Allowed

S.Kavitha v. State Represented by

Madras HC9 Sept 2014WP(MD)/10379/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the construction of a marriage hall on a reserved park area. The Court held that a Seva Mandir could be built for public training purposes but directed that no further construction occur and the rest of the park be developed, with residents permitted to use the hall for small functions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to construct a Seva Mandir up to 1138 sq. ft., maintain the remaining park area, and permit residents to use the hall for small functions upon payment of charges.

S.Kavitha Vs State Represented by — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10379 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014

S.Kavitha

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State represented by The District Collector, Trichy.

¶11

2.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Mannachanallur, Trichy District.

¶12

3.The Assistant Director (Panchayats) Collectorate, Trichirappalli.

¶13

4.The President, Village Panchayat, Madhava Perumal Koil, Nochiyam Post, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to put up any construction demarcated as a park in the approved layout laid in S.F.No.170/1, 4 190/6, part of 190/7 and part of 193/3 and 193/4 at Madhava Perumal Koil Village, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Singan For Respondent : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to put up any construction demarcated as a park in the approved layout laid in S.F.No.170/1, 4 190/6, part of 190/7 and part of 193/3 and 193/4 at Madhava Perumal Koil Village, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

¶19

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶20

3.The petitioner is a resident of the approved housing lay out by the respondents.

¶21

4.According to the petitioner an area in the Northern side of the lay out has been reserved as park and the promoters have also executed a gift deed in favour of the local body. The lay-out is called as Rajagiri Nagar and there are 28 plots, apart from other reserved areas. The roads have also be gifted in favour of the village panchayat.

¶22

5.The grievance of the petitioner is that in the site earmarked as park, the respondents are attempting to put up a huge marriage hall and this attempt of the respondent has to be prevented on more than one ground. Firstly, on the ground that the park area will be completely encroached and secondly there will be other disturbances for the residents when public come to the Kalyana Mandapam and by use of loud speaker will create noise pollution etc. Further, it is submitted that the action of the respondents is illegal, since no construction can be put up in the area, which is reserved for park and play ground.

¶23

6.The learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that the petitioner cannot have any apprehension that they are putting up a Kalyana Mandapam and the proposed construction is only a Seva Mandir to be used by self help groups to convene meeting and to take decisions and to conduct training programme for them and not for the purpose of letting out the same to any third party for rent. Further, it is submitted that there is no other area to construct such buildings and already in the same site a ration shop was constructed and is functioning.

¶24

7.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, it has to be pointed out that there can be no dispute to the legal position that an reserved site for park area or play ground, cannot be permitted to be used for putting up construction and cannot be used for any other purpose other than for what purpose for which it was reserved.

¶25

8.The local body being a custodian of the said property are bound to preserve the same. However, it appears that thre is no other area available for building the water tank and ration shop for the benefit of the residents, which may include the petitioner also. However, none of the residents objected to the construction of water tank. Secondly, a shop was constructed to establish ration shop and it was not objected by the residents. Now the apprehension is that a huge marriage hall would be constructed. A copy of the impugned order issued in favour of the contractor has been produced before this Court, from which, it is seen that the proposed construction is only for a purpose of Seva Mandir at a cost of Rs.14.43 lakhs and this will be used for the purpose of conducting training programmes for self help groups consisting of maximum 50 members. The proposed construction is put up to an extent of 105 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sq.mtr or 1138 sqft as could be seen from the copy of the layout plan. It is further seen that the area which has been reserved as a park is a

¶26

¶27

larger area and the construction which is proposed to be put up is only 1138 sqft. It is seen that the purpose for which, the construction is put up is also for a laudable object to train persons of self help groups of which the petitioner and her family members can also become members. Therefore, it cannot be stated that it is a malafide exercise of power. The plea raised by the respondents stating that there is no other site available cannot be disbelieved. Further, by applying doctrine of sustainable development, it has to be seen as to whether the said construction can be permitted more particularly, which would subserve public purpose and the construction is for a small area and already there is a ration shop located in the same survey number. Thus by applying the said doctrine, this Court is of the view that such Seva Mandir is required since the persons like petitioner can also to be trained in Seva Mandir and would benefit the public and also residents of the said layout. Further, the learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that apart from this construction, no other construction will be done in the park area in future and it may be recorded.

¶28

9.In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-(i)The respondents are directed to put up a construction of Seva Mandir to an extent of 1138 sq.ft land making it clear that shall be no further construction in the area reserved as park. (ii)the remaining extent of park shall be maintained as such and the fourth respondent shall take all steps to develop the park by planting flowering plants etc.

¶29

(iii)the hall which is to be constructed for the purpose of Seva Mandir obviously is not going to be used for all 7 days in a week and whenever it is free, if any of the resident of this particular area viz., Rajagiri Nagar request permission of the Panchayat President to use the hall for conducting small functions in their family, the fourth respondent shall consider the same and grant permission subject to the payment of electricity and other charges. This permission shall be granted only to the residents of Rajagiri Nagar and not for any other persons.

¶30

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

¶34

1.State represented by The District Collector, Trichy.

¶35

2.The Block Development Officer, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Panchayat Union, Mannachanallur, Trichy District.

¶36

¶37

3.The Assistant Director (Panchayats) Collectorate, Trichirappalli.

¶38

4.The President, Village Panchayat, Madhava Perumal Koil, Nochiyam Post, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District. +1CC to Mr.M.Raja Rajan,Advocate in SR.No.50882 +1CC to Special Government Pleader, in SR.No. 51338 W.P(MD)No.10379 of 2014 09.09.2014 RG.07/10/2014 4P.7C.

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Kavitha v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kavitha v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Surya Moorthy Vs the Corporation Commissioner

Nizar Mohamed Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Kanagaraj Samuvel Vs the District Registrar

M.Jeevanandam Poosari, Vs the District Collector

M. Arumugam Vs the Superintendnet of

Sri Joythi Petro Product Vs the Assistant Commissioner