Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23163
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
G.Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
The Director, Town and Country Planning Department – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.6813 of 2026 | W.M.P(MD)No.5635 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.A.Arun Prasad
For the Respondents: Mr.P.T.Thiraviam (R1, R2 & R4), Mr.N.Dilip Kumar (R3)
The court determined that construction activities proposed near the park were outside the designated open space reserve and did not warrant judicial intervention.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the maintenance of a park on designated OSR land in Thanjavur District based on a representation dated 05.03.2026. The petitioner alleged the improper maintenance of the park by the Thanjavur Corporation and opposing construction activity by the third respondent. The court found the evidence showed the proposed construction was outside the park area and dismissed the petition. The court ruled, 'we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition.' The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks maintenance of park on osr land. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dismissal due to lack of merit regarding construction claim. (Para 3) |
| 3. final ruling of no merit leads to dismissal. (Para 4) |
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to maintain the park situated in the OSR land comprised in S.Nos.175/1B to 175/1L in Neelagiri Therku Thottam Village, Thanjavur District, known as Sri Nagar Co-Operative Colony, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 05.03.2026.
2.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the open space, which was reserved for public purposes, is required to be maintained by the Thanjavur Corporation. However, the said park has not been properly maintained by the third respondent. The petitioner further contends that the third respondent is attempting to dig a pit to store drainage water and to construct a sewage pumping station in the said area, which is reserved for the park. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.03.2026 before the authority concerned. Since no action has been taken so far, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent produced a photograph and submitted that it is not a sewage plant, but in fact a pumping station, and that the area is a low-lying area. It was further submitted that the proposed pumping station is outside the park and on the public road.
4.The photograph clearly shows that the site earmarked for the pumping station is outside the park and is not part of the OSR land. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
