{"id":129349,"date":"2007-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-11T06:48:56","modified_gmt":"2018-11-11T01:18:56","slug":"sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare … vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare … vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED: 12.04.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n                             AND\n        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA\n                              \n             W.A. Nos.156 of 2000 and 45 of 2003\n                              \n\nW.A. No.156 of 2000\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nSri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association\na registered Society\nregd. No.198\/98 \nrep. by its President G.P.Godhanavalli\nresiding at No.43\n6A 3\nM.G.G.Illam\nII Street\nSri Devi Nagar\nGanapathy\nCoimbatore 641 006.                        \t\t..Appellant\n\n\n\tVs\n\n\n1.   Subbathal\n\n2.   Kamalammal\n\n3.   Srimanidevi\n\n4.   The Commissioner\n     Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation\n     Coimbatore 641 001\n\n5.   The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning\n     Coimbatore ~ Nilgiri Region\n     Coimbatore 641 018\n     (Impleaded  by  order \n      dated 3.11.2006 made \n      in WAMP.1774 of 2006)             \t\t..Respondents\n\n\nW.A. No.45 of 2003\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nThe Commissioner\nCoimbatore City Municipal Corporation\nCoimbatore                                   \t\t..Appellant\n\n\n\tVs\n\n\n1.   Subbathal\n2.   Kamalammal\n3.   Srimanidevi                             \t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\nPrayer:  \n\n\tAppeals  under  Clause 15  of  the  Letters  Patent\nagainst  the  order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge   dated\n19.8.1999 made in W.P.No.14413 of 1997.\n\n\n\nFor  Appellant  in      :    Mr.V.Alagirisami,  Senior Counsel          \nW.A.No.156\/2000              for M\/s.P.K.Rajagopal\n\nFor Respondents      \t:    Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy\n1 to 3 in both\nAppeals\n\nFor Appellant in     \t:    Mr.R.Sivakumar\nW.A.No.45\/2003 and\n4th Respondent in\nW.A.No.156\/2000\n\nFor 5th respondent in   :    Mr.G.Sankaran\nW.A.No.156\/2000              Addl. Government Pleader\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
               (Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)<\/p>\n
    Whether a portion of land reserved for public purpose in<\/p>\n
a  layout  approved by the local body can be  used  for  any<\/p>\n
other  purpose is the specific question that arises for  our<\/p>\n
consideration in the above appeals, while the issue at large<\/p>\n
is  whether  the  land reserved for public  purpose  in  any<\/p>\n
layout  or in a development plan or master plan can be  used<\/p>\n
for any other purpose at a later stage?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2.  For the purpose of convenience, parties are arrayed<\/p>\n
as per their rank in W.A.No.156 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
    3.1. These appeals are directed against the common order<\/p>\n
dated 19.8.1999 made in W.P.No.14413 of 1997. W.A.No.156  of<\/p>\n
2000 is preferred by the residents of the locality, who have<\/p>\n
purchased  plots from respondents 1 to 3, who are the  legal<\/p>\n
heirs of the original owner of the land of an extent of 6.07<\/p>\n
acres   in   Survey   No.412,  Sreedevi  Nagar,   Ganapathy,<\/p>\n
Coimbatore,  which  was, concededly,  sold  under  a  layout<\/p>\n
approved  in  the  year  1974 by  the  then  Ganapathy  Town<\/p>\n
Panchayat,  of  course, after the prior  permission  of  the<\/p>\n
fifth respondent in his proceedings bearing No.L.P.Dm.  (DDT<\/p>\n
&  CP)  No.49\/74, dated 17.7.1974.  In the said  layout,  an<\/p>\n
