SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 4730

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
K. Rajamani & Others
Versus
Alamunagar Residents Welfare Association, & Others
W.A.Nos.38 & 39 of 2010
Decided On :Decided On : 11-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel for B. Harikrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s G.R. Associates for Residents Welfare Association, Advocates, M. Dhandapani, Special Government Pleader for State, . Sivakumar for Coimbatore Corporation, Advocate.

The main legal principle established in the judgment is that once land is earmarked for public purpose, it cannot be de-reserved for other purposes, and the Municipal Corporation can only act as the custodian of the open space for the benefit of the society.

Headnote:

Government Order - Land Usage Change - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Sections 36, 37, 38 - Open Space Reservation - Municipal Corporation Custodianship - Land Acquisition Act Provisions

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a challenge to a Government Order (G.O.) allowing the change of land usage from public purpose to housing plots in a layout. The land was initially earmarked for public purpose, and the Municipal Corporation had resolved to take over possession of the land for maintaining a park.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Government had no power to de-reserve the open space earmarked for public purpose and that the Municipal Corporation could only act as the custodian of the open space for the benefit of the society. The court also held that the Municipal Corporation could not claim ownership of the land without following the procedures under the Land Acquisition Act.

Issues: The key issues were whether the Government had the power to order de-reservation of land reserved for public purpose, whether the open space earmarked in a layout for a park could be used for any other purpose, and whether the Municipal Corporation could claim ownership of the land without following the procedures under the Land Acquisition Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once land is earmarked for public purpose, it cannot be de-reserved for other purposes, and the Municipal Corporation can only act as the custodian of the open space. The court also emphasized the importance of open space in development and the obligations of landowners to maintain such spaces for the benefit of the society.

Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, and the court found no merit in the challenge to the Government Order and the resolution of the Municipal Corporation. The court upheld the Government's power to maintain the reservation of land for public purpose and the Municipal Corporation's role as custodian of the open space.

Judgment :-

D. MURUGESAN, J.

1. The appellants in both the writ appeals question the common order dated 4.1.2010 passed in W.P.Nos.23980 of 2005 and 25371 of 2002. W.P.No.23980 of 2005 was filed by Alumunagar Residents Welfare Association, Coimbatore questioning the G.O.(R) No.80, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MW-1) Department dated 15.2.2005 according permission to change the usage of land from public purpose to housing plots in respect of the land situate in Survey No.1279, Alamunagar, Coimbatore purchased by the appellants herein to an extent of 4250 sq.ft., 3200 sq.ft., and 3406 sq.ft respectively. The Association also questioned the direction of the Government to change the usage of land from public purpose in Survey No.1278 of the very same layout and the further direction to the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning to take action to make necessary amendments in the layout.

2. W.P.No.25371 of 2002 was filed by the appellants themselves questioning the Resolution No.2369 dated 27.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation resolving under Section 432(10)(b) of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act to take over an extent of 20,973 sq.ft., of land in Town Survey No.1278 of Alumunagar. The learned Judge, after a detailed discussion, allowed W.P.No.23980 of 2005 and dismissed W.P.No.25371 of 2002. Hence, the present writ appeals.

3. Alumunagar on the Sathyamangalam Road of Coimbatore was formed in the year 1983. A layout was approved by the Deputy Director, Local Planning Authority as well as the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation in L.P.R.(C) No.22 of 1983. The layout was in respect of the land situate in T.S.No.1278 part to a total extent of 2.428 hectares, approximately equivalent to six acres of land. The layout provided for 54 plots and an area of about 51 cents (20,973 sq.ft. approx.) in the northern portion of the layout was left for public purpose, namely, to establish a park and to maintain certain wells. On the basis of the approved layout, 54 plots have been sold to various individuals and the land earmarked for public purpose was kept open. The appellants had purchased certain extent of land individually in Survey No.1278 in the layout in Alumunagar and put up constructions. The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation issued notices under Section 296(3) for demolition. The action of the Municipal Corporation was questioned by the appellants in W.P.No.14327 of 1995 and were unsuccessful. The writ appeal preferred by them was also dismissed for default on 3.4.2008. In the meantime, the appellants approached the Government for re-classification of the land and the same was rejected in G.O.Ms.No.231, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 26.6.2002. This order was not questioned by the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants once again made a further request by letter dated 14.2.2005 for change in the usage of land from public purpose to housing plot through their power of attorney. That request was considered and accepted by the Government in G.O.(R) No.80 dated 15.2.2005. Apparently, the Government took note of the resolution of the Municipal Corporation dated 27.11.95, whereby the Municipal Corporation resolved to take over the land for maintaining park etc., which was questioned by the appellants in W.P.No.25371 of 2002.

4. On a challenge to the above Government Order by the Residents Association, the learned Judge found that the open space reserved for public purpose cannot be altered and with that reason, the learned Judge held that the Government Order should be quashed. So far as the challenge to the resolution of the Municipal Corporation by the appellants, the learned Judge found that the Corporation could only be the custodian of the reserved space in order to maintain the same for the benefit of the society in general and with that reason, the learned Judge directed the Municipal Corporation to be the c






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top