Parks And Playgrounds Are Lungs Of City, Lands Earmarked Should Not Be Used For Anything Else: Madras High Court

The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice P Dhanabal observed that as per Section 32(4) and Section 122 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019, the building and use of land shall conform to the conditions imposed while sanctioning the land.

The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the President of the Arulanandammal Nagar Welfare Society. The society was an association of plot holders in a particular layout where one Ponnamani's land was reserved for building a school in the Detailed Development Plan under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

Ponnamani had initially approached the High Court seeking directions to the Director of Town and Country Planning to convert this property into residential plots. The Single Judge, noting that the land had not been developed for 5 years, directed the authorities to decide in this regard. The association argued that Ponnamani had purchased the land earmarked for schools on the condition to construct schools and thus could not be allowed to change the use of the land as per convenience to the detriment of the plot holders.

Relying on a circular issued by the Town and Planning Department, POnnamani, on the other hand, submitted that if the public purpose for which the plot was earmarked was available within the vicinity of 2-3kms from the approved layout, the department could allow conversion of the land from public purpose to other uses. It was also argued that in the sale deed, there was no condition of constructing a school on the land and only in the narration the property was mentioned as school land.

The court noted that in the present case, the reserved land had not been used for any public purpose, and as per the Act if any land is not used for 5 years, the reservation stood lapsed. The court further noted that in the layout also, the land was earmarked for a school and not an open space, park, or playground.

The court further noted that there were about 15 to 16 schools within the periphery of the 2km-3km of the side and thus as per the existing circulars and notifications the plot reserved could be converted from public purpose to any other allowable purpose. Thus, finding no fault with the order of the single judge, the court dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R.Karunanidhi, Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 97

Case Title: V Boovalingam v Ponnamani and Others

Case No: W.A(MD)No.265 of 2024