“Overarching Public Interest”: Madras High Court Permits State To Carry Out Development Works In Land That Was Leased To Madras Race Club
The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu government to carry out its development works for the strengthening of ponds to store excess rainwater and the development of Eco Park in the land that was earlier leased out to the Madras Race Club. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there was an urgent and compelling need for the State...
The Madras High Court has permitted the Tamil Nadu government to carry out its development works for the strengthening of ponds to store excess rainwater and the development of Eco Park in the land that was earlier leased out to the Madras Race Club.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there was an urgent and compelling need for the State to undertake the projects, which would eventually improve the air quality, reduce pollution sources, and prevent the city from being inundated.
The court thus modified an earlier order of a single judge that had ordered status quo in the case, thereby preventing the state's development.
“The findings in various reports including one referred supra would reveal serious systemic lapses in flood management and this in the considered view of this Court, demonstrate an urgent and compelling need for the State to undertake remedial, preventive and long-term infrastructural measures. The present projects viz., excavation and development of 4 ponds and creating of an Eco park, is conceived to improve air quality, reducing pollution sources, and preventing the city from being inundated/ravaged by floods due to rains and being pushed into the same cycle of environmental crisis,” the court observed.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The club had initially filed a suit against the Government Order terminating the lease with the club. The club had also filed an interim application asking it not to be dispossessed from the suit schedule property. While hearing the suit, the single judge had ordered a status quo.
The present appeal was filed against the order of status quo. It was submitted that the order was impeding the work relating to the development and strengthening of ponds, apart from the proposed eco park. It was submitted that with the onset of the monsoon and heavy rains being predicted, the order would adversely impact the public at large.
During the earlier hearing, the court had given interim relief to the State and allowed it to carry out all works relating to strengthening/development of the pond or any other project of public interest. Though the club also raised objections to Justice Subramaniam hearing the case, the judge refused to recuse from the case.
The club had also filed a Special Leave Petition, challenging the interim order of the division bench. The Supreme Court, however, refused to interfere with the interim order.
While hearing the appeal, the State informed the court that there are 4 ponds in the property already, which need to be strengthened/developed, and these ponds would mitigate adverse impact of floods in and around the property, including Velachery, Adambakkam, Madipakkam, Guindy, Pallikaranai and adjoining areas. The state also informed that the intended Eco park would promote tourism, maintain ecological balance, improve air quality and reduce pollution.
Discussing the devastation that was caused by the 2015 floods in Chennai city and the effects of recent climate change, the court noted that the proposed use of the property for the development of ponds and eco park would help maintain the ecological balance and hygienic environment by reducing pollution. The court added that the activities would further the state's constitutional responsibility enumerated under the Directive Principles.
The court also remarked that land was a scarce commodity and using it for the benefit of private individuals over the public would be against the doctrine of public trust.
“Land is a scarce commodity and it gets even more scarce in a cosmopolitan society like Chennai, thus to permit a group of private individuals to have control over such scarce public resource may also fall foul off Doctrine of Public Trust,” the court said.
Thus, considering the public interest involved in the case, the court was inclined to modify the order of the single judge and permitted the state to carry out the development works.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr. D. Ravichander, Special Government Pleader
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Vaibhav R. Venkatesh
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Madras Race Club and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
Case No: O.S.A.No.335 of 2025