The legal ownership and utilization of open space reservation areas for public purposes create an obligation in nature of trust, and possession and maintenance of such areas do not exempt the owner from fulfilling obligations, including paying guideline value as demanded by authorities.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to collection of guideline value in lieu of the Open Space Reservation Area of the petitioner''s institution Vishnu Lakshmi College of Engineering and Technology, Kanji Konampalayam, Vellore Post, Coimbatore District and to quash the proceedings in ROC No.8936/2011/UTK-1, dated 02.09.2013 and the consequential proceedings in ROC No.8936/11 UTK-1 dated 28.10.2013 and consequently to direct the respondents to forbear from demanding levying or collecting from the petitioner the guideline value in lieu of Open Space Reservation Area incontravention of G.O.Ms.No.161, Housing and Urban Development {UD 4(3)} Department dated 26.06.2013. (Prayer amended as per order dated 07.09.2016 in W.M.P.No.27114/2016 in W.P.No.5363/2014)

The proceedings of the third respondent dated 02.09.2013 and the consequential proceedings dated 28.10.2013, demanding guideline value in lieu of the Open Space Reservation (OSR) area of the petitioner''s institution/Vishnu Lakshmi College of Engineering and Technology, Kanjikonam Palayam, Vellore Post, Coimbatore District is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner Trust has established Vishnu Lakshmi College of Engineering and Technology. The planning permit was obtained on 30.03.2012 for construction of Engineering College and approval was also granted by All India Council for Technical Education for the Academic Year 2013-2014. The College is affiliated to Anna University, Chennai. The Development Control Regulations originally stipulated 10% of the total area, must be earmarked as Open Space Reservation (OSR) area. It is further stipulated in the Regulation that the OSR must be gifted in favour of the concerned Local Body and must be maintained as a Park. In line with the said Regulations, the Planning permit dated 30.03.2012 issued to the petitioner provided that the OSR Area must be gifted to the Local Body.

3. Subsequently, the Government directed that, with the sanction from the Empowered Committee, in lieu of the 10% OSR area to be gifted to the Local Body, guideline value for the said OSR area may be collected and the area may be kept as open without any constructions. Admittedly, the petitioner continues to be in possession of OSR area till date and has not gifted the same in favour of the Local Body. In proceedings dated 14.11.2012, the 2nd respondent communicated the Resolution of the Empowered Committee in the meeting held on 22.10.2012, resolving that the guideline value for the land may be collected from the petitioner in lieu of the land to be reserved as 10% of OSR and the OSR area should be earmarked and kept open and no construction should be made in that area.

4. The first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.161, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 26.06.2013, relaxing the condition in the Development Control Regulations, which necessitates handing over OSR area to the Local Bodies. The Government Order stipulates “In respect of educational institutions for whom the Open Space Reservation Regulation is applicable, the Open Space Reservation shall be earmarked and kept open to sky without any construction with the condition that the Open Space Reservation area should be utilized only as a park and not as a playground by the concerned institutions. The guideline value should not be collected in lieu of Open Space Reservation area in such cases.”

5. It is not in dispute that the said Government Order was issued prospectively with effect from 26.06.2013. In the present case, Planning permit was granted to the writ petitioner on 30.03.2012 before issuance of the Government Order and the said Government order cannot be applied retrospectively in respect of the Regulations, which had already been applied to the case, where the planning permit was granted.

6. The learned counsel for the pe