extent of 14168 sq.ft. (East West 81.1\/2′ on the North, East<\/p>\n
West 76′ on the South, North South 164.1\/2′ on the West  and<\/p>\n
North  South 171.1\/2′ on the East) was reserved  for  public<\/p>\n
purpose.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.2.  While according permission, the fifth respondent,<\/p>\n
by   his  proceedings  dated  17.7.1974  addressed  to   the<\/p>\n
Executive  Officer,  Ganapathy  Town  Panchayat  imposed  13<\/p>\n
conditions, which remain unchallenged by the owners  of  the<\/p>\n
layout land for all these years, of which the following  are<\/p>\n
the relevant conditions to be referred to:<\/p>\n
\t     VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED<\/p>\n
   Translated version of the above conditions:<\/p>\n
   1. … without the permission of the Director of Town<\/p>\n
   and Country Planning, no changes shall be made in the<\/p>\n
   extent of the plot or  no change shall be made in the<\/p>\n
   place reserved for public purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\n   …\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   4.  … the place reserved for public purpose, as per<\/p>\n
   the  approved  layout, shall be  used  only  for  the<\/p>\n
   purpose for which it was earmarked.\n<\/p>\n
\n   …\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   12.  the  land  owner  shall  enter  into  a  written<\/p>\n
   agreement with the local body that he would abide  by<\/p>\n
   the  conditions.  The plots shall be sold  or  leased<\/p>\n
   out  subject  to the conditions in the agreement.  In<\/p>\n
   order  to make the land owner and the purchaser  bind<\/p>\n
   by  the  conditions laid down in the  agreement,  the<\/p>\n
   conditions shall form part of the sale deed.”<\/p>\n
                                     (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
     3.3.  As  the impugned portion of the land,  which  was<\/p>\n
reserved  for public purpose, as per the layout referred  to<\/p>\n
above, was kept vacant, the fourth respondent, by resolution<\/p>\n
No.836  dated  16.6.1995,  resolved  to  declare  the   area<\/p>\n
reserved  for  public purposes so that the  Corporation  can<\/p>\n
provide  water  supply, drainage, street,  lights,  etc.   A<\/p>\n
notification to that effect was issued under Section 459  of<\/p>\n
the  Corporation Act, published in the Gazette on 30.6.1995,<\/p>\n
calling for objection, but no objection was received by  the<\/p>\n
Corporation.  Therefore, a final resolution was also  issued<\/p>\n
to that effect in resolution 1135, dated 23.11.1996.<\/p>\n
    3.4. Enraged by the above resolution, respondents 1 to 3<\/p>\n
filed  O.S.No.759  of 1997 on the file of  District  Munsif,<\/p>\n
Coimbatore  for bare injunction, but, finally  withdrew  the<\/p>\n
said suit and filed W.P.No.14413 of 1997 for issue of a writ<\/p>\n
of   Mandamus   forbearing   the  fourth   respondent,   his<\/p>\n
subordinates,  men and servants from in any way  interfering<\/p>\n
with  the  peaceful possession and enjoyment of  the  vacant<\/p>\n
land,  which  was reserved for public purpose,  referred  to<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.5.   In  the  writ  petition, the  residents  of  the<\/p>\n
locality, who formed a registered association, by  name  Sri<\/p>\n
Devi  Nagar  Residences  Welfare  Association,  proposed  to<\/p>\n
implead themselves as a party respondent by preferring  WPMP<\/p>\n
No.13730 of 1999 and also contested the writ petition.  That<\/p>\n
apart,  the  fourth  respondent   also  resisted  the   writ<\/p>\n
petition.  After hearing all the parties, the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge,  by  order  dated 19.8.1999, refused  to  permit  the<\/p>\n
residents of the locality to implead themselves as party  in<\/p>\n
the  writ  petition  holding that  they  are  not  necessary<\/p>\n
