Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arup Kumar Goswami, Parth Prateem Sahu, JJ.
Priyadarshani Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, through Principal Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WA No. 178 of 2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 - Construction of Sarv Samaj Samudayik Bhawan - Sections 26, 38, 49 - The court allowed the appeal and directed the Municipal Corporation not to change the use of land for the construction of Sarv Samaj Samudayik Bhawan without seeking prior permission of the competent authority. The court held that the construction of the building on the land reserved as open space was illegal and directed the Municipal Corporation to restore the condition of the land as it was before the construction within a period of 04 months from the date of the order.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a registered Co-operative Society, owned land in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Raipur Development Authority (RDA) implemented a housing plan on the land, including an open space. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the construction of a community hall on the open space, alleging it was illegal and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the construction of the community hall on the open space was illegal and directed the Municipal Corporation to restore the land to its original condition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Municipal Corporation could construct a permanent building on the land reserved as open space without seeking prior permission from the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the construction of the community hall on the land reserved as open space was illegal and that the Municipal Corporation cannot use the land for any purpose other than that reserved in the layout plan without seeking prior permission.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Municipal Corporation not to change the use of the land for the construction of the community hall without seeking prior permission. The Municipal Corporation was further directed to restore the condition of the land as it was before the construction within a period of 04 months from the date of the order.
JUDGMENT
Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in WPC No. 3528/2021, whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant is a registered Co-operative Society bearing Registration No. 116 dated 03.05.1985, was having ownership rights over the land bearing khasra Nos. 377/1, 377/2, 377/3, 378/1, 378/2, 378/5 and 378/7 situated at Mauja: Tikrapara, P.H. No. 114, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Respondent 5/Raipur Development Authority ( in short “RDA”) implemented a housing plan known as Katora Talab Scheme-16 on land in Raipur, including 1.382 hectare of land owned by appellant society. One conveyance deed dated 16.06.1994 was executed between Respondent 5/ RDA being party No. 1 and appellant-Society being party No. 2. As per conveyance deed, 40% of total land, precisely 36 residential plots, are to be transferred after development of the land in exchange of 1.382 hectare of land. The Respondent 5/RDA prepared development plan and after its approval, 36 residential plots including Block A, B and C were handed over to appellant Society. Near the aforesaid Blocks, land was kept vacant as per the layout plan. Later on, open land left as per approved layout was surrounded by boundary wall and developed as garden by doing plantation and later on, one statue was also installed. On 08.04.2021, Members of the appellant-Society came to know through newspaper that the open space in between blocks A, B and C is to be used for construction of “Sarv Samaj Samudayik Bhavan” and Rs. 3.60/- crore was sanctioned for its construction. This made the appellant society to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition pleading that the construction of Sarv Samaj Samudayik Bhawan on the open space left in between blocks A,B and C is illegal and arbitrary. It is pleaded that the decision and the issuance of tender for construction of Samudayik Bhawan on the land reserved and earmarked as “open space” in the layout approved plan by Town and Country Planning is in violation of the provisions of Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short “Adhiniyam, 1973”). Municipal Corporation is only an agency to maintain the area handed over to it which was already developed under the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1973 by Respondent 5/ RDA. Change of use of land after coming into operation of developed plan without prior permission of Director under the Adhiniyam, 1973, is not permissible. Appellant-Society and Respondent 6 were using the open space left, as garden for the benefit of residents and society within the area. Both the Societies were having their own community hall separately and therefore there was no need for construction of Samudayik Bhavan on the land reserved as open space in the development plan. Petitioner sought following reliefs in the writ petition:
10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ and direct Respondent authorities not to change the use of the land.
10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quashed the allocation of the land for the construction of Serv Samaj Samudayik Bhavan and direct to restore the condition as it was before allocation.
10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”
3. Respondent 3/Municipal Corporation, who initiated process for construction of Samundayik Bhavan on the disputed land by floating tender, submitted its reply raising objections that the appellant has not approached the court with clean hands and filed this petition only to settle the intersay dispute between the appellant-society and Respondent 6-society. Respondent 5/RDA transferred entire
The construction of a permanent building on land reserved as open space without seeking prior permission from the competent authority is illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that land reserved for public purpose in a layout cannot be used for any other purpose, and the authorities are obligated to maintain such open spa....
Point of law : Section 46 of Act, it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to provide certain amenities to the public and maintain them, such as construction of schools (clause iii), laying and maintenan....
Public lands designated for parks cannot be repurposed for commercial use without proper authority and procedural compliance, as dictated by urban planning laws.
Modification of land reserved for public purposes requires valid legal processes, including notification and consultation with affected parties, as determined by relevant sections of the Town Plannin....
Prior development permissions granted under repealed rules remain valid despite subsequent regulatory changes, and cannot be revoked retroactively by new laws.
Point of law : Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there ex....
The judgment establishes the principle that reserved open spaces in layouts cannot be used for any other purpose, emphasizing the public trust doctrine, the importance of preserving open spaces, and ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
