre-condition for surrender of
the areas covered under the detailed development plan for proposed street
widening as a condition precedent for the purpose of granting planning
approval.
32.The power to grant a development and use of land is found
under Chapter-VI of the legislation. Section 47 states that development of
any land in an area which is covered by a development plan, should be in
accordance with the development plan. Once a publication is made under
section 19(2) for a detailed development plan, no person is entitled to
erect any building or carry out any operation, in, on, over or under any
18/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
land except with the written permission of the appropriate planning
authority. The development must be in accordance with the conditions
specified therein.
33.The manner of grant of permission is given under Section 49 of
the Act. In terms of Section 49(2), the planning authority may grant or
refuse to grant of such permission having regard to the future
development and maintenance of the planning area. Once the plan is
approved under this section, it is valid for a duration of eight years. The
appropriate planning authority also has the power to revoke or modify the
plan approved under Section 54 of the Act. In case of a development
contrary to the permission granted, under Section 56 of the Act, the
authority has the power to remove the construction and also stop the
unauthorized construction as per Section 57 of the Act.
34.None of these provisions contemplate the imposition of
compulsory execution of a gift deed prior to the grant of approval.
Section 49 does not empower the authority to grant or refuse permission,
in case, a person proposes to develop a property does not transfer his land
free of cost, only on account of the fact the land has been reserved for
19/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
future development. This is not too far to see for. In terms of Article
300A, the Constitutional Right to property cannot be deprived calling a
person to transfer his land or a portion thereof, without payment of just
and adequate compensation.
35.The T&CP Act has a separate chapter with regards to
acquisition and disposal of land. Under Section 36, where any land is
required or designated in a detailed development plan, it shall be deemed
to be a land needed for “public purpose” within the meaning of The Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 36 states that the land
may be acquired under the said Act. If a detailed development plan is
published, it is open to any appropriate planning authority to acquire the
land as per Section 37.
36.The acquisition may be a voluntary act of transfer as per Section
37(1)(a) of the T&CP Act, on payment of an agreed amount or in lieu of
the payment of monies, the land owner may be granted TDR in terms of
Section 37(1)(b). If a land owner is not willing to accede to both, resort
may be made to Section 37(1)(c) read with 37(2) entitling the planning
20/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
authority to make the planning application to the Government for
invocation of Central Act, 30 of 2013. On such application, if the
Government is satisfied, it may acquire the land strictly in accordance
with Central Act, 30 of 2013. As per Section 38, if no acquisition of land
is made in terms of Section 37, the reservation so made under Section 26
and 27 of the T&CP Act lapses.
37.It is the plea of the CMDA that as the detailed development plan
has been notified, there is no necessity for resorting to acquisition and
that they can use their power under Section 49 as a legal thumbscrew to
extract the property from the applicant free of cost.
38.I have analyzed the entire provisions of the Act in order to point
out none of these provisions contemplate such forcible extraction of a
property from a person in favour of the planning authority. On the
contrary, as per Section 39, if any person is injured on account of any of
the provisions contained in the regional plan, master plan, detailed
development plan or new town development plan, he or she is entitled to
seek for compensation which shall be determined by a Tribunal. This
shows that not only is a person entitled for compensation in terms of
21/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
Central Act 30 of 2013, for acquisition, but by virtue of Section 39, he is
also entitled for compensation, in case, his property is injuriously
affected. In other words, in case of any infringement of right to property,
the citizen is not denied of his right to compensation.
39.Insistence of the CMDA that it will grant approval for the
development of the land, if and only if, the gift deed is executed, is not
supported by any statutory provisions. Section 49 provides for application
for grant of permission for development of land. It nowhere calls upon
the applicant/land owner to surrender his valuable right to his property, as
a condition precedent, for getting approval for development.
