Madras High Court
M/S. Jain Housing vs Pammal Municipality on 12 November, 2018
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P.No.7658 and 7659 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No. 9555 of 2018
M/s. Jain Housing,
A partnership Firm,
rep. by its Authorized signatory,
Mr.Vasudevan,
Having office at NO.98/99,
Habibullah Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 ... Petitioner in both W.Ps.
Vs
Pammal Municipality,
rep. by its Executive Officer,
Having office at Pammal,
Chennai - 600 075 ... Respondents in both W.Ps
Prayer in W.P.No.7658/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
forbearing the respondent, its men, officers, subordinates, etc., from
in any manner converting the area measuring 5620 sq.mts. reserved
for park in approved Layout No.87 of 2006 comprised in
S.Nos.168/1A, 168/1B and 168/3 of Pammal Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Prayer in W.P.No.7659/2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondlent to grant permission to the petitioner to develop and
maintain Open Space Reservation area measuring 5620 sq.mts
reserved for park in Approved layout No.87 of 2006 comprised in
S.Nos.168/1A, 168/1B and 168/3 of Pammal Village, Tambaram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District.
For Petitioner in both W.Ps. : Mr.M.V.Seshachari
For Respondents in both W.Ps : Mr. P.Srinivas
ORDER
W.P.No.7658 of 2018 has been filed restraining the respondent Municipality from constructing a micro compost yard in the area earmarked for public purpose in a lay out.
2. W.P.No.7659 of 2018 has been filed seeking permission to develop and maintain the open space area reserved for park by the petitioner themselves
3. According to the petitioner, in a approved lay out, certain extent of area has been earmarked public purpose and it was also http://www.judis.nic.in gifted to the respondent Municipality in the year 2006. Thereafter, the 3 respondent Municipality did not take any steps to develop the said area and kept it vacant. Now, all of a sudden, the Municipality is constructing a micro compost yard in the area reserved for park, which will cause serious pollution and cause health hazard to the people residing in that area. In the said circumstances, W.P.No.7658 of 20187 has been filed restraining the respondents from putting up any construction for compost yard.
4. The respondent municipality filed a counter affidavit stating that, the respondent municipality is dumping wastes in the Municipal Compost Yard in Survey No.151, Pammal Village. As it is difficult to manage huge volume of wastes with the open compost Yard. After the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, has been notified, several steps have been taken for the disposal of the wastes. The disposal of wastes is now only to be done in source segregated manner by the individual residents. Now, in order to process the biodegradable wastes such as kitchen and vegetable wastes collected in each surrounding area, small Micro Compost Plants are being set by the respondent throughout the Pammal Town. As of now, 7 plants are to be established including one that of the plant in the site in dispute. It is only for use of the public benefit, the park site is actually being developed as a recreational facility at the cost of Rs.34 lakhs. A part of the project to provide for the Micro Composit Plant at the park site was http://www.judis.nic.in 4 sanctioned under Swachh Bharath Mission with 90% Government of India grant, along with ULB participation. The processing area required for micro composting facility is less than 672 sq.mt. and the total area available as a park site is to the extent of 5620 square meters or about 60,500 square feet. The Micro Compost Yard, being constructed, only to an extent of 7100 sq.ft, which is very meagre extent compared to the total park area. The petitioner is developing the layouts with huge multi storied building in that area, and the wastes generated by the residents are to be properly processed and disposed by the Micro Compost Plant, by which, the environmental pollution will be reduced and the petitioner will be benefited by the same, and they will not be affected by the Micro Compost yard.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the area is earmarked for public purpose, it can only be developed for public purpose like park and playing area and the respondent cannot convert it for waste dumping.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on a order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.32938 of 2011, dated 14.03.2018, wherein the Division Bench has held as follows :-
http://www.judis.nic.in 5 " 25. In modern days, construction of Micro Compost Yard in a small portion of the public place cannot be said to be against public interest, when vegetable waste and garbage are thrown on the roads and vacant sites of private property. In the 21st Century, if setting up of Compost Yard is opposed, when admittedly the same is not against public interest, the persons, who are opposing these welfare/good activities, are certainly doing disservice to the community at large. When the Government comes forward with these kinds of benevolent acts, they are to be whole heartedly welcomed by the Homo sapiens. "
He has also relied another judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 26581 of 2017 dated 22.01.2018 and contended that constructing a compost yard is also for a public purpose, and it cannot be construed as a change of user.
6. Considering the rival submission, it is seen that the respondent municipality is only going to construct a micro compost yard in a small extent of 7100 sq.feet of the land, out of the total extent of 60,500 sq.feet earmarked for public purpose. It is stated http://www.judis.nic.in 6 that the micro compost yard is only going to process the wastes generated by the residents in the neighbouring area, by which the petitioner is also going to be benefited. In the said circumstances, I find no illegality on the part of the respondents in using the space for constructing a compost yard, which is also for a public purpose.
7. So far as the writ petition in W.P.No.7659 of 2018 is concerned, now the respondent municipality has filed a counter affidavit stating that they are going to develop the park site as Compost Yard in a smaller extent of the area and in the remaining areas, at the cost of Rs. 34 lakhs, the Municipality going to develop the area. Hence, there is no necessity to hand over the area to the petitioner.
8. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.11.2018 mrp Speaking order/Non speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To Pammal Municipality, rep. by its Executive Officer, Having office at Pammal, http://www.judis.nic.in Chennai - 600 075 7 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J., mrp W.P.No.7658 & 7659 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.9555 of 2018 12.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in