Writ petition challenging the conversion of a reserved public park into housing plots by property promoters. Court held promoters cannot alter reserved land use and directed restoration.
2nd respondent directed to restore the public park; respondents 4 and 5 prohibited from dealing with the land as owners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.11245 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P(MD)No.11245 of 2021
Adiyanoothu Panchayat Union, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, Rep. by its President, A.Jeevanandam, S/o. P.Ammavasi Thevar, Adiyanoothu Panchayat, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1/8
W.P.(MD)No.11245 of 2021
5.Mrs.S.Abibunisa Bevi
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to initiate necessary proceedings to restore the public park situated in S.No.817/B, 817/2A at Adiyanoothu Panchayat, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, encroached by the 4th and 5th respondents by converting the same in to Housing Plots for sale.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr.S.V.Durai Solai Malai * * *
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J. )
The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition as the President of Adhiyanoothu Panchayat Union for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to initiate necessary proceedings to restore the public park situated in S.Nos.817/B, 817/2A at Adiyanoothu Panchayat, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, encroached by the 4th and 5th respondents by converting the same into Housing Plots for sale.
W.P.(MD)No.11245 of 2021
petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.V.Durai Solai Malai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5.
President of the Adhiyanoothu Panchayat Union. The respondents appear to have promoted a layout in S.No.817/B and 817/2A, measuring an extent of 2.71 Acres at Adiyanoothu Panchayat, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. It is also admitted that the layout was approved by the competent authorities. An extent of 11987 square feet of land was reserved in the said layout as a public park, at the time when approval was obtained by the respondents 4 and 5. Even though the reserved plots are used as a park by the residents of the layout for a long time, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 4 and 5 are trying to convert the area allotted for park into housing plots to further make money.
W.P.(MD)No.11245 of 2021
Panchayat and permitted 6 number of plots to be used as residential houses by conversion of the land use. Followed by the proceedings of President of Panchayat dated 06.04.2015, the Block Development Officer by proceedings dated 15.02.2018, has passed an order in the following lines:-
“nkw;go tpz;zg;gjhhpd; ntz;Lnfhis Vw;Wk;> jsh;j;jpa kidg;gphpt[ tiugl mq;fPfhukhdJ 1994-k; tUlj;jpa jkpH;ehL Cuhl;rpfs; kidg;gphpt[ tiuglr; rl;lj;jpw;Fk; mjd; cg tpjpfSf;Fk; fl;Lg;gl;L FoapUg;ghf bray;gl ntz;Lk; vd;w epge;jid tud;Kiwapd;go> ghh;it(2)y; fz;Ls;s kidg;gphpt[ tiugl mq;fPfhuj;jpy; bghJ cgnahfj;jpw;bfd xJf;fpa ,lj;jij ghh;it (3) y; fhZk; jpUj;jpa kidg;gphpt[ tiuglj;jpy; fhl;lg;gl;Ls;sgo> moaD}j;J fpuhkk; rh;nt 817/B, 817/2A Mfpa g[y vz;fSf;F fl;Lg;gl;l 13A> 13B> 13C> 26A> 26B> kw;Wk; 26C ,yf;fkpl;l kidfis FoapUg;ghf cgnahfk; bra;Jbfhs;st[k;> Mtzg;gjpt[ nkw;bfhs;s vt;tpj Ml;nrgiza[k; ,y;iy vd;W ,jd;K:yk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ.”
property to several persons showing the common area as a park. Despite reserving a substantial portion of the layout for the purpose of park and the residents have purchased the plots with the understanding that the park will be kept as such, the promoters, namely, respondents 4 and 5 for the purpose of selling the plots used as park as house site has gone for conversion and the President of the Panchayat and the Block Development Officer have also held at rest.
4/8
W.P.(MD)No.11245 of 2021
Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47 , in paragraph No.6 held as follows:-
“6. Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a layout plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. The effect of such reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit of the society or the public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it. It may be true
W.P.(MD)No.11245 of 2021
as held by the High Court that the interest which is left in the owner is a residuary interest which may be nothing more than a right to hold this land in trust for the specific purpose specified by the coloniser in the sanctioned layout plan. But the question is, does it entitle the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred to the authority free of cost. That is not made out from any provision in the Act or on any principle of law. The Corporation by virtue of the land specified as open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to manage it in the interest of the society in general. But the right to manage as a local body is not the same thing as to claim transfer of the property to itself.”
W.P.(MD)No.11245 of 2021
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.] 01.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sj To
1.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Madurai Division, Madurai.
2.The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Eswari Store (Back Side), Vivakananda Nagar, Dindigul.
W.P.(MD)No.11245 of 2021
and
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sj
3.The Additional Director of Village Panchayat, Near Old Court, Dindigul.
W.P(MD)No.11245 of 2021
01.08.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether promoters can convert land reserved for a public park in a layout into housing plots after selling the residential plots.
Whether the approval granted by the local body or Block Development Officer for such conversion has any legal value in light of Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
PT. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of DelhiRelied on¶6
(1995) 1 SCC 47 · Who else cites this
T.M.Rajasekaran v. State of T.N.Relied on¶41
2007-3LW 995
T.G.Naveen v. The Chairman, TNEBRelied on¶41
2021 (5) CTC 648
Adiyanoothu Panchayat Union, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, Rep. by its President, A.Jeevanandam
The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Madurai Division, Madurai
The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Eswari Store (Back Side), Vivakananda Nagar, Dindigul
The Additional Director of Village Panchayat, Near Old Court, Dindigul
Mr.Chowkathali
Mrs.S.Abibunisa Bevi
S.S.SUNDAR
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