40.I would look at it in other angle. The power to grant approval
for development is with the CMDA. On insistence of a gift deed to be
executed as a condition precedent, the CMDA is fettering its discretion
and limiting its decision-making power by requiring a condition
precedent which is neither approved by a statute or the rules made
thereunder.
22/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
41.Using the planning permission process to acquire land free of
cost, apart from being unconstitutional, in the view of this Court, is an
improper exercise of discretion vested with the authority. A statutory
authority, like the CMDA, must inform itself of only the statute and rules
made thereunder, rather than unlawfully fettering the power to grant or
deny planning permission, based on its own notions.
42.It is here that I will refer to the erstwhile development regime
and the present regime that deal with grant of approvals. Under Rule
18(b) of the Development Control Rules of Madras Metropolitan Area,
1975, an option was given to the land owner to hand over the land
belonging to him free of cost and claim additional Floor Space Index. The
Development Control Rules, which were framed under the Town and
Country Planning Act, nowhere called upon the owners to surrender the
land as a condition precedent for approval. Similarly, under Rule 26(22)
of the Development Regulations, 2008, if a land is set apart for formation
of a road or for road widening, then the owner had an option to transfer
the land and seek for TDR. This too was an option given to the land
owner.
23/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
43.The Rules have to be read in conformity with the statute. Rule
26(22) of Development Regulations, 2008 and Rule 18(b) of
Development Control Rules, 1975, would have to be read along with
Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act. While a development
control plan is in force, if an owner of the land intends to develop his land
covered by the development plan, he could agree to transfer the
designated or reserved land in favour of CMDA by exercising the option
under Section 37(1)(a) of the T&CP Act. Rule 26(22) and Rule 18(b)
correspond to this provision. It cannot be stretched to the extent that even
when there is no plan in force, for the mere proposal for development, the
landowner should surrender his land. Such an interpretation would defeat
the statute. The tail cannot wag the dog. Rules would have to be read in
conformity with the statute made by the legislature.
44.This Court has already concluded that in case an area is
reserved, the mode of transfer of title is contemplated under Section 37(1)
and not by exercising the power under Section 49 as a finger crusher or a
Spanish boot to crush the property out of the owner. Such an attempt
amounts to pillorying the owner, which is not approved either by the
Constitution or by the T & CP Act, the statute which created the CMDA.
24/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
45.By virtue of Section 38, the land stands deemed to be released
from reservation if the declaration in respect of acquisition is not
published or if the land is not acquired. Upon such deemed release, the
legal fiction of “public purpose” under Section 36 ceases to operate, and
the planning authority cannot continue to impose conditions referable to
such reservation. The insistence on execution of a gift deed as a condition
precedent for grant of planning permission cannot survive beyond the
statutory period, and any such insistence would be contrary to the Act.
46.Much reliance has been placed upon Rule 35(19) of the
TNCDBR, 2019 by the learned Additional Advocate General. A careful
perusal of Rule 35(19), instead of going in favour of the CMDA, goes
against it. Under Rule 35, not only should the land be set apart, but
should also be notified as required for formation of a new road, road
widening or street alignment. During the course of arguments, I called
upon the CMDA to produce a notification indicating the subject land had
been notified as contemplated under Rule 35(19). No such notification,
which is alive, was produced.
25/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
47.A fair submission was made by learned Additional Advocate
General that sometime in 1980s, a notification had been issued for
Purasaiwakkam Village. A reservation made under Sections 26 and 27 of
the T&CP Act is valid for a period of five years as per Section 38. Hence,
this Court has to conclude that Rule 35(19) can be utilized, if at all only if
a land owner, within a period of five years or the extended period as per
Section 38(2), seeks to develop his land and agrees to receive TDR, in
lieu of compensation, for the value of the land as per Section 35-A of the
T & CP Act, read with Rule 35(19) of the Tamil Nadu Combined
Development and Building Rules, 2019.
48.Any other interpretation would render the purpose of Chapter-
IV of the T&CP Act otiose. It is the duty of the Court while interpreting
the statute and rules to ensure that no part of the rules or the statute is
rendered redundant.
49.Now I turn to the case laws cited.
50.The Hon’ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan, had conducted a detailed
survey of the law in R.Rajagopalan and another Vs. The Commissioner,
26/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
Greater Chennai Corporation and others, in W.P.Nos.17363 & 18659 of
2022 dated 19.10.2022. He concluded that gifting of a land is not a
recognized mode of acquisition under the T&CP Act or under the
TNCDBR, 2019. The learned Judge concluded that demanding a gift deed
lacks statutory basis and cannot be enforced without a mutual agreement.
51.At the time of argument before him, it was submitted that as
against a similar view taken by another learned Single Judge, an appeal
had been preferred by the CMDA and the same was pending. This was in
W.A.No.3663 of 2019.
52.I should point out that the said writ appeal was disposed of by a
judgment of this Court on 05.06.2024 The Division Bench concluded as
follows:-
“3.The local authorities are not empowered to
insist the land owners to execute a gift deed in
violation of the provisions under law. If at all,
the lands are required for formation of road or
expansion of existing road, street etc., land
acquisition proceedings are to be instituted by
following the due process and by settling
compensation as contemplated under the land
27/32https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
acquisition laws. Therefore, the authorities
competent, in the event of taking a policy
decision, to form street, road or expansion of
road, is at liberty to initiate appropriate land
acquisition proceedings by following due
process of law. Contrarily, they cannot
personally insist the land owners or any person
to gift their land for road projects or any public
projects.”
(emphasis supplied)
53.Following these precedents, the Hon’ble Mrs.Justice N.Mala
allowed the writ petition of an owner in B.K.K.Prem Vs. The
Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and others, in W.P.No.23523 of
2025 dated 14.07.2025, in the following terms:-
“11.As the issue in the present writ petition is
identical to the facts and the law raised in the
above referred cases, I am inclined to allow the
writ petition by issuing the following
directions:-
i.[1]The petitioner is directed to submit an
affidavit of undertaking, not to put up any
construction in an area of 60 sq.m., which is
required for road alignment / widening.
[2]The petitioner shall undertake to surrender
28/32https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
the portion of 60 sq.m. for implementation of
the road alignment / widening work in future,
subject to his right for reasonable and fair
compensation.
[3]The respondents shall, upon receipt of the
undertaking, open the portal for re~submission
of the application by the petitioner for planning
permission, by dispensing with the execution of
the Gift Deed.
[4]The respondents shall consider the
petitioner’s application for planning permission
on merits and in accordance with law, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
the aforesaid undertaking from the petitioner.”
54.Since the T&CP Act and the prevalent TNCDBR, 2019 do not
empower the authority to insist on gifting of land as a condition
precedent, for approval for development of a land as per Section 49,
following the aforesaid precedents, both these Writ Petitions are allowed
on the following conditions:-
(i)The impugned order in W.P.No.1183 of 2026 bearing
No:CMDA/PP/NHRB/N/0161/2025, dated 25.11.2025,
insofar as it insists on execution of a gift deed as a
condition precedent to consider the planning permission
29/32https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
application is quashed. The application shall beconsidered within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date
of uploading of the order.
(ii)The petitioner in W.P.No.6888 of 2026 will be entitled
for a mandamus directing the CMDA to consider his
application, without insisting upon him to execute a gift
deed, if the application is otherwise in compliance with
law, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of
uploading of a copy of this order.
(iii)As the CMDA continues to insist upon execution of
gift deeds for the property, despite the law having been
declared by this Court in clear terms for atleast a decade
and more, the CMDA shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to each of the writ
petitioners. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
24.04.2026
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
30/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
To
1.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai.
31/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
W.P.Nos.1183 & 6888 of 2026 and
W.M.P.Nos.1384, 1387 & 1388 of 2026
24.04.2026
32/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