parties  for the disposal of the writ petition. However,  on<\/p>\n
the  merits of the case, the learned single judge held  that<\/p>\n
the  order  was  subject  to the undertaking  given  by  the<\/p>\n
learned  counsel  for respondents 1 to  3  that  they  would<\/p>\n
utilise the land only for public purpose.  However,  it  was<\/p>\n
made clear that the said order, in any way, would not relate<\/p>\n
to  the  roads  if they had been declared as public  by  the<\/p>\n
fourth respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.6.  Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge   dated   19.8.1999,  both  the   Residences   Welfare<\/p>\n
Association  and  the Corporation have filed  these  appeals<\/p>\n
respectively,  necessitating  us  to  decide  on  the  issue<\/p>\n
referred to above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     4.  It  is  not  in  dispute that  in  discharging  the<\/p>\n
obligation,  the original owner of the land sought  for  the<\/p>\n
approval of layout of the land in question by the then local<\/p>\n
body,  Ganapathy Town Panchayat, for selling the  sites  for<\/p>\n
construction of buildings and the layout was approved by the<\/p>\n
fifth respondent by proceedings dated 17.7.1994 referred  to<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    5.  It is a settled law that the object of approving the<\/p>\n
layout, before converting the land into house sites,  is  to<\/p>\n
regulate the development in the locality so as to secure the<\/p>\n
present  and future inhabitants sanitary conditions, amenity<\/p>\n
and  convenience,  with the prior permission  of  the  fifth<\/p>\n
respondent.  The  approval of the lay  out,  is,  therefore,<\/p>\n
intended  to secure amenity  and convenience to the  present<\/p>\n
and  future residents in connection with laying out and  use<\/p>\n
of  lands.   Therefore, regard is to be had in the making of<\/p>\n
a  clear Town Planning in the locality to the laying out and<\/p>\n
use  of  neighbouring lands as well as to that of  the  land<\/p>\n
which is the actual subject matter of the layout. The result<\/p>\n
should  be  that  as  successive areas are  developed,  they<\/p>\n
should fit into one another and eventually form a harmonious<\/p>\n
whole.   One  of the most important things for consideration<\/p>\n
in  the  preparation of the layout is not only formation  of<\/p>\n
roads, but also utilisation of the lands reserved for public<\/p>\n
purpose.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     6.1.  The public purpose, of course, cannot and  should<\/p>\n
not be precisely defined and its scope and ambit be limited.<\/p>\n
The  public  purpose  is not static.  It  changes  with  the<\/p>\n
passage of time, need and requirement of the community. But,<\/p>\n
broadly  speaking, public purpose means the general interest<\/p>\n
of   the  community,  as  opposed  to  the  interest  of  an<\/p>\n
individual.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     6.2.  The expression “public purpose” is not capable of<\/p>\n
a  precise  definition and has not a rigid meaning.  It  can<\/p>\n
only  be  defined  by  a process of judicial  inclusion  and<\/p>\n
exclusion.  In other words, the definition of the expression<\/p>\n
is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it<\/p>\n
occurs,  the  concept varying with the  time  and  state  of<\/p>\n
society   and  its  needs.  Whatever  furthers  the  general<\/p>\n
interests  of  the  community as opposed to  the  particular<\/p>\n
interest  of  the individual must be regarded  as  a  public<\/p>\n
purpose.  With the onward march of civilization our  notions<\/p>\n
as to the scope of the general interest of the community are<\/p>\n
fast changing and widening with the result that our old  and<\/p>\n
narrower  notions as to the sanctity of the private interest<\/p>\n
of  the  individual can no longer stem the  forward  flowing<\/p>\n
tide  of  time and must necessarily give way to the  broader<\/p>\n
notions  of  the  general interest  of  the  community.  The<\/p>\n
emphasis is unmistakably shifting from the individual to the<\/p>\n
community.   The  words “public purposes”  used  in  Article<\/p>\n
23(2) indicate that the Constitution uses those words  in  a<\/p>\n
very large sense. In the never-ending race the law must keep<\/p>\n
pace   with  the  realities  of  the  social  and  political<\/p>\n
evolution  of  the country as reflected in the Constitution.<\/p>\n
If,  therefore, the State is to give effect to these  avowed<\/p>\n
purposes  of  our Constitution we must regard  as  a  public<\/p>\n
purpose  all that will be calculated to promote the  welfare<\/p>\n
of  the people as envisaged in these directive principles of<\/p>\n
State  policy whatever else that expression may  mean,  vide<\/p>\n
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR<\/a> 1952 SC 252.<\/p>\n
       6.3.  It  is  impossible  to  precisely  define   the<\/p>\n
expression “public purpose”. In each case all the facts  and<\/p>\n
circumstances will require to be closely examined  in  order<\/p>\n
to   determine   whether  a  “public   purpose”   has   been<\/p>\n
established.  Prima facie the Government is the  best  judge<\/p>\n
as  to  whether  “public purpose” is  served  by  issuing  a<\/p>\n
requisition order, but it is not the sole judge. The  Courts<\/p>\n
have the jurisdiction and it is their duty to determine  the<\/p>\n
matter  whenever a question is raised whether a  requisition<\/p>\n
order  is  or  is not for a public purpose,  vide  State  of<\/p>\n
Bombay v. R.S.Nanji, AIR<\/a> 1956 SC 294<\/p>\n
       7.   In  G.N.  Khajuria  (Dr)  v.  Delhi  Development<\/p>\n
Authority,<\/a>  (1995) 5 SCC 762 = AIR 1996 SC 253, where  in  a<\/p>\n
land reserved for public park in the approved layout plan of<\/p>\n
a  residential  colony, when an unauthorised  allotment  was<\/p>\n
given  to  the  school,  the Apex Court  heavily  came  down<\/p>\n
against  the  Officer,  who  by  misusing  his  power   made<\/p>\n
unauthorised    allotment    and   permitted    unauthorised<\/p>\n
construction,  and held that such reallotment  is  not  only<\/p>\n
illegal but also unlawful.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    8. In Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S.Muddappa,<\/a> 1991 (4)<\/p>\n
SCC  54,  Justice  R.M.Sahai, held Public park  as  a  place<\/p>\n
reserved for beauty and recreation was developed in 19th and<\/p>\n
20th century and is associated with growth of the concept of<\/p>\n
equality  and  recognition  of  importance  of  common  man.<\/p>\n
Earlier  it  was  a prerogative of the aristocracy  and  the<\/p>\n
affluent  either as a result of royal grant or  as  a  place<\/p>\n
reserved  for  private pleasure. Free  and  healthy  air  in<\/p>\n
beautiful surroundings was privilege of few. But now  it  is<\/p>\n
a,  `gift  from  people to themselves’. Its  importance  has<\/p>\n
multiplied  with emphasis on environment and  pollution.  In<\/p>\n
modern  planning  and development it occupies  an  important<\/p>\n
place in social ecology. A private nursing home on the other<\/p>\n
hand  is essentially a commercial venture, a profit oriented<\/p>\n
industry.  Service  may  be its motto  but  earning  is  the<\/p>\n
objective. Its utility may not be undermined but a park is a<\/p>\n
necessity not a mere amenity. A private nursing home  cannot<\/p>\n
be  a  substitute for a public park. No town  planner  would<\/p>\n
prepare a blueprint without reserving space for it. Emphasis<\/p>\n
on open air and greenery has multiplied and the city or town<\/p>\n
planning  or  development Acts of different  States  require<\/p>\n
even  private house owners to leave open space in front  and<\/p>\n
back  for  lawn and fresh air. In 1984 the B.D.  Act  itself<\/p>\n
