Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Considering the common contentions in both the writ petitions, a common order is passed taking the status of the parties as given in W.P.No.23980 of 2005.

4. The Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.23980 of 2005, hereinafter referred to as "The Association", are the purchasers of the plot in the approved layout, by name, Alamu Nagar in Sathyamalgalam Road, Coimbatore. The said layout was formed in the year 1983, approved by the statutory authorities, namely, the Deputy Director, Local Planning Authority and by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation. The total extent of the layout is 2.428 hectares equivalent to 6 acres. The layout consists of 54 plots and an area of 51 cents was reserved for public purpose for establishing a park and for maintaining the well. The purchasers of the various plots have put up their construction and are in enjoyment of the same. On coming to know that there were attempts to put up certain construction in the area reserved for public purpose, with a view to protect 51 cents of land reserved for public purpose, an association was formed by the purchasers under the name "Alamu Nagar Residents Welfare Association", registered on 1.6.2005. On verification of the construction activities going on in the reserved place for public purpose, the Association came to know about G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 15.2.2005, whereby, the Government had de-reserved the portion of land reserved for public purpose and converted the same as house site. The Association learnt that the said purchasers, respondents-4 to 6, who are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.25371 of 2002, had given a petition on 14.2.2005 to the Government for de-reservation of the land allotted for public purpose and the impugned proceedings was passed on 15.2.2005 permitting conversion of the area reserved for public purpose as house sites to an extent of 12,850 sq.ft. out of the total extent of 23,000 sq.ft.

16. Per contra Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Association/petitioners in W.P.No.23980 of 2005, challenging the order of the Government on re-classification, pointed out that the impugned order had been made by way of review of the earlier order rejecting the land owner's plea for re-classification. Once the layout has been sanctioned subject to certain conditions, particularly with reference to reserving an extent of land for public purpose, the Government has no authority to re-classify the land, thereby, releasing it from the original purpose. He referred to the decision reported in (2002) 3 MLJ 375 Villupuram Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Villupuram Vs. M. Subramanian and others) as well as 2007-3-L.W.259 (Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association V. Subbathal) that an area reserved for a public purpose cannot be undone by the Government under the provisions of the Act. He also referred to the decision reported in (2007) 4 MLJ 1006 (Karpaga Nagar Nala Urimai Sangam Vs. Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) wherein, dealing with the scope of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Corporation Act, this Court held that the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Corporation Act have to be read together and not in derogation of each other that while the Corporation Act provides for the obligations of the owners to provide sites reserving the same as common for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, on a mere non-compliance of the provisions of Section 26, 27 and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, there is no release of the particular area reserved as one for public purpose. He pointed out that the need to maintain the reserved plots as per the layout approval order is not a mere formality. He pointed out to G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 1.12.2000 which gives a specific direction that an area reserved for public purpose would not go for sale to be registered for private individuals. In the context of the approval to the layout granted, the resolutions as to the user of the land is a permanent one and cannot be changed vide (2006) 1 MLJ 181 (The Chairman, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. S. Radhakrishnan and Ors.). In any event, once an approval of the layout has been granted subject to reserving the area as for public purpose and the owner had also reserved the same and rightly the petition preferred by the purchasers/respondents 4 to 6 was rejected, there cannot be a further review of the same. He pointed out that Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act provides for a review of an order passed under Sections 76 to 78 and 80 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. The order passed by the Government being one under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act is not amenable to the review provisions. Referring to Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, learned senior counsel submitted that respondents-4 to 6 do not have any authority to deal with the reserved area and no person other than the State Government or the Central Government or a local authority shall erect a building in or over any land or make any material change in the use of the land or construct, except with the written permission of the appropriate authority. In the background of the said provisions and the facts, learned senior counsel pointed out that while granting the layout, once a land is reserved for a public purpose and the purchasers of the layout plots have been assured of the reservation, the respondents are estopped from making any material change in the sanctioned scheme of the layout and the same is legally binding on the respondents. The Corporation as well as the respondents have to maintain the land reserved for public purpose under trust for the other owners of the laid out plots. Consequently, any change in the character of the land reserved for public purpose would amount to violation of the contractual terms. In the above circumstances, the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 15.2.2005, unilaterally changing the purpose, is in violation of the conditions of purchase; hence liable to be quashed. He pointed out that the purchase by respondents-4 to 6 are not valid in law. Having regard to the sanctioned layout, they are bound to return the land reserved for public purpose as a trustee of the property, the land being common to all the land owners for their enjoyment.

60. The reservation under the sanctioned layout creates an obligation on the owner of the land and the Corporation in the nature of trustee to protect the interest of the public. So too, the purchasers of the plots in the sanctioned layout have the vested right for enjoying the common area fully. The Corporation and the owner have the legal necessity of respecting the expectation of the purchasers of the layout sanctioned plots that the earmarked portion continue to be available for public purpose; that neither the passage of time nor the whims and desires of the land owners affect the reservation of the land for public purpose.