Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

"The parks and playgrounds are the lungs of a city", recently said the Madras High Court while stressing that the place meant for parks, open spaces, and playgrounds cannot be used for any other purpose.

The bench comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice P Dhanabal observed so in a case where a piece of land measuring 55164 sq. ft, reserved for building a school, was being sought to be converted as a residential plot.

An appeal against a single judge's decision was filed by an association of plot holders near the subject land property. The single judge bench had declared that since the said land had not been developed for 5 years for the purpose it had been reserved for, therefore, the reservation of the land had lapsed.

However, the association submitted that the said piece of land was required to be used for a school as per the reservation made in the Detailed Development Plan and sanctioned layout prepared by the local planning authority.

It contended that the land owner and the local authorities should not be allowed to change the use of the said land for something else that could harm other people who own plots in the area concerned.

The association also apprised the court that the owner of the said land had purchased the subject land reserved for a school with the condition of constructing one on the said site.

On the other hand, the counsel for the land owner argued that as per Section 38 and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, if the land reserved for public purpose in the Detailed Development Plan is not used for 5 years, the reservation stands lapsed.

He also referred to a circular issued by the Director, Town and Country Planning in Koyambedu, Chennai, dated August 14, 2021. According to this circular, if a facility for public use is available within 2 to 3 kilometers outside the approved layout, local authorities can consider converting the land's use from public purpose to other acceptable uses, such as residential.

Apart from that, the government advocate submitted that the order of the single judge had already been implemented, and the land in question had been de-reserved from the Detailed Development Plan and also the layout.

"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 de-reserved," the division bench underscored. 

However, it opined that no fault could be found with the order of the single judge as since 1973, the land reserved had not been used for any public purpose.

Court pointed out that as far as the layout was concerned, in the layout also, the said land was reserved for a school, not for open space like park or playground.

Apart from that, it highlighted that as per the submissions made by the parties, there were about 15 to 16 schools within the periphery of 2 to 3 kilometres of the said site.

Therefore, while pointing out that the single judge had not directed the authorities to decide the matter in a particular manner, he had only directed them to take a decision upon the land owner's application for approval for converting the said land property, court denied interfering with the order of the single judge bench. 

Case Title: V.Boovalingam v. Ponnamani and Other