Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.The contention of the petitioners is that the OSR (Open Space Reservation) land in the approved layout has been attempted to be sold by the original land owner in violation of the applicable Rules. Thus, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted.

3.As per the approved layout, sanctioned by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Tirunelveli, certain lands were reserved as open space. The Commissioner, Thoothukudi Corporation has also reiterated that the OSR lands must be protected in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Combined Building Rules, 2019.

6.The legal principles governing the protection of OSR land have been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Association of Vasanth Apartments' Owners v. Gopinath and others [(2023) 4 MLJ 353 (SC)]. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“22. It is further contended that the Rules/Regulations, being part of the master plan, are statutory and being framed under the Statute, they operate as law under Article 300A. Reliance is placed on Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Promoters and Builders Association and another [(2004) 10 SCC 796]. Reliance placed by appellants on Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) by Lrs. v. Municipal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 01:10:56 pm ) Corporation of Delhi [(1995) 1 SCC 47], is alleged to be misplaced. In the said case, there is no provision in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, under which, the Corporation could pass a Resolution to ask the appellant therein to transfer property free of cost. It is further contended that the Court may bear in mind that the Act replaced the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1920, which was based on the British Town and Country Planning and Housing Act, 1909. From the Statements of Objects and Reasons, it is contended that the Act was based on the Model Town and Country Planning Bill, which was prepared by the Ministry of Health and Housing of the Government of India after a comprehensive study of various Town Planning Enactments in the western countries. The regional concept in the Maharashtra Town and Country Planning Act, 1966 also made its presence felt. The Act is designed to serve legitimate state interest of planned development down to the regional limit. Crowded urban areas, create adverse living conditions. The reservation of open space for parks and playgrounds is universally recognised. The decision of this Court in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and others [(1991) 4 SCC 54], is relied upon. It is contended that the Act requires only the simple laying of Rules and Regulations under Section 123 of the Act. The laying of the Rules, which is not mandatory, if not followed, will not affect the validity of the Rules/Regulations. The terms of Section 123(2) are relied upon to contend that the Rules will come into effect even before they are placed before the Legislative Assembly and any modification made by the Assembly, will https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 01:10:56 pm ) apply only from the date it is carried out. Reliance is placed on Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. and others v. State of Haryana [(1979) 2 SCC 196]. It is further contended that acquisition under Chapter IV of the Act is not required in the facts. The area is not reserved in the master plan nor was any Notice published under Section 26 or 27. Acceptance of appellant’s contention would involve the need to compulsorily acquire all the reserved lands including areas such as setback areas, open spaces and other reserved area. Such interpretation would also render the provisions of Chapter VI, in particular Section 55, otiose. Chapter IV apply to areas reserved and notified in the master plan itself or to an area in excess of 10 per cent for proposed developed area of 3000 and above square meters or where area reserved is sought to be utilised for purpose not being communal or recreational, or areas, for which, there are other exceptions in the impugned Rules/Regulations. Section 20(1)(d) stipulates that a detailed development plan may propose or provide for acquisition by purchase, exchange or otherwise, of any land. The words ‘or otherwise’ include a transfer of 10 per cent of the land by way of a gift. It is further contended that there is no constitutional obligation to pay compensation. The Act contemplates divestment of property without compensation as is evident from Sections 31 and 55 read with Sections 17 and 20. It is a settled position of law that Article 300A does not involve or compel payment of compensation. Support is drawn from Judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another. v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 7 MLJ 1185]:
7.The Thoothukudi Corporation has filed a counter-affidavit and the relevant paragraph No.13 reads as under:
“13.I respectfully submit that in any event the fifth respondent Corporation is ready to maintain the OSR as park, further as per Rule 41 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Building Rules, 2019, 10% of total extent (ie.,) 10.02 acres, have to be maintained for open space reservation for every layout, hence 1.002 acre have to be maintained as open space, further the layout only permitted 110 plots but as of now there are more than 140 plots, further even in the affidavit in para 5, it is stated that almost 131 plots, which clearly shows that nearly, atleast 21 plots was encroached over the open space https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/08/2025 01:10:56 pm ) reservation as per law, and in such circumstances this Hon'ble Court may please to pass necessary orders.”