ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the second respondent herein under which he has directed the petitioner College to hand over 10% Open Space Reservation (OSR) along with access road to the local body within a period of 30 days.

2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner trust was established in the year 1984 and they are running a School and a College having the students strength of 6500. In the year 2009, the petitioner trust had applied for construction of additional building for Cauvery Matriculation Higher Secondary School. The second respondent herein after detailed scrutiny of papers and inspection, had approved the plan for the purpose of construction of additional building on 25.03.2011. The third respondent being an Executive Authority under the Act has also approved and granted permission by an order dated 18.05.2011.

3.The first respondent herein by his communication dated 22.10.2012 had intimated the petitioner trust to hand over 10% Open Space Reservation (OSR) as a gift to the second respondent. The petitioner has submitted various representations to the respondents relying upon G.O.Ms.No.161 Housing and Urban Development, dated 26.06.2013 and contended that 10% OSR need not be handed over to the local body and the same can be retained by the institution as a park.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that on

13.05.2014, they have made a representation and the second respondent without affording any personal hearing or opportunity had passed the impugned order on 22.05.2014 and has directed the petitioner trust to hand over 10% OSR to the local body within a period of 30 days. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.130 Housing and Urban Development dated 14.06.2010, the Open Space Reservation (OSR) land should be earmarked only on the area abutting public road. Only under unavoidable circumstances the OSR may be permitted within the site abutting internal circulation road provided that road also to be handed over to local body. The said G.O. was passed on 14.06.2010. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had made an application for approval of additional construction on 01.12.2009 itself and hence, G.O.Ms.No.130, Housing and Urban Development which was published on 14.06.2010 is not applicable to him. He had further contended that as per Schedule No.I of the said Government Order, the Open Space Reservation of land for community recreational purposes such as park/play ground shall be given at the ground level in a shape and location abutting the public road. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the petitioner trust is an educational institutional and hence, reservation of any land for community recreational purpose will not arise.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the College has been compounded and hence, the question of handing over any land as a park to the local body will create problem to the students' community. The learned counsel had relied upon G.O.Ms. 161, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 26.06.2013 and in respect of educational institution, an exemption has been granted and they can retain OSR portion provided they keep it open to the sky and utilise it only as a park. Hence, in view of the said Government Order dated 26.06.2013, the second respondent cannot direct the petitioner to hand over 10% OSR to the local body. The petitioner trust is ready to file an undertaking affidavit to the effect that 10% OSR will be retained by them open to sky as a park without any construction whatsoever.

7.The learned counsel had further contended that the second respondent in his impugned order, has arrived at a finding that G.O.Ms.No. 161, dated 26.06.2013 is not having any retrospective effect and hence, the petitioner College is duty bound to hand over