The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conversion of common areas, such as playgrounds, into housing sites without approval from competent authorities is illegal and against public interest. The judgment emphasizes the statutory recognition of the requirement to maintain open spaces in residential areas and the obligation to retain such spaces for the benefit of the entire community.

Sowripalayam Rural Co-operative Housing Society formed a Housing Colony Scheme at Coimbatore known as G.R.G. Chandragandhi Nagar. The lay out was approved by all the concerned authorities and the Society sold the plots to its members as house sites. The lay out thus approved, contain certain areas which had been earmarked for common usage which cannot be converted into different user without the approval of the local body and planning authorities. A portion of the lay out was earmarked as Children's play ground. The controversy in these proceedings relate to the conversion of the said site into housing sites. The writ petitioners are the individuals who have purchased the said four housing sites. They are aggrieved by the non ratification of the change of user of the plots which were purchased by them. Hence, they have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to ratify the change of user of the plots allotted to the petitioners by the Society and conveyed to them under Sale deeds dated 17.5.1987. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, some of the original allottees who are objecting to the change of the user and the purchase of the land/house sites by the writ petitioners, have been impleaded as respondents 4 to 6. The Housing Society which originally formed the Housing Colony, after completion of the project had become non-functional and merged with Coimbatore Taluk Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which has been impleaded as the third respondent in the writ petition.

2. For convenience, the writ petitioners will be described as petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 as objectors.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners contend that the plots reserved for a particular purpose could be converted or altered for a different purpose by a resolution of the Society. According to them the sanction of the original lay out plan was obtained in 1986 and that the Society by resolution dated 17.5.1987 resolved to convert the lands reserved for play ground as house sites and allotted them to the members at the then market rate value. They also contend that there was sufficient alternate place available in the Northern portion of the lay out for being used as play ground. There are no schools in the area and hence the need for a play ground will not arise. On the other hand, the open space was only becoming a nuisuance and used by antisocial elements. The Society after effecting conveyance duly informed the Director of Town and Country Planning and the Commissioner of the Corporation. The petitioners having purchased the property were exercising their right of ownership by fencing the plot. As a result of the attitude of the objectors and the execution of certain gift deeds by individuals who have no right over the property, gifting the property to the Municipal Corporation, the petitioners were constrained to move the Civil Court and the Civil Court was seized of the matter. However, in view of the fact that the third respondent who is the successor in interest of the Vendor Society had a legal duty to safeguard the interest of the petitioners, they were constrained to move this Court.

4. In the counter filed by the second respondent/Corporation, the Commissioner has pleaded that the petitioners have simultaneously filed the petition before the other forum, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the same relief. The petitioners cannot call themselves as members of the Society and the alleged resolution by the Society for change of user was also denied. The land shown as open area cannot be converted into a housing site. In terms of the provisions of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981, ten per cent of the lay out area have to be kept as open space for public purpose. The approved lay out plan cannot be interfered with. The erstwhile Society did not move any application regarding the change of user or conveyance in favour of the pe