Parks & Playgrounds Are Lungs Of A City; Place Meant For Them Cannot Be Used For Any Other Purpose: Madras HC
The Madras High Court said the place meant for park, open space, playground cannot be used for any other purpose.
The land in question was reserved for a school in the layout sanctioned in the year 1973 in a Detailed Development Plan under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (the Act). A notification was issued by the Government clarifying that the use of land must conform to the conditions that may have been imposed while sanctioning the layout.
The plea stated that the “conversion of the use of these non-residential use sites can be considered and decided on merits when it is proved by the developer that demand for the same does not exist.” A petition was filed for the release of the said land for converting it to residential plots.
The Single Judge partly allowed the petition and declared the said land reserved for a school to have lapsed from the Detailed Development Plan under Section 38 of the Act as the said land was not developed for 5 years and directed the Thanjavur Local Planning Authority (Authority) to decide concerning the application for converting the said land property as residential plots.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice P. Dhanabal observed, “There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the open space reserved in a layout is meant for public amenities and/or for the benefit of layout plot owners. The land reserved as an open space, park, playground etc., in a layout can never be allowed to be dereserved.”
Advocate S.C. Herold Singh represented the appellant, while G.A. T.Amjadkhan appeared for the respondents.
As far as the de-reservation of the land in the Detailed Development Plan is concerned, the Court found no fault with the order of the Single Judge as the land reserved since 1973 was not used for any public purposes.
The Court explained that as per the Act, if for five years the land reserved for public purpose was not utilised, then, the reservation would lapse. The layout too reserved the land for school and not for open space, park or playground.
The Court remarked, “The place meant for park, open space, playground cannot be used for any other purpose. The parks and playgrounds are the lungs of a City and they are meant to be kept open for the beneficial use and enjoyment of the layout plot holders.”
The Court held that the order of the Single Judge needed no interference and that “it is for the aggrieved person to take steps with regard to the Notification and the Circular as may be permissible under law.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ appeal.
Cause Title: V. Boovalingam v. Ponnamani & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate S.C. Herold Singh
Respondents: G.A. T. Amjadkhan and Advocate R. Karunanidhi