provided for reservation of not less than 15 per cent of the<\/p>\n
total  area of the layout in a development scheme for public<\/p>\n
parks  and playgrounds the sale and disposition of which  is<\/p>\n
prohibited  under Section 38-A of the Act. Absence  of  open<\/p>\n
space  and public park, in present day when urbanisation  is<\/p>\n
on  increase,  rural exodus is on large scale and  congested<\/p>\n
areas are coming up rapidly, may give rise to health hazard.<\/p>\n
May  be that it may be taken care of by a nursing home.  But<\/p>\n
it is axiomatic that prevention is better than cure. What is<\/p>\n
lost  by removal of a park cannot be gained by establishment<\/p>\n
of  a nursing home. To say, therefore, that by conversion of<\/p>\n
a  site  reserved for low lying park into a private  nursing<\/p>\n
home  social welfare was being promoted was being  oblivious<\/p>\n
of true character of the two and their utility.<\/p>\n
    9. Again in Pt.Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation<\/p>\n
of Delhi<\/a> 1995 (1) SCC 47,  the Apex Court while dealing with<\/p>\n
the  portion  of  the  land which was  reserved  for  public<\/p>\n
purpose  has clearly laid down the law as hereunder:<\/p>\n
”  6.  Reserving  any  site  for  any  street,  open  space,<\/p>\n
park,   school  etc.  in  a  layout  plan  is   normally   a<\/p>\n
public  purpose  as  it  is  inherent  in  such  reservation<\/p>\n
that  it  shall  be  used  by the  public  in  general.  The<\/p>\n
effect   of  such  reservation  is  that  the  owner  ceases<\/p>\n
to  be  a  legal  owner  of  the  land  in  dispute  and  he<\/p>\n
holds  the  land  for  the benefit of  the  society  or  the<\/p>\n
public   in   general.  It  may  result   in   creating   an<\/p>\n
obligation   in  nature  of  trust  and  may  preclude   the<\/p>\n
owner   from   transferring  or  selling  his  interest   in<\/p>\n
it.  It  may  be  true as held by the High  Court  that  the<\/p>\n
interest   which  is  left  in  the  owner  is  a  residuary<\/p>\n
interest  which  may  be  nothing  more  than  a  right   to<\/p>\n
hold   this   land   in  trust  for  the  specific   purpose<\/p>\n
specified   by  the  coloniser  in  the  sanctioned   layout<\/p>\n
plan.   But   the   question  is,  does   it   entitle   the<\/p>\n
Corporation   to   claim   that  the   land   so   specified<\/p>\n
should  be  transferred  to  the  authority  free  of  cost.<\/p>\n
That  is  not  made out from any provision  in  the  Act  or<\/p>\n
on  any  principle  of  law. The Corporation  by  virtue  of<\/p>\n
the  land  specified as open space may  get  a  right  as  a<\/p>\n
custodian   of  public  interest  to  manage   it   in   the<\/p>\n
interest  of  the  society  in general.  But  the  right  to<\/p>\n
manage  as  a  local  body  is not  the  same  thing  as  to<\/p>\n
claim  transfer  of  the  property  to  itself.  The  effect<\/p>\n
of   transfer  of  the  property  is  that  the   transferor<\/p>\n
ceases   to  be  owner  of  it  and  the  ownership   stands<\/p>\n
transferred   to   the  person  in  whose   favour   it   is<\/p>\n
transferred.   The   resolution   of   the   Committee    to<\/p>\n
transfer  land  in  the  colony  for  park  and  school  was<\/p>\n
an    order   for   transfer   without   there   being   any<\/p>\n
sanction for the same in law.\n<\/p>\n
\n…..\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   8.  For  these  reasons even though the judgment  and
\n   decree  of the High Court are liable to be set  aside
\n   but we refrain from doing so. Yet in order to protect
\n   interests of the owners of house and residents of the
\n   colony  it  is directed that the order  of  the  High
\n   Court shall stand modified to the following effect :<\/p>\n
     (1)The Corporation shall have right to manage the
\n     land which was earmarked for school, park etc.
