The main legal point established in the judgment is that land reserved for public purpose in an approved layout plan cannot be used for any other purpose, as per the Town and Country Planning Act and the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act.

Common Order: (J.A.K. Sampathkumar, J.)

These writ petitions are filed challenging the notification issued by the Government on 29. 1994 vide G.O.Ms.No.244 of 1994 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) and also challenging the consequential acts pursuant to issuance of the said G.O. and for praying to quash the same.

.2. The common plea in both the writs are as follows:

.The land presently known as Karpaga Nagar was initially owned by the fourth respondent and extent of 73 acres and 60 cents of land in R.S.No.120 to 126, 130 to 133, 176/1 and 178/2 was owned by the fourth respondent in the erstwhile Tallakulam Town Panchayat, Madurai District. The fourth respondent formed a layout with an object of selling their lands in survey Numbers referred above as house sites. The entire extent was divided into 832 plots. The Director of Town Planning, Madras gave approval for the said layout vide LPMR 1/75. These lands were under the jurisdiction of Tallakulam Town Panchayat before they were merged with the Madurai Corporation in dated 30.1.1994.

3. The approval was granted subject to the condition that an extent of 2.52 acres comprised in R.S.No.120 to 126, 130 to 133, 176/1 and 178/2 should be kept reserved for public purposes.

.4. The third respondent had not provided any basic amenities like roads etc. At the same time the third respondent has been collecting road cost from the plot owners as and when they apply for permission for construction on the sites. In the meantime, the fourth respondent some time in 1986 tried to sell to third parties the forty plots reserved for public purposes like school, temple, market, childrens park etc., as per lay out approval.

5. In this regard, the then Commissioner of the third respondent attended to the complaints of the petitioner and effectively stopped such efforts by the Fourth respondent by giving a notice to the trust not to sell the plots reserved for public purposes. However, the fourth respondent proposed to put up a building in plot Nos. 276 and 369 and applied for approval of the building plan. Plot Nos. 276 and 369 formed part of the 2.52 acres which was reserved for public purposes The approval for construction was granted by the third respondent under the mistaken impression that the said plots were in a residential area. On realising the mistake subsequently, the third respondent, refused to renew licence for construction.

6. However, the fourth respondent filed a writ petition i.e. W.P.No.1565 of 1987 praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 112. 1986 refusing permission and to direct the respondent to grant permission for construction. The said writ petition was allowed with the following directions:

"The application made by the petitioner for sanction of building plan in the above plots shall stand restored to the file of the Madurai Corporation and shall be disposed off within the statutory period. If no orders are made within three months form today, on the said application, the application will be deemed to have been granted. It is made clear that the application can be rejected only in case in the detailed development plant for this area the above plots come under the identification, "Reserved for Public purposes". It is needless to state that the petitioner will be given an opportunity to be heard in person if he so desires, in the matter of sanction of plan".

This order was only with reference to two plots i.e.Nos.276 and 379.

7. While matters stood thus, the petitioners were shocked to find sometime in the second week of February that the fourth respondent was trying to take steps to sell the plots earmarked for public purposes to third parties and the petitioner instituted enquiries at the office of the third respondent. They were given a copy of the G.O.Ms.No.244 dated 29. 1984 wherein the first respondent had stated that-

"In view of the order of the High Court Madras in W.P.No.1565 of 1987 and W.M.P. No