The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of construction in Open Space Reservation (OSR) land and the court's emphasis on the relevant laws and regulations governing the use of OSR land.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

2. The appellant approached the Writ Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from altering, alienating and dealing with Open Space Reservation(OSR), earmarked as OSR-II in Survey No. 231 part and 233 part in Padi Village, Ambattur Taluk, as provided for in the approved layout plan issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA).

3. The brief facts which are necessary for deciding the above writ appeal are follows: -

The Writ Petitioner is the owner of a flat in an apartment complex known as Golden Jubilee Apartments. According to the appellant, planning permission was granted by the 2nd respondent, namely the CMDA, subject to specific portions of lands being reserved for OSR area. It was the grievance of the appellant that the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) was proposing to construct a sewerage tank in the area earmarked as OSR land. Reference was also made to the earlier writ proceedings where this Court disposed of W.P. No. 6240 of 2011 with a direction to the authorities to hear the aggrieved Writ Petitioners, including the appellant herein. According to the appellant pursuant to the said order of the Writ Court, the proposal to build a sewerage tank was dropped. However, an attempt was made by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to convert OSR land into commercial area. The appellant had filed W.P. No. 8688 of 2014 to forbear the statutory respondents from converting the OSR land into commercial area. Pending the said writ petition, the CMWSSB renewed its attempt to construct a sewerage scheme in the OSR land. The main contention of the petitioner is that even as per Regulation 20 of the Development Regulations framed by the CMDA under the second master plan, even a construction of a sewerage pumping station was prohibited on OSR lands. Further, in the gift deed executed by TNHB to the municipality, the OSR lands have been transferred to the municipality with a specific covenant that the same should be used only by public for the purposes of roads and street light.

4. The statutory respondents filed their counter and according to the Corporation of Chennai, even when the TNHB promoted the layout an extent of 138.66 sq. meters was demarcated for utilization of the said area for constructing a pump room and sewerage pumping station, with pumping machineries. Therefore, the CMWSSB was justified in putting up the sewerage pumping station on the OSR land. On behalf of the CMWSSB, it was brought to the notice of the Writ Court that in the site where the proposed sewerage pumping station was to come up, there was already an existing pumping station maintained by Ambattur Municipality which was exclusively catering to Golden Jubilee Flats.

5. It is also seen that in pursuance of the order passed in W.P. No.6240 of 2011, the municipality also fixed a date of hearing and heard the concerned parties. It was found that relocation of pumping station was not feasible and the proposal was only to improve the already existing pumping station.

6. The Writ Court finding that the site in dispute has already been in use as pump room and sewerage pumping station and that in the layout approved by the authorities, out of 5 OSR areas, the offending construction was only in OSR-II and that the implementation of the proposal was only for the benefit of the apartment owners, including the petitioner dismissed the writ petition. However, while declining to interfere with the project of CMWSSB, the Writ Court had specifically prohibited the respondents from utilizing the remaining OSR for any other purpose and specifically accorded permission for the construction that was under way by the 5th respondent and further directed that no further construction shall also be put up in OSR -II area.

7. Aggrieved by the said order of the Writ Court, the appellant has preferred the above writ appeal on the grounds