Public authorities are custodians of land gifted by owners for public purposes and must maintain the layout as it is without interfering with open spaces.

W.P. No. 16312/98;

Petitioner-Society had obtained an approved lay out and subsequently, the building plan has been sanctioned. As per the approved lay out, certain areas were earmarked for public purposes such as childrens playground, garden, well, etc . A plot measuring 1800 Sq. feet was earmarked for the childrens playground and it is the only play ground for the AGs Colony, Andal Nagar, Krishnaraja Nagar, Ganesh Nagar, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Mohanapuri, V.V. Colony, Shaw Wallace Colony, Bhagyammal Nnaga etc. The petitioner-Society has executed a gift deed in favour of the Velacherry Town Panchayat Union in respect of the public roads specified.

2. In June 1998, the respondents started accumulating the building materials in the play ground and started to prepare the ground for construction. Immediately, the petitioner-society sent telegraphic notice and made written and oral representations to the respondents to desist from changing the user of the plots. Since there is no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed a Suit O.S. No. 4108 of 1998 before the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondents from putting up any construction in the playground plots. The petitioner also filed an application for interim injunction in I.A. No. 9601 of 1998 and notice was ordered as early as 8.6.1998. After receipt of the notice in the said application, the respondents had constructed the building and put to use for their office. Now this writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove forthwith all the constructions in the petitioners properties situate in S.F. No. 582 part, 584, 585, a playground area of 10800 Sq.Ft. lying 6n the west of First Main Road, and a well and garden of an extent of 6600 Sq.Ft. lying to the east of First Main Road, Mahalakshmi Nagar (West Velacherry), Adambakkam, Chennai-88.

3. The respondents have filed a counter in the Writ Petition as well as in the Contempt Application, from which the facts can be gathered. The case of the respondents is that the building has already been constructed and the Corporation Office has been located in the same building. Out of 10800 Sq.Ft., the Corporation has put up the construction in 1250 Sq.ft. alone for locating the Divisional Office in the southern corner of the suit property. The construction is only for the, benefit of the residents of the area. Otherwise, the residents have to cover a distance of 8 Kms to reach the East Velacherry Divisional Office for their redressal. Since the Divisional Office has been located for the convenience of the entire residents of the whole area, it cannot be said that the respondents have acted for any personal benefit and such an action is unauthorised or illegal. The Development Control Rules permit the places earmarked for particular use to be used for other public uses and as such, there is no contravention in the constructions made by the respondents and as such the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have carefully considered the contentions of the counsel for either side. The Writ Petition had been filed on 15.10.1998 admittedly after the completion of the entire construction. When, admittedly, the petitioner has filed the suit O.S. No. 4108 of 1998 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for injunction restraining the respondents from putting up any construction in the disputed place, in my opinion, it is not open to the petitioner to simultaneously approach this Court for the removal of the building on the ground that in spite of the pendency of the said suit, the respondents had completed the construction. When the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 9601 of 1998 in the said suit seeking for an interim injunction, considering the arrangements made by the respondents either to start the construction or in the development of the construction, they ought to have insisted for an early