JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

The proceedings of the Commissioner, Thanjavur Corporation, dated

27.06.2014, is subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD)No.17346 of 2014.

2. The respondent, who purchased a plot, measuring to an extent of 3735 sq.ft. in Survey No.201/1, New Survey No.201/9C2 at Pandiyan Nagar, Melaveli Thottam Village, Thanjavur, through a registered sale deed, dated 30.12.2011, sought for building plan approval from the Commissioner, Thanjavur Corporation, but her application, dated 26.06.2001 and further representation dated 15.04.2014, was negatived by the Commissioner, Thanjavur Corporation, vide order dated 27.06.2014, which was impugned in the Writ Petition, seeking Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings and direct the Commissioner, Thanjavur Corporation to grant plan approval and licence to construct building in the property.

3. The Commissioner, Thanjavur Corporation contested the Writ Petition on the ground that while granting approval to the layout, the portion upon which, now the planning permission is sought, was reserved for park and playground. A piece of land earmarked for public purpose cannot be converted for any other purpose neither it can be sold after being dedicated for public purpose. The Pandian Nagar Rural Co-operative Housing Society, Thanjavur, formed a layout dedicating the subject land for public purpose, morefully, for park and playground. While so, the Society has sold the property to one Indrakumar on 15.03.1983 plotting out the piece of land earmarked for public purpose and in turn, Indrakumar has sold the property to one Selvaraj, who is the vendor of the respondent/writ petitioner. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court, wherein it has been categorically held that no land earmarked for public purpose can be sold or converted for any other purpose, the Commissioner of Thanjavur Corporation, had sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. However, the learned Judge considering the peculiar facts involved in this case, namely, the layout was approved long ago, but the land earmarked for public purpose never been gifted to the local body and the ownership of the land never changed either to the Members of the Society or to the local body. Further, the vendor of the respondent/writ petitioner was given plan approval and licence to construct a building as early as 26.06.2001 by the very same appellant/respondent. While so, the benefit conceded to the vendor should pass on to the subsequent buyer. Hence, the learned Judge recording that when the appellant/respondent has chosen to grant plan approval to the respondent's/writ petitioner's vendor, there is no valid reason as to why the appellant has rejected the application filed by the respondent/writ petitioner for grant of approval to construct a house.

5. The learned Judge has also recorded that though it is claimed by the appellant/respondent that the subject plot reserved for park and playground, absolutely no material or tangible evidence was placed before this Court to show that Plot No.23 was reserved for park and playground. Therefore, allowed the Writ Petition.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon the plan approval granted in the year 1969, wherein a piece of land, which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition, is marked as playground, submitted that the land once earmarked for public purpose, cannot be used for any other purpose. The plan approval and licence granted to the vendor of the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be taken advantage by the respondent/writ petitioner, since the said plan approval and licence itself are contrary to the statute and there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. In support of his argument, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Pt.Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) By LRs. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in 1995 (1) SCC 47 (ii) Lal Bahadu