Adiyanoothu Panchayat Union v. The Deputy Director

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.) The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition as the President of Adhiyanoothu Panchayat Union for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to initiate necessary proceedings to restore the public park situated in S.Nos.817/B, 817/2A at Adiyanoothu Panchayat, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, encroached by the 4th and 5th respondents by converting the same into Housing Plots for sale.

¶2Heard Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.V.Durai Solai Malai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5.

¶3It is the case of the petitioner that he is the elected President of the Adhiyanoothu Panchayat Union. The respondents appear to have promoted a layout in S.No.817/B and 817/2A, measuring an extent of 2.71 Acres at Adiyanoothu Panchayat, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. It is also admitted that the layout was approved by the competent authorities. An extent of 11987 square feet of land was reserved in the said layout as a public park, at the time when approval was obtained by the respondents 4 and 5. Even though the reserved plots are used as a park by the residents of the layout for a long time, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 4 and 5 are trying to convert the area allotted for park into housing plots to further make money.

¶4It is brought to the notice of this Court that by proceedings dated 06.04.2018, the President of Adiyanoothu Panchayat has considered the application filed by the promoters to permit them to convert the land used from park to residential. This application was allowed by the President of the Panchayat and permitted 6 number of plots to be used as residential houses by conversion of the land use. Followed by the proceedings of President of Panchayat dated 06.04.2015, the Block Development Officer by proceedings dated 15.02.2018, has passed an order in the following lines:- "nkw;go tpz;zg;gjhhpd; ntz;Lnfhis Vw;Wk;> jsh;j;jpa kidg;gphpt[ tiugl mq;fPfhukhdJ 1994-k; tUlj;jpa jkpH;ehL Cuhl;rpfs; kidg;gphpt[ tiuglr; rl;lj;jpw;Fk; mjd; cg tpjpfSf;Fk; fl;Lg;gl;L FoapUg;ghf bray;gl ntz;Lk; vd;w epge;jid tud;Kiwapd;go> ghh;it(2)y; fz;Ls;s kidg;gphpt[ tiugl mq;fPfhuj;jpy; bghJ cgnahfj;jpw;bfd xJf;fpa ,lj;jij ghh;it (3) y; fhZk; jpUj;jpa kidg;gphpt[ tiuglj;jpy; fhl;lg;gl;Ls;sgo> moaD}j;J fpuhkk; rh;nt 817/B, 817/2A Mfpa g[y vz;fSf;F fl;Lg;gl;l 13A> 13B> 13C> 26A> 26B> kw;Wk; 26C ,yf;fkpl;l kidfis

FoapUg;ghf

cgnahfk;

bra;Jbfhs;st[k;> Mtzg;gjpt[ nkw;bfhs;s vt;tpj Ml;nrgiza[k; ,y;iy vd;W ,jd;K:yk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ."

¶5It is to be noted that the respondents 4 and 5 have sold the property to several persons showing the common area as a park. Despite reserving a substantial portion of the layout for the purpose of park and the residents have purchased the plots with the understanding that the park will be kept as such, the promoters, namely, respondents 4 and 5 for the purpose of selling the plots used as park as house site has gone for conversion and the President of the Panchayat and the Block Development Officer have also held at rest.

¶6The Hon'ble Supreme Court in PT. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47 and Division Bench of this Court in T.M.Rajasekaran v. State of T.N. reported in 2007-3-LW 995 and in T.G.Naveen v. The Chairman, TNEB reported in 2021 (5) CTC 648 held that the land reserved for a public purpose in a layout is meant for the beneficial use of the residents / plot owners. Even the promoter / developer seeks to be the owner of the plots, as he holds it only to the benefit of plot owners.

¶7The Hon'ble Supreme Court in PT. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (1995) 1 SCC 47, in paragraph No.6 held as follows:- "6. Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a layout plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. The effect of such reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit of the society or the public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it. It may be true as held by the High Court that the interest which is left in the owner is a residuary interest which may be nothing more than a right to hold this land in trust for the specific purpose specified by the coloniser in the sanctioned layout plan. But the question is, does it entitle the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred to the authority free of cost. That is not made out from any provision in the Act or on any principle of law. The Corporation by virtue of the land specified as open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to manage it in the interest of the society in general. But the right to manage as a local body is not the same thing as to claim transfer of the property to itself."

¶8In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the reservation of the space as park at the time of approving the layout. In such circumstances, the promoters cannot use it for any other purpose than for the purpose for which the land was reserved i.e., public purpose. After selling the plots to several plot owners, it is not open to the promoters, namely, respondents 4 and 5 to convert the park and use it for any other purpose as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Benches of this Court.

¶9In view of the same, this Court finds that the permission or approval granted by the local body or Block Development Officer will have no value. The second respondent is directed to restore the public park in the layout, which is now sought to be converted as house site plots and the respondents 4 and 5 shall not deal with the same as owner of the property any more.

¶10With the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. [S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]

01.08.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sj To

1.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Madurai Division, Madurai.

2.The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Eswari Store (Back Side), Vivakananda Nagar, Dindigul.

S.S.SUNDAR, J. and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

, J.

sj

3.The Additional Director of Village Panchayat, Near Old Court, Dindigul. W.P(MD)No.11245 of 2021

01.08.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.08.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P(MD)No.11245 of 2021 Adiyanoothu Panchayat Union, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, Rep. by its President, A.Jeevanandam, S/o. P.Ammavasi Thevar, Adiyanoothu Panchayat, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Madurai Division, Madurai. 2.The Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Eswari Store (Back Side), Vivakananda Nagar, Dindigul. 3.The Additional Director of Village Panchayat, Near Old Court, Dindigul. 4.Mr.Chowkathali 5.Mrs.S.Abibunisa Bevi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to initiate necessary proceedings to restore the public park situated in S.No.817/B, 817/2A at Adiyanoothu Panchayat, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul District, encroached by the 4th and 5th respondents by converting the same in to Housing Plots for sale. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr.S.V.Durai Solai Malai * * *