1. Property developer seeks mandamus to restore gifted open space recreational land after municipal encroachment for dump yard. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
Jain Housing – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Tambaram City Municipal Corporation – Respondent
W.P.No.29665 of 2023|W.M.P.No.29273 of 2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V. Balasubramaniam
For the Respondents: P. Srinivas, V. Sudalai Selvan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V. Balasubramaniam
For the Respondents: P. Srinivas, V. Sudalai Selvan
Land dedicated as Open Space Reservation (OSR) cannot be diverted for other purposes like dumping yards. Any judicial declaration on OSR usage operates retrospectively, and authorities must adhere to the specific land-use undertakings given to the Court.
Headnote:(A) Open Space Reservation (OSR) - Land Use - Land dedicated for the purpose of a park must be respected and maintained for that specific purpose unless rules permit deviation. (Para 8)
(B) Administrative Undertaking - Compliance - A respondent authority cannot resile from a judicial undertaking to develop a specific area as a recreational facility after having secured a court order based on such an undertaking. (Para 9)
(C) Declaration of Law - Retrospective Application - A declaration of law by a Constitutional Court operates retrospectively unless explicitly stated to be prospective. (Para 11)
Issues: Whether land earmarked as Open Space Reservation (OSR) could be diverted for a dump yard/MCC beyond the area specifically permitted by the Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
-
precedent
- retrospective operation of declarations
- binding nature of orders
-
precedent
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues OSR land must be restored; respondent contends prior order allowed limited use and Supreme Court ruling applies prospectively. (Para 4 )
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.29665 of 2023
and
W.M.P.No.29273 of 2023
M/s.Jain Housing,
A Partnership Firm,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
R.Vasudevan,
Having Office at No.98/99, Habbibullah Road,
T Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Tambaram City Municipal Corporation,
Tambaram, Chennai – 600 075.
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. .. Respondents
(R2 impleaded vide order dated 20.03.2024
made in W.M.P.No.6945 of 2024 in W.P.No.
29665 of 2023)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to
remove all constructions which have been put up and which is being
continued to be put up in the Survey field numbers 168/1A, 168/1B and
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 08:38:42 pm )
W.P.No.29665 of 2023
168/3 of Pammal Village, Pallavaram Taluk (formerly under Tambaram
Taluk), Chengalpattu District (formerly under Kancheepuram District)
and consequently direct the respondent to develop a recreational zone in
the entire area of 5620 square meters earmarked and gifted by the
petitioner for Open Space Recreational purposes as per the Development
Control Regulations.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ganesh and Ganesh
For R1 : Mr.P.Srinivas
For R2 : Mr.V.Sudalai Selvan
Standing Counsel
O R D E R
Heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel for M/s.Ganesh
and Ganesh, Mr.P.Srinivas for the 1st respondent and Mr.V.Sudalai
Selvan, Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2.The writ petitioner is a developer of properties. It developed a
residential community in Survey Numbers 168/1A, 168/1B and 168/3 of
Pammal Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. It obtained
permission for putting up a residential community in layout approval
No.87/2006. One of the conditions for granting the approval was gifting
an area of 5620 sq.mts to be used as Open Space Recreational Purposes
(OSR). The petitioner executed a document on 15.06.2006 in this regard.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 08:38:42 pm )
W.P.No.29665 of 2023
A perusal of the document shows that an extent of 6780 sq.mts was
reserved for road and another extent of 5620 sq.mts was reserved for
park.
3.An attempt was made by the predecessor of the 1st respondent,
namely, the Pammal Municipality, to convert this Open Space
Reservation into a dump yard. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petition in
W.P.Nos.7658 of 2018 and 7659 of 2018. The same came to be ordered
by this Court in the following terms:-
“6.Considering the rival submission, it is
seen that the respondent municipality is only
going to construct a micro compost yard in a
small extent of 7100 sq.feet of the land, out of
the total extent of 60,500 sq.feet earmarked for
public purpose. It is stated that the micro
compost yard is only going to process the
wastes generated by the residents in the
neighbouring area, by which the petitioner is
also going to be benefited. In the said
circumstances, I find no illegality on the part of
the respondents in using the space for
constructing a compost yard, which is also for a
public purpose.
7.So far as the writ petition in
W.P.No.7659 of 2018 is concerned, now the
respondent municipality has filed a counter
affidavit stating that they are going to develop
the park site as Compost Yard in a smaller
extent of the area and in the remaining areas, at
the cost of Rs.34 lakhs, the Municipality going
to develop the area. Hence, there is no necessity
to hand over the area to the petitioner.”
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 08:38:42 pm )
W.P.No.29665 of 2023
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has
expanded the area of usage from 7100 sq.ft, as was approved for usage of
a dump yard / MCC by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. It has
further pleaded that the area that was undertaken
