Land reserved for public purposes does not vest with planning authorities without a registered instrument, restricting its utilization to the designated public purpose.

ORDER :

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to remove the notice board erected in the petitioner's land in Town Survey Number 43, Block -30, Ward 'C' Sinnamani Nagar, Thoothukudi to an extent of 19140 sq.ft and consequentially forbearing the respondents 4 and 5 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in the above said property.

(A).Factual Background

2.According to the averments in the writ affidavit, T.S.No.43 was purchased by Tuticorin Spinning Mill Limited for the purpose of benefit of the workers of the said mill. In order to achieve the above object, a society, the Tuticorin Spinning Mill Limited Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Limited was formed and a layout was prepared and approved by the first respondent in the year 1966. In the said layout approval, lands were earmarked for public purpose, community centre and park. In the said approval, a portion of the land was earmarked for future development. As per approved layout, the house plots were allotted to its members.

3.It is further contended that the land that was reserved for future development in the approved plan of the year 1966 was again modified and a layout was prepared for additional house sites. In the year 1983, another modification of the layout was prepared and it was also approved. An extent of 19140 sq.ft was kept as vacant land and earmarked as building restricted area (common open place).

4.According to the petitioner, this area was earmarked as Building Restricted Area on the ground that a high tension wire was crossing through the said locality. It is further contended in the affidavit that the petitioner being one of the members of the Society, the said land was conveyed to him on 29.10.1999 and he had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife and it has been re-conveyed to him in the year 2007. It is further contended that patta stands in the name of the petitioner. In the writ affidavit it is further stated that on 16.05.2025, the respondents 4 and 5 have erected a notice board inside the fencing area to the effect that the property belongs to the Corporation and action would be initiated as against any individual if they violate. Hence, the present writ petition.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

5.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Corporation has no right whatsoever over the land. More than 10% of the land has already been earmarked for public purpose in the first layout approval of the year 1966 itself. Only in the area that was reserved for future development, later the plots were created in the year 1982 and 1983 which were approved by the concerned authorities. Therefore, no land was reserved for public purpose. Therefore, the property in dispute is not reserved for public purpose which could vest in the respondent Corporation.

6.The present writ petition has been filed seeking to remove the notice board put up by the Corporation officials namely respondents 4 and 5.

7.The fourth respondent has filed a counter contending that in the year 1966, a layout was approved for 126 plots and 10% of the land in the layout is reserved for common amenities like playground, park etc., and 10% of the land is maintained by the Corporation in the interest of the general public. It is further contended that in the year 1982, the society got approval for the remaining land which was reserved for future purpose and an amended layout approval was issued in the year 1983 for additional 15 plots in additional to 126 plots which are already in existence.

8.The fourth respondent had further contended that T.S.No.43 which is a plot on the western side of the layout was declared as restricted area for construction and it is a open space reservation area. There is an electricity board transformer is in existence and there is no burial ground nearby as of now. It is further contended that the writ pe