Land reserved for public purposes cannot be claimed by the landowner for private benefit unless formally acquired; it must be held in trust for public use.

ORDER :

(K. KUMARESH BABU, J.)

The Writ Petition had been filed challenging the order of rejection passed by the second respondent, rejecting the claim of petitioner to construct Kalyanamandabam in the place earmarked for the public purpose.

2.Heard Mr.A.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram, learned counsel appearing for RR1 and 2 and Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a larger extent of land originally belonging to his grandfather which was inherited by him and in which he had been benefited with a layout approval. In the said layout approval an extent of 24,562 Sq.ft was earmarked for public purposes and land measuring 4,500 Sq.ft had been earmarked for shopping facilities. The land earmarked for public purposes was fenced to restrict any unauthorised entry and was in his custody and possession. He had also gifted an extent of 96,387 Sq.ft in favour of the Corporation/ first respondent in which the roads had been laid in the approved layout. When that be so, the petitioner had made an application for construction of a Kalyanamandapam in the land earmarked for public purposes and construction of a professional consultation office for engineers and auditors in the land meant for commercial purposes. The said applications had been rejected by the Authority under the impugned proceedings by holding that the lands have been earmarked for a specific purposes and had been handed over to the corporation. He would submit that at no point of time there is no gift deed executed by the petitioner as a developer of the land in favour of the first respondent in respect of the lands that are earmarked for public purposes and for shopping purposes. What had been gifted by the petitioner are the lands only in which the roads had been laid in the said layout. Hence, he would submit that the claims of the first respondent that the lands had been handed over to the first respondent is fallacy. Since, the land have not been either acquired by the authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act nor has been gifted by the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to use the said land for which it had been earmarked.

4.He would further submit that the workers and labourers of the first respondent had unauthorisedly entered upon the land and dug up trenches and also laid a road and therefore, in such circumstances, he would submit that the impugned order is not only liable to be set aside but the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss and damage caused to the lands of the petitioner. He had also placed reliance upon Section 36 to 39 of the Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to contend that if the lands earmarked for public purposes has not been acquired, then such demarcation of the lands would be released and the owner cannot be deprived of using the land in the manner he wishes to. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judges of this Court in support of his contention.

5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1& 2 would contend that when a land had been earmarked as per section 49 of the Act, the same need not be acquired under the provisions of section 36 of the Act. He would submit that application of Section 36 to 39 of the Act would only be applicable in cases where a detailed development plan or a regional development plan are made notified by the authority concerned. In the present case, the lands were not notified either under