Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare ... vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007
“The land is vested in the Municipality
and the Government has no right and
title or interest therein. They have no
power to give either by lease to PSS or
deal with the property as if the land
vested in it. Therefore, the grant of
lease by the Government in favour of
PSS was clearly without authority of law
and jurisdiction. The open lands, vested
in the Municipality, were meant for the
public amenity to the residents of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
32
locality to maintain ecology, sanitation,
recreation, playground and ventilation
purposes. The buildings directed to be
constructed necessarily affect the health
and the environment adversely,
sanitation and other effects on the
residents in the locality. Therefore, the
order passed by the Government and
the action taken pursuant thereto by the
Municipality would clearly defeat the
purpose of the scheme. It is not possible
to accept the contention that for non-
user of open land by the Municipality for
more than two decades, the land stood
divested from the Municipality and
vested in them. Yet the Municipality has
to use the land for the purposes
envisaged in the Scheme read with
those found in Section 61 unless
unavoidable compelling public purpose
require change of user. Acceptance of
the argument encourages pre-emptive
action and conduct, deliberately
chartered out to frustrate the
proceedings and to make the result fait
accompli. The land having been taken
from the citizens for a public purpose,
http://www.judis.nic.in
33
the Municipality is required to use the
land for the protection or preservation
of hygienic conditions of the local
residents in particular and the people in
general and not for any other purpose.”
5.20.The Learned Senior Counsel for the 6th Respondent cites
the decision in Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association
V. Subbathal, (2007) 3 MLJ 990 wherein at paragraphs 12 to
17, it is observed as follows: