Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2675
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.R.Shriram, C.J., P.B.Balaji, J.
C.Shoba and ors. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary Housing Board Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD) Nos.7406 and 6297 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.6236, 6237, 6238 and 5521 of 2016
Decided On : 07-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.T.Arul
For the Respondent: Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader, Mr.S.Velmurugan, Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, Standing Counsel
Non-residents lack locus standi to challenge public utility modifications; relocating a park complies with statutory norms while providing sufficient open space.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Legal Standing - The petitioners, non-residents of the layout, lack locus standi to contest the park's relocation within the Housing Board Colony. The court emphasized that local residents should raise such challenges, as illustrated by judicial precedence. (Paras 3, 14)
(B) Modification of Layout Plan - The alteration of the approved layout plan to shift a park closer to a crematorium was argued as a violation of public utility reservation. The court noted that the park is merely being relocated, not eliminated, and is compliant with statutory norms, providing more open space than before. (Paras 7, 15)
Facts of the case:
A public interest litigation was filed opposing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board's decision to relocate a park within a residential layout, with complaints regarding it being closer to a crematorium. The petitioner’s claims were challenged due to their non-resident status. The court examined the legality of altering public utility spaces in accordance with housing regulations.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the petitioners have no standing to maintain the suit, and the relocation of the park does not violate any legal requirements, upholding the approved modifications which provide sufficient public utility spaces. The petitioners' concerns regarding pollution were addressed as manageable by local authorities.
Issues: The primary issue was the standing of the petitioners to challenge the park's relocation and the legal implications of altering public utility reservations within a housing layout.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners, being non-residents, lacked the necessary legal standing and that the relocation of the park does not infringe upon statutory provisions related to public utility spaces, affirming the authority's discretion in modifying layout plans for beneficial purposes. (Paras 14, 17)
Result: Petition dismissed, with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to relocation of public park. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments about legality and public interest. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on locus standi. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. conclusion on disposal of petition. (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
ORDER :
K.R.Shriram, C.J.
Petition was originally filed by one Dr.R.S.Lal Mohan, former Principal Scientist, Government of India. The original petitioner died on or about 13th May, 2024, and has been now substituted by the present petitioners, C.Shoba and A.Vins Anto.
2. This public interest litigation has been filed to challenge the decision of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Department to move a park from the location mentioned in the plan of 2000 to a place approximately a kilometre away, which is close to a crematorium.
3. Counsel for petitioners was candid to state that the petitioners did not and do not reside in the layout. Therefore, at the outset, we need to note that none of the residents of the layout or those who have been allotted land or housing site have come forward to challenge the shifting.
4. For the purpose of construction of houses, a layout was prepared as per law and approval was granted by the Local Planning Authority, namely, respondent No.5, in the year 1994. It was subsequently revised on three occasions in 1996, 1997 and 2000.
5. It is stated in the petition that the Housing Board Colony is a huge residential complex with about 2500 residents, and four parks, one playground and a nursery school were earmarked. Out of the four parks earmarked in the layout plan, a park admeasuring 30 cents was in Survey No.L5 2/2. There was also a nursery school admeasuring 24 cents in Re- Survey No.L5 2/5 and a play field admeasuring 26 Cents was comprised in Re-Survey No.L5 2/4.
6. Shri T.Arul stated that the prayer as regards the nursery school and play field have become infructuous and what remains to be considered in the petition is only the park in Re- Survey No.L5 2/2.
7. Counsel for petitioners submitted that respondent No.3, namely, Tirunelveli Housing Board Unit, is trying to put up constructions for building houses inside the park area of Re-Survey No.L5 2/2 and the said action was objected by the residents. Notwithstanding the objections and protests, respondent No.3 has surreptitiously and clandestinely revised the layout plan in the 2002 by restricting the area of park in Re-Survey No.L5 2/2 and shifting the same to a place abutting a cremation ground in Survey No.L5-3/3. According to petitioner, it is not permissible to shift the park, because the park was necessary for the betterment of the layout and park is a public utility area in the layout plan and by shifting, the entire purpose of earmarking public utility area is defeated. According to petitioners, no ordinary man of common prudence could have taken this decision in an inhuman manner and when human bodies are burnt, it emits highly polluting Carbon-di-oxide, Carbon-monoxide, Hydrogen Sulfide and Methane, which gases are highly injurious to small children.
8. According to petitioners, the respondents are precluded under law from utilizing the area reserved for public utility service, such as, parks, play fields, schools, open space, etc., for any other purpose and the action is contrary to public interest, legal requirements and safety norms and standards.
9. Shri T.Arul also, relying on a judgment of the Apex Court in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S.Muddappa and others , (1991) 4 SCC 54 , submitted that the public park is a place reserved for beauty and recreation and the scheme, such as the present layout scheme, is a statutory instrument and the alteration of the scheme can be only with a view to conferring a benefit or with regard to the general good of the public at large, otherwise, a scheme once approved cannot be altered. It was also submitted that the petitioners have filed various public interest litigations.
10. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of responde
