Madras High Court Orders Demolition Of Church, Says Land Reserved For Community Hall Can't Be Diverted

Holding that land earmarked as 'Community Hall' or for any specific purpose by Town Planning Authority cannot be used for any other purpose including public purpose, the Madras High Court directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to demolish a church illegally built on such land within 2 weeks. The Court found that the disputed land, measuring about 15 grounds and 1,625 sq.ft. and earmarked as a Community Hall in the layout approved in 1974, was being used for running a hotel and a church by the layout promoter. The Court noted that there was no material to show that permission had been obtained for putting up the church.“The lands, which have been earmarked for a particular public purpose in a layout, which has been approved by the Town Planning Authority, cannot be converted/used for any other purposes, even be it another public purpose...The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation is further directed to take necessary action and demolish the church, which has been illegally put up in the aforesaid lands by the layout promoter within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be informed to the District Collector, Chennai District,” Justice M Dhandapani said while relying on the Division Bench judgment in K. Rajamani v. Alamunagar Residents Welfare Association.It further directed District Revenue Officer of the Corporation to a issue notice to the hotel also operating in such land, within a four weeks for vacating the premises and ensure that the land is used as a community hall. The Court said that even if permission had been granted for the church by the District Collector, the said permission would have been impermissible and illegal in view of the decision of this Court in Alamunagar Residents Welfare Association case“The layout promoter cannot change the purpose from that of a community hall to any other purpose and, therefore, putting up of a hotel and a church in the land earmarked for community hall is against the approval granted by the Town Planning Authority and, therefore, necessarily, the building which has been put to use for the said purposes now are to be stopped and the said lands could only be used as a community hall,” the Court held.Open Space Reserve (OSR) or private land?The Court, however, did not finally decide who owns the disputed land. It held that unless the nature of the land is first determined—specifically, whether the Community Hall land constituted an Open Space Reserve (OSR)— neither the petitioner, Injambakkam VGP Layout Owners Association, nor the layout promoter, VGP Housing, could claim exclusive right and title over it.In the present case, the Court noted that no material had been placed either by the petitioner or by the layout promoter or by the official respondents to determine the nature of the land. The Court found that the Regional Deputy Commissioner (South) had erred by determining the right and title of VGP Housing without first determining whether the land earmarked for the Community Hall was OSR land.“Therefore, without determining the question as to whether the space reserved for 'community hall' is an Open Space Reserve land, which is meant for a public purpose, the 2nd respondent ought not to have dwelled on the right and title of the layout promoter to the said lands,” the Court held.The court thus set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter for a fresh determination on whether the land qualifies as an OSR. "The Regional Deputy Commissioner (South) is directed to take up the matter on file and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and permitting the parties to file all necessary materials, shall dispose of the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order," the court added. It observed that if the land was found to be reserved for public purpose, appropriate steps would have to be taken for its transfer to the concerned authority. Conversely, if it was found not to be reserved, a clear finding to that effect would have to be recorded before the layout promoter could claim right and title over it.Pending that determination, the land cannot be used for any purpose other than a Community Hall, the Court held. The petitions were filed by the Injambakkam VGP Layout Owners Association. They represented the plot owners in VGP Golden Beach Layout at Injambakkam. The layout promoter, VGP Housing Pvt. Ltd., had acquired around 27 acres and 23 cents in 1972 and subsequently obtained layout approvals in 1973 and 1974. The layout plan, common areas were earmarked for use as play space, parks, a Community Hall among others.The Association claimed that the layout promoter has been misusing the Community Hall and its appurtenant land.It alleged that the Community Hall was being used as a Kalyana Mandapam and that steps were subsequently taken to use the premises for a restaurant/showroom.After the Association approached the authorities, the Regional...

Madras High Court Orders Demolition Of Church, Says Land Reserved For Community Hall Can't Be Diverted

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amruta Gangajaliwale

Madras High Court Orders Demolition Of Church, Says Land Reserved For Community Hall Can't Be Diverted

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amruta Gangajaliwale

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers