Upload 2 files

supreme_court_orders.json

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+[
+  {
+    "title": "Madras High Court",
+    "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9263535/",
+    "bench": "D.Krishnakumar",
+    "judgment_text": "Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.\nThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash\n\n                       the order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the first respondent and also for\n\n                       direction to the respondents to issue permission to the petitioner for\n\n                       conversion of plots earmarked as public purposes into residential plots in\n\n                       the layout No.LP(TT) No.111/79 and LP/R (TT) No.44/84 in respect of RS\n\n                       Nos. 359,358/1 and 366/1, Neelagiri Therku Thottam Village, Medical\n\n                       College Road, Thanjavur.\n2. The brief facts of the writ petition is as follows:\nThe plots reserved and earmarked for the purpose of Playground and Park\n\n                       in the approved layout continue to remain vacant and the same was not\n\n                       effectively used. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on\n\n                       13.08.2011 to the respondents to permit the petitioner to convert the\n\n                       plots earmarked for public purposes under the approved layout LP (TT)\n\n                       No.111/79 and LP/R (TT) No.44/84 in respect of RS Nos.359, 358/1 and\n\n                       366/1, Neelagiri Therku Thottam Village, Medical College Road, Thanjavur\n\n                       into salable residential plots. The petitioner also undertook to handover\n\n                       10% of the space to the localbody authority by way of gift deed as required\n\n                       under the circular dated 30.05.1991 issued by the Director of Town and\n\n                       Country Planning, Chennai-2, wherein, it was decided that, if there is no\n\n                       demand from the public for conversion of such salable plots into public\n\n                       purposes like Kalyana Mandapam Community Hall, School, Shop etc. for 5\n\n                       years from the date of layout, the layout owners may be permitted to seek\n\n                       conversion of such reserved plots earmarked for public purposes into\n\n\n\n                       Page 3 of 20\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                          W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n                       residential plots and the requests from the land owners may be considered\n\n                       favourable by the Director of Town and Country Planning provided 10% of\n\n                       the space has to be handed over to the localbody authority by way of gift\n\n                       deed.\n2.3. The petitioner submitted several documents along with\n\n                       his representation dated 13.8.2011, however his representation was not\n\n                       considered. The respondents are bound to consider the representation of\n\n                       the petitioner dated 14.11.2011 in the light of the Circular, dated\n\n                       30.05.1991 issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai.\nHence, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10613 of 2011 before the Madurai\n\n                       Bench of this court to consider his representation and the court vide order\n\n                       dated       14.11.2011,   directed   the   2nd   respondent   to     consider    his\n\n                       representation after giving an opportunity to the petitioner in the light of\n\n                       the circular in ROC No.2165/91/DD1 dated 30.05.1991 issued by the Town\n\n                       and Country Planning, Chennai. Pursuant to the order of this court, the\n\n                       first respondent passed an order dated 28.11.2011, rejecting the\n\n                       representation of the petitioner.          Hence, he filed the present writ\n\n                       petition.\n3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and\n\n                       the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                     W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n4. The brief contentions raised by the third respondent in\n\n                       the counter affidavit is as follows:\n5. To substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel\n\n                       appearing for the third respondent relied upon a decision of the Honourble\n\n                       Supreme Court in PT. Chet Ram Vashist Vs. Municipal Corporation of\n\n                       Delhi reported in 1995 SC (1) 47, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court\n\n                       has held that the Corporation shall have a right to manage the land which\n\n                       was earmarked for school, park etc. and they shall not have any right to\n\n                       convert it as saleable plots which shall be for the benefit of the residents\n\n                       of the colony. The Honourable Supreme Court further observed that, it is\n\n\n\n                       Page 6 of 20\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                            W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n                       left open to the Corporation to get the land transferred in its favour after\n\n                       paying the market price as prevalent on the date when the sanction to the\n\n                       layout plan was accorded.\n6. Further a Division Bench of this court in its decision in\n\n                       Kirubakaran Vs. The Commissioner (East), Corporation of Coimbatore\n\n                       reported in 2013(6) CTC 441, by following the earlier decisions of the\n\n                       Honourable Supreme Court as well as this court, has rejected the\n\n                       contention of the appellant for granting remedy to use the land for\n\n                       construction of a private hospital by holding as follows.\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                         W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n7. He also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this\n\n                       court in    SIDCO Nagar Welfare Association Vs. Chennai Metropolitan\n\n                       Development Authority reported in 2018(5) CTC 857 , wherein, it is\n\n                       held as follows:\nAssociation has been rejected by the Government on the\n                                   premise that the land in question was never classified as\n                                   Park-cum-Play Field. This basis itself is erroneous. Once\n                                   it is found that the land is classified as a park-cum-play\n                                   ground in the original sanctioned plan, the question that\n                                   wold beg our attention is as to whether the government has\n                                   the power to reclassify the said land. Neither the Act nor\n                                   the Rules permit such reclassification.\n26.   The various judicial pronouncements of the\n                                   Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this court have also\n                                   declared that such lands which are reserved for communal\n                                   and recreational purposes cannot be converted or\n                                   reclassified into residential or commercial use zones. In\n                                   the light of the above factual scenario, the answer to the\n                                   first question framed by us should be that the land in\n                                   question was in fact reserved and shown as a Park-cum-\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                               W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n                                   Play ground, which is for communal and recreational\n                                   purposes, under Rule 19(a)(iii) of the Development Control\n                                   Rules that wee then in force. We must at once point out\n                                   that there is not much of a difference between the then\n                                   Development Control Rules and the present Development\n                                   Regulations, Development Regulation No.29, which deals\n                                   with the Layout sub-division in-pari-materia with the then\n                                   existing rule 19 of the Development Control Rules.\n27.     The second question is as to whether the\n                                   Government has the power to reclassify such lands. The\n                                   said question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme\n                                   Court in Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. S.Muddappa and\n                                   others, IR 1991 SCC 1902, while considering whether it is\n                                   open to the Government to convert a open space, which is\n                                   reserved for a park for the general good of the public into\n                                   a site for the construction of a privately owned and\n                                   managed hospital for private gains, the Hon'ble Supreme\n                                   Court held as follows:\nAfter observing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded\n                                   that the entire proceedings before the State Government\n                                   relating to the conversion suffered from absence of\n                                   jurisdiction even the exercise of powers was vitiated and\n                                   ultra virus.\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                             W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n28.     A similar question arose again before the\n                                   Hon'ble Supreme Court in PT.Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by\n                                   LRs. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1995(1) SCC 47,\n                                   wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the right\n                                   of   the     Delhi   Municipal   Corporation      to   permit\n                                   reclassification of the lands which were originally shown\n                                   as Park and School. After considering the provisions of\n                                   the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Hon'ble Supreme\n                                   Court had observed as follows:\n29. From the above observations of the Hon'ble\n                                   Supreme Court, it is very clear that the effect of a\n                                   reservation under Rule 19(a)(ii) of the Development\n                                   Control Rules is that the owner or the Developer ceases to\n                                   be the Legal Owner of the land and he holds the land for\n                                   the benefit of the society or public in general. The Hon'ble\n                                   Supreme Court further went on to observe that the\n                                   corporation or the owner cannot claim that they continue\n                                   to possess an interest in the land despite such reservation\n                                   having been made.\n30.   In Dr. G.N.Khajuria and others V. Delhi\n                                   Development Authority and others, 1995 (5) SCC 762, the\n                                   action of the Delhi Development Authority in allotting a\n                                   land reserved for park in a Residential Colony for a\n                                   nursery school was held to be bad and the Hon'ble\n                                   Supreme Court concluded that such allotment amounted to\n                                   misuse of power and is illegal, hence liable to be\n                                   cancelled.\n31. In a more recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble\n                                   Supreme Court in Lal Bahadur v. The State of Uttar\n                                   Pradesh, reported in AIR 2018 SCC 220, while dealing\n                                   with the power of the Government to reclassify a land\n\n                       Page 11 of 20\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                            W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n                                   which was shown as green belt in the Master Plan into a\n                                   residential zone set aside such conversion though\n                                   legislative powers were invoked in the said case after\n                                   referring to the judgment in Bangalore Medical Trust v.\n                                   S.Muddappa and others, cited supra. While doing so the\n                                   Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:\n32. A Division Bench of this Court in Sri Devi\n                                   Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Subbathal and\n                                   others reported in 2007 (3) LW 259, after referring to the\n                                   judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited supra, had\n                                   observed as follows:\nbeing of the inhabitants of the residential area. The same\n                                   cannot be bartered for any other purpose. Apart from that,\n                                   in view of the conditions imposed by the fifth respondent,\n                                   by his proceedings dated 17.7.1974 addressed to the\n                                   Executive Officer, Ganapathy Town Panchayat, which\n                                   remain unchallenged by the owners of the layout land for\n                                   all these years, the fourth respondent is estopped from\n                                   using the area set apart as open space, for any other\n                                   purpose.\n12. Where open space for construction of public\n                                   park is preserved and earmarked in the Plan for\n                                   Development of a planned town, the Authorities cannot\n                                   ignore or neglect to develop that open space into a public\n                                   park within reasonable time. Unless an open space\n                                   reserved for a public park is developed as such, the\n                                   execution of the plan will remain incomplete. Buildings, as\n                                   proposed in the plan, may have come up, amenities and\n                                   civic amenities may have been provided and the people\n                                   may have started living in the colony, yet the plan cannot\n                                   be said to have been fully executed, if an open space meant\n                                   for a park is not developed as such. The duty of the\n                                   authorities is to implement the plan in entirety making the\n                                   area beautiful with attractive public parks. Their job is not\n\n                       Page 13 of 20\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                                W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n                                   over when the area becomes habitable.\n13. Good parks expansively laid out are not only for\n                                   aesthetic appreciation, but in the fast developing towns\n                                   having conglomeration of buildings, they are a necessity.\n                                   In crowded towns where a resident does not get anything\n                                   but atmosphere polluted by smoke and fumes emitted by\n                                   endless vehicular traffic and the factories, the efficacy of\n                                   beautifully laid out parks is no less than that of lungs to\n                                   human beings. It is the verdant cover provided by public\n                                   parks      and   greenbelts   in   a   town,   which    renders\n                                   considerable relief to the restless public. Hence the\n                                   importance of public parks cannot be under-estimated.\n                                   Private lawns or public parks are not a luxury, as they\n                                   were considered in the past. A public park is a gift of\n                                   modern civilization, and is a significant factor for the\n                                   improvement of the quality of life. Open space for a public\n                                   park is an essential feature of modern planning and\n                                   development, as it greatly contributes to the improvement\n                                   of social ecology.\"\n33. Another Division Bench of this Court in\n                                   R.Chandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2010 (4)\n                                   CTC 737, had an occasion to consider whether the\n                                   Corporation of Chennai has the power to convert a play\n                                   ground into a underground parking lot and a commercial\n                                   complex. The Division Bench held that such a conversion\n                                   cannot be permitted and while doing so observed as\n                                   follows:\n34. Yet another Division Bench of this Court in\n                                   Kirubkaran and others v. The Commissioner (East),\n                                   Corporation of Coimbatore, Coimbatore, reported in 2013\n                                   (6) CTC 441, had considered whether the Corporation has\n                                   the power to permit construction of a private hospital in\n                                   the area, which is reserved for a public purpose. After\n                                   referring to Bangalore Medical Trust's case as well as Sri\n                                   Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association#s case, cited\n\n                       Page 15 of 20\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                          W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n                                   supra, the Division Bench rejected the contention that even\n                                   though an offer was made by the Hospital to treat 50% of\n                                   the patients free, the same cannot be held to be in public\n                                   interest and rejected the appeal upholding the order of the\n                                   learned Single Judge.\n37. We are therefore of the considered opinion that\n                                   the Government has no power to re-classify a land which\n                                   was reserved for communal and recreational purposes\n                                   (park-cum-play ground) under Rule 19(a)(iii) of the\n                                   Development Control Rules. Once we conclude that the\n                                   Government has no power, the impugned G.O., namely\n                                   G.O.3D.No.8 dated 24.08.2004, issued by the Government\n                                   would be invalid and per se illegal and hence liable to be\n                                   quashed. