Educational institutions are not required to hand over OSR lands to local authorities retrospectively if planning permission was granted prior to the applicable Government Order, as long as they commit to use the land as a park.

JUDGMENT :

(R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.22424 of 2024 dated 05.08.2024, in and by which, the Writ Court quashed the order dated 08.07.2024 which rejected the application seeking exemption from handing over the Open Space Reserved (OSR) lands to the concerned local authority. The order is passed on the premise that G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 26.06.2013 is only prospective in effect and it cannot be given retrospective effect, meaning thereby, the OSR lands in respect of the educational institutions which are approved prior to 26.06.2013 is unchangeable and it has to be handed over to the local authority.

2. The learned single Judge found that the interpretation placed by the Empowered Committee on G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 26.06.2013 is not correct and the said Government Order will apply to OSR lands maintained by educational institutions de hors the date, on which, the application for planning permission was made. It is this conclusion of the Writ Court which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that even while granting planning permission to the respondent even on 08.02.2011, it was granted subject to the condition that OSR lands must be handed over to the local authority concerned. The planning permission having been granted on 08.02.2011 itself, the same will not be covered by G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 26.06.2013.

4. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 26.06.2013 is only prospective and the same cannot be applied retrospectively so as to permit educational institutions which had obtained a sanctioned plan prior to 26.06.2013 to retain the OSR land and maintain it as park. We have considered the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General.

5. We are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the following reasons:

Even the planning permission granted to the respondent on 08.12.2011 contains a stipulation that the respondent would maintain the OSR lands. The said conditions which are enumerated in order sanctioning the planning permission dated 08.12.2011 reads as follows:-

Upon a request by the Managements of Educational Institutions, the Government reconsidered the issue of handing over OSR lands as well as reduction of infrastructure and amenities charges for buildings constructed prior to 01.07.2007. The said government order dealt with two distinct topics, they are:-

i) Reduction of infrastructure and amenities charges for buildings constructed prior to 01.07.2007.

ii) Terms for handing over of 10% Open Space Reservation in respect of Educational Institutions.

6. After considering the various representations made, the Government considered and concluded as follows:-

"7. The Government after careful consideration of the request of the consortium of Self-financing Professionals, Arts and Science Colleges In Tamil Nadu In consultation with the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning and the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority hereby direct as follows:

i) The rates of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges for all categories of non-multi storied buildings like residential, commercial, Information Technology, group development and special buildings which were constructed on or before 1.7.2007, with the permission of the local bodies, shall be fixed at 50% of the prevailing current rates of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges;

ii) The above concession shall be available to those buildings who apply for planning permission from the Member Secretary, Chennai Metr