2025:MHC:2768 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WA No. 1314 of 2022 1. The Commissioner Rep. by its Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Corporation City Municipal Corporation Building, Coimbatore-641 001.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Lalitha Devi 2.Rathna Devi

3.Jothi 4.Asha Respondent(s)

PRAYER To allow this Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated 27.10.2021 made in WP.No.16992 of 2010 and consequently dismiss the WP No.16992 of 2010.

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Magesh For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Muthukumar (Vakalat not filed)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Writ Appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated

27.10.2021 in W.P.No.16992 of 2010. Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation is the appellant. Respondents 1 to 4 filed writ petition seeking a direction to restore the property in S.F.No.321, measuring 6120 sq.ft, Singanur Village, Coimbatore.

2.Notice was issued to the respondent by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant served notice to the learned counsel appeared for the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition. Thus, the matter is listed for hearing. Learned counsel, who filed vakalat on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 would submit that they have already sent a letter to litigants and the said letter is returned as “No such person in the address”. Private notice sent through registered post also returned with an endorsement “Cannot be located”.

3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that subject property in S.F.No.321, measuring 6120 sq.ft, a OSR land earmarked for public purposes as per approved layout. The said fact was not disputed by respondents 1 to 4 before Writ Court. However, Writ Court formed an opinion that other encroachment in OSR lands have not been removed. Therefore, case of writ petitioner is also to be considered. Accordingly, writ petition was allowed. Another ground considered by Writ Court is that no gift deed has been executed in respect of OSR land in favour of Commissioner of Coimbatore Corporation.

4. Issues regarding OSR land in layout are no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Association of Vasanth Apartment’s Owners Vs V. Gopinanth And Others¹ held that “The areas covered by the OSR cannot be diverted for any other purpose. The respondents are duty-bound to ensure that the area set apart as OSR is stringently utilised only for the purpose in the Rule/Regulation. We direct that no area meant for OSR shall be utilised as dumping yards or any other purpose other than as OSR;”

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.N.R.Nagar Welfare Association Vs. The District of Town and Country Planning, Anna Salai in W.P.Nos.3873 of 2017 etc., batch also considered the issues relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinunder, “6. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vasanth Apartment's owner -vs- Gopinath and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 137 case has elaborately considered the scope of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 wherein the Apex Court re-emphasised

1 (2023 INSC 123)

that the O.S.R lands and the public purpose lands approved under the layout are to be protected and the said lands cannot be utilized or converted for any other purpose other than purpose for which the approval was granted under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

7. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M.Krishnasamy -vs- Member Secretary of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority reported in [2013 1 CTC 18] dealt with the O.S.R lands and to preserve the same for public purposes and for the purpose for which it was earmaked in the approved layout. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

29. Thereafter, copies of the Draft Second Master Plan were made available to the public and also hosted in