2011 Supreme(Mad) 1008
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
SIDCO Nagar Welfare Association, Rep. By its Secretary, P.K. Chitti Babu
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others
W.P.Nos.8867 & 32896 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.1,1 & 2 of 2010
Decided on : 28-02-2011
For the Petitioner:N.S. Nandakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R3 & R4 - P.S. Raman, AG Assisted by A. Vijayakumar, R1 to R3 - C. Kathiravan, V. Bharathidasan, Advocates, S. Sivashanmugam, GA.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once land is reserved for public purpose, it cannot be released for any other purpose, and the need to protect resources for the enjoyment of the general public.
Headnote:
Park and Playground - Land Use Dispute - Town and Country Planning Act, Development Control Rules - [Town and Country Planning Act, Development Control Rules] - The court discussed the authority to convert or allot land earmarked for park and playground, statutory duty to maintain the park and playground, and violation of developmental control rules. The court referred to the right to life and the use of designated open space, and emphasized the importance of maintaining ecological balance. The judgment highlighted the principle that once land is reserved for public purpose, it cannot be released for any other purpose, and the need to protect resources for the enjoyment of the general public.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered association for the welfare of residents, sought maintenance of a park and playground approved in the master plan. The respondents failed to address the grievance, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition to prevent the conversion of the park and playground for commercial use.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no record showing the existence of a park and playground in the approved layout. It concluded that the petitioner's claim had no basis and dismissed the writ petitions as devoid of merit.
Issues: The main issue was whether specific land earmarked for park and playground in the original approved layout could be altered subsequently by the government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once land is reserved for public purpose, it cannot be released for any other purpose. It emphasized the importance of maintaining ecological balance and the need to protect resources for the enjoyment of the general public.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of any merit, and there was no order as to costs. All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. As the facts involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner is a registered Association for the welfare of the residents of SIDCO Nagar, Villivakkam, having 5000 residential units and population of about 25,000. From the date of the registration on 19.06.1985, the petitioner's Association claims to be functioning and looking after the welfare and civic amenities of the residents of SIDCO Nagar. A master plan was approved by the 1st respondent for the entire neighbourhood as Phase 1, Phase-II and Phase-III providing different types of user zones for residents, commercial activities, schools, parks and play ground etc. After the approval of the master plan by the 1st respondent, in conformity with the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act and Development Control Rules, the 3rd respondent/the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has laid out park and play ground to an extent of 12 grounds in Phase - 1, 4th Main Road, adjoining Government Girls Higher Secondary School, situated in Ward No.63, Zone No.IV, Villivakkam, which is coming within the 2nd respondent jurisdiction. In the year 1999, when the 2nd respondent Chennai Corporation failed to maintain the park and playground properly, the antisocial elements started converting the same as a dumping yard circled by natural growth of wild bushes and vegetation. Due to the non-maintenance of the of the aforesaid approved park and playground, the petitioner has sent many representations to the respondents about the maintenance of the said park and playground. Therefore, the 3rd respondent/the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in their communication dated 04.08.1999, requested the 2nd respondent to take over the aforesaid park and playground. Again, on 30.12.2003, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 2 and 3 to establish and maintain the park and playground and as such, the area is reserved in the master plan. The said representation was also followed by the reminder representations dated 16.08.2004, 12.07.2005, 08.08.2005 and 30.09.2005 to the respondents. The 1st respondent, by taking note of the petitioner's representation dated 12.07.2005, requested the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent in this regard. However, the 2nd respondent turned its deaf ear in not addressing the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, another representation dated 31.01.2006 was addressed to the Government by marking a copy to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, after receiving the representation on 03.02.2006, even followed by remainder representation dated 10.06.2006, has not taken any fruitful steps for the same. Again, after giving another representation dated 04.01.2007 by registered post with acknowledgement due, finding no fruitful response, on the grievance day on 12.01.2007, the petitioner gave another complaint to the 2nd respondent, though it was acknowledged, none of the respondents took any steps to maintain the park and playground. Subsequently, when an attempt was made by the 3rd respondent to allot a part of the playground to the transport corporation for its Villivakkam bus depot, the same was objected by the petitioner association, as a result, the respondent dropped the same. Subsequently, after pongal festival in the year 2007, when the announcement came to convert the park and playground for use of commercial purpose by the 3rd respondent by way of sale with a consent of the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner came to this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3. Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed three fold submissions. Firstly, it was vehemently argued that the respondents have no authority to convert or allot or take steps to convert, allot, assign, sell or otherwise deal with for any other purpose, other than as the approved park and playground situated near Government Girls Higher Secondary School, 4th Main Road, Ward No.6