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\n                                   the Bangalore Medical Trust#s case, cited supra, the action\n                                   of the State Government suffers from absence of\n                                   jurisdiction.\n38. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the\n                                   considered view that the action of the Government in\n                                   converting the land that was reserved for park-cum-play\n                                   field into a mixed residential zone has to be set aside and\n                                   both the Writ Appeals will stand allowed and the Writ\n                                   Petitions in WP Nos.8867 of 2007 and 32896 of 2007 will\n                                   stand allowed.''\n8. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench of this court\n\n                       has held that the Government has no power to re-classify a land which was\n\n                       reserved for communal and recreational purposes (park-cum-play ground\n\n\n\n                       Page 16 of 20\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                     W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n                       and consequently, quashed the Government Order in G.O.3D No.8 dated\n\n                       24.08.2004 and consequently allowed the writ appeals.\n9. In the instant case, it is the contention of the petitioner\n\n                       that as per the approved lay out in Ram Nagar in the year 1979, three\n\n                       plots each measuring to an extent of 2400 sq.ft. of land were earmarked\n\n                       for public purpose and as per the approved lay out in Nethaji Subash\n\n                       Chandra Bose Nagar in the year 1984, an extent of 10,036 sq.ft. land was\n\n                       earmarked for the public purpose as play ground and park.\n10. The contention of the third respondent/ Commissioner of\n\n                       Thanjavur Municipality is that a residential lay out in R.S.No.358 part and\n\n                       359 of Thanjavur Town was approved by the Deputy Director of Town and\n\n                       Country Planning, Trichy in L.P. (TT) No.111/79 (Ram Nagar) Reservation:\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                     W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n11. The learned counsel for the third respondent further\n\n                       submitted that, as per the requirement, the layout reservation of roads,\n\n                       Children Play Space and park sites were gifted to the Municipality by way\n\n                       of gift deed in document No.1093/83 and the site for school reservation\n\n                       was not handed over to localbody. It is the specific contention that the\n\n                       school space should be used only for running school that can be sold only\n\n                       for the said purpose, but the lands earmarked as playground and park, by\n\n                       the Sanctioned authority in the lay out,          cannot be reclassified as\n\n                       residential plots.    Further, it is contended by him that that the plots\n\n                       \"reserved for salable purpose\" are Kalyanamandabam, school and shops,\n\n                       but in so far as the lands \" reserved for park and playground \" are\n\n                       concerned, the same cannot be sold as the public also utilised the said\n\n                       lands without any restrictions.\n12. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this\n\n                       court in SIDCO Nagar Welfare Association, rep. by its Secretary Vs.\n\n                       Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Member\n\n                       Secretary and others reported in 2018 (5) CTC 857, the land reserved\n\n                       for park-cum-play ground cannot be reclassified or converted even by the\n\n                       Government, as neither the Government nor the owner have any title over\n\n\n\n                       Page 18 of 20\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                                                                    W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n                       the same and it handed over to the localbody authority by way of gift\n\n                       deed for the public purpose at the time of approval of the layout and the\n\n                       actual right vests in the residents of the locality. Therefore, the relief\n\n                       sought for by the petitioner for conversion of plots earmarked as children\n\n                       play school and park into residential plots cannot be granted as it has no\n\n                       merits. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order\n\n                       passed by the first respondent and the writ petition is liable to be\n\n                       dismissed.\n13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and\n\n                       the decision cited supra, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.\n20.04.2021\n\n\n                       Index:Yes/No\n                       Internet:Yes/No\n                       Speaking/non Speaking order\n                       mst\n                       To\n1. The Director of Town and Country Planning,\n                          Office of the Director of Town and Country Planning\n                          No.807, Anna Salai, Madras 600 002.\n2. The Town Planning Officer, Thanjavur Municipal Officer,\n                          Gandhiji Road, Thanjavur 613 001.\n3. The Commissioner, Thanjavur Municipality,\n                           Thanjavur District, Thanjavur 613 001.\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n\f                                            W.PNo.2688 of 2012\n\n\n\n                                       D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.\nmst\n\n\n\n\n                                        W.P.No.2688 of 2012\n\n\n\n\n                                                20.04.2021\n\n\n\n\n                       Page 20 of 20\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/"
+  }
+]