\n     (2)The  Corporation shall not have any  right  to
\n     change  the  user  of  land which  shall  be  for
\n     beneficial  enjoyment  of the  residents  of  the
\n     colony.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)It is left open to the Corporation to get  the
\n     land  transferred in its favour after paying  the
\n     market  price as prevalent on the date  when  the
\n     sanction to the layout plan was accorded. ”<\/p>\n
                                   (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
     10.  We,  therefore,  appreciate the  interest  of  the<\/p>\n
residents of the area, who have purchased the plots  as  per<\/p>\n
the  approved  layout, that for the benefit of the  ecology,<\/p>\n
certain areas should be earmarked for garden and park so  as<\/p>\n
to provide fresh air to the residents of that locality.   To<\/p>\n
that  extent, we disagree with the learned Single Judge that<\/p>\n
the  residents of the locality are not necessary parties for<\/p>\n
the  simple  reason that respondents 1 to  3  have  got  the<\/p>\n
layout  approved,   as per the proceedings dated  17.7.1994,<\/p>\n
with  the  specific  conditions, referred  to  above,  which<\/p>\n
becomes the part and parcel of the terms of the sale  deeds.<\/p>\n
Therefore, virtually, these conditions, agreed by  the  land<\/p>\n
owner become the terms of covenant.  Therefore, it would  be<\/p>\n
too  harsh to say that the residents of the locality are not<\/p>\n
proper parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     11.  The  open space in a residential area or  in  busy<\/p>\n
townships is treated as lung space of the area. It  provides<\/p>\n
fresh   air   and   refreshment  to  the  persons   in   the<\/p>\n
neighbourhood.  Its  presence  ameliorates  the  hazards  of<\/p>\n
pollution and it has to be preserved and protected  for  the<\/p>\n
sustenance of the men around. It is for the health and well-<\/p>\n
being  of the inhabitants of the residential area. The  same<\/p>\n
cannot  be bartered for any other purpose. Apart from  that,<\/p>\n
in  view  of the conditions imposed by the fifth respondent,<\/p>\n
by   his  proceedings  dated  17.7.1974  addressed  to   the<\/p>\n
Executive  Officer, Ganapathy Town Panchayat,  which  remain<\/p>\n
unchallenged by the owners of the layout land for all  these<\/p>\n
years, the fourth respondent is estopped from using the area<\/p>\n
set apart as open space, for any other purpose.<\/p>\n
     12. Where open space for construction of public park is<\/p>\n
preserved  and  earmarked in the Plan for Development  of  a<\/p>\n
planned  town, the Authorities cannot ignore or  neglect  to<\/p>\n
develop that open space into a public park within reasonable<\/p>\n
time.  Unless  an open space reserved for a public  park  is<\/p>\n
developed  as  such, the execution of the plan  will  remain<\/p>\n
incomplete.  Buildings, as proposed in the  plan,  may  have<\/p>\n
come  up,  amenities  and  civic  amenities  may  have  been<\/p>\n
provided  and  the  people may have started  living  in  the<\/p>\n
colony,  yet  the  plan cannot be said to  have  been  fully<\/p>\n
executed, if an open space meant for a park is not developed<\/p>\n
as  such.  The  duty of the authorities is to implement  the<\/p>\n
plan  in  entirety making the area beautiful with attractive<\/p>\n
public  parks. Their job is not over when the  area  becomes<\/p>\n
habitable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     13.  Good parks expansively laid out are not  only  for<\/p>\n
aesthetic  appreciation, but in the  fast  developing  towns<\/p>\n
having conglomeration of buildings, they are a necessity. In<\/p>\n
crowded  towns  where a resident does not get  anything  but<\/p>\n
atmosphere  polluted by smoke and fumes emitted  by  endless<\/p>\n
vehicular  traffic  and  the  factories,  the  efficacy   of<\/p>\n
beautifully laid out parks is no less than that of lungs  to<\/p>\n
human  beings.  It is the verdant cover provided  by  public<\/p>\n
parks  and  greenbelts in a town, which renders considerable<\/p>\n
relief  to  the  restless public. Hence  the  importance  of<\/p>\n
public  parks  cannot be under-estimated. Private  lawns  or<\/p>\n
public  parks  are not a luxury, as they were considered  in<\/p>\n
the  past.  A  public park is a gift of modern civilization,<\/p>\n
and  is  a  significant factor for the  improvement  of  the<\/p>\n
quality  of  life.  Open  space for  a  public  park  is  an<\/p>\n
essential feature of modern planning and development, as  it<\/p>\n
greatly contributes to the improvement of social ecology.<\/p>\n
      14.  We  are therefore, of the firm opinion, that  the<\/p>\n
statutes in force in India and abroad reserving open  spaces<\/p>\n
for  parks  and play grounds are the legislative attempt  to<\/p>\n
eliminate  the  misery  of  disreputably  housing  condition<\/p>\n
caused  by urbanisation. Crowded urban areas tend to  spread<\/p>\n
disease, crime and immorality. Reservation of one space  for<\/p>\n
parks  and  play  ground  is  universally  recognised  as  a<\/p>\n
legitimate exercise of statutory power rationally related to<\/p>\n
the protection of the residents of the locality from the ill-<\/p>\n
effects   of  urbanisation  and  the  Apex  Court  decisions<\/p>\n
referred  supra, fully support the view that  the  area  set<\/p>\n
apart  for park as per the approved lay out plan, cannot  be<\/p>\n
used or transferred for any other purpose.<\/p>\n
      15.  Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy,  learned  senior  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for respondents 1 to 3, however, agreed  that  the<\/p>\n
area  reserved for public purpose would not be used for  any<\/p>\n
other  purpose  and has come forward to maintain a  park  in<\/p>\n
the said place.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       16.   In   view   of   the   above   undertaking   by<\/p>\n
Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy,  learned senior  counsel   appearing<\/p>\n
for respondents 1 to 3, we pass the following directions:<\/p>\n
   (i)  respondents 1 to 3 shall utilise the entire area
\n   reserved  for public purpose within a maximum  period
\n   of  six  months from the date of receipt of  copy  of
\n   this order;\n<\/p>\n
   (ii)  if  respondents 1 to 3 could not  maintain  the
\n   park   within   the   time  stipulated   above,   the
\n   Corporation, as a custodian of public interest, shall
\n   develop  the  area as a Park with the cooperation  of
\n   respondents  1  to  3,  with  whom  the   title   and
\n   possession would continue to remain;\n<\/p>\n
   (iii)       the  Corporation shall  not  collect  any
\n   property tax;\n<\/p>\n
   (iv)the  Corporation shall give access to the general
\n   public including the residents of the locality; and<\/p>\n
   (v)   the   Corporation  is  at  liberty  to  collect
\n   necessary  funds from the plot owners, who  purchased
\n   the  plots in the impugned layout for maintenance  of
\n   the park.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      17.   We  also  direct  the  Chief  Secretary,   Local<\/p>\n
Administration   Department,  State   of   Tamil   Nadu   to<\/p>\n
communicate  the copy of this order to all the local  bodies<\/p>\n
to scrupulously apply and follow the above directions to all<\/p>\n
the layouts sanctioned or to be sanctioned.  If there is any<\/p>\n
change or deviation in the purpose by the land owners or  by<\/p>\n
any  third  party, the same shall be objected to and  action<\/p>\n
shall  be  initiated as indicated above by  the  local  body<\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     For  the  reasons aforesaid, we hold that a portion  of<\/p>\n
land  reserved  for  public purpose in  a  layout  or  in  a<\/p>\n
development plan or master plan approved by the  local  body<\/p>\n
cannot  be used for any other purpose than the one specified<\/p>\n
therein.  These appeals are ordered accordingly. No costs.<\/p>\n
kpl\/sasi<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Commissioner
\n    Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
\n    Coimbatore 641 001<\/p>\n
2.  The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning
\n    Coimbatore~Nilgiri Region
\n    Coimbatore 641 018<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare … vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.04.2007 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA W.A. Nos.156 of 2000 and 45 of 2003 W.A. No.156 of 2000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare ... vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare ... vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-11T01:18:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare … vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T01:18:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3414,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare ... vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T01:18:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare … vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare ... vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare ... vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-11T01:18:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare … vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T01:18:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007"},"wordCount":3414,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007","name":"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare ... vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T01:18:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-devi-nagar-residences-welfare-vs-subbathal-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare … vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}