(Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of declaration to declare that the Circular issued by the third respondent in ROC No.23739/2015/LA1, dated 29.12.2015 based on the Extract of the Minutes of the Subject No.19 of the Minutes of Meeting of the 30th Empowered Committee held on 27.11.2015 and its consequent conversion of open space reserved area of 24,746 square feet earmarked for reading room into residential use and subdivision of the same as house sites into 8 plots comprised in Survey No.143/624 in Pammal Village, in its Planning Permit No.12358/PPD/LO.No.40/2019 and ROC No.1689/2017 dated 11.04.2019 issued by the fifth respondent based on the application of the 6th and 7th Respondents are illegal, invalid and ultra vires and against the principles of public purposes and public demand.)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.

1. The petitioner, a registered residents' association, seeks a writ of declaration to declare Circular R.O.C.No.23739/2015/LA1, dated 29.12.2015 issued by the third respondent, pursuant to the resolution of the 30th Empowered Committee dated 27.11.2015, and the Planning Permit No.12358/PPD/LO.No.40/2019 and ROC.No.1689/2017, dated 11.04.2019 issued by the fifth respondent, approving the subdivision and reclassification of 24,746 sq. ft. of land in Survey No. 143/624, Pammal Village, into eight residential plots in favor of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, as illegal, invalid, ultra vires and against the principles of public purposes and public demand.

2. The petitioner association represents residents of Sankara Nagar, Pammal, where Stage-V of the layout was sanctioned in 1974 (D.T.P.No.134/1973). The approved layout designated a land parcel of approximately 24,746 sq. ft. (10.25 grounds) for a public amenity, specifically earmarked as a "Reading Room and Community Hall".

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once land is set apart for a public amenity in a sanctioned layout, it cannot be diverted for residential/commercial profit. He added that children and residents have used the vacant land as an open play space for decades. Converting this space to residential sites deprives the community of vital open infrastructure.

                     3.2. He further submitted that courts must intervene under Article 226 to prevent civic authorities from granting privatized exceptions on communal layout lands. He also emphasized that the moment the land was earmarked as a public place, it was vested with the local authorities, and the respondent authorities have no jurisdiction to pass orders converting the public property under the control of the third respondent into the private property of respondent Nos.6 and 7.

4. At the time of entertaining this writ petition, this court passed an interim order on 4.7.2019 granting an interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.6 and 7 from putting up any construction in Open Space Reserved Area earmarked as Reading room site. However, the said interim order was extended only till 1.10.2019. Admittedly, as on date, there is no interim order subsisting against respondent Nos.6 and 7.

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the sixth respondent and other learned counsel appearing for the respective respondent/authorities resist the writ petition contending that the law recognizes a sharp distinction between non-saleable Open Space Reservation lands (parks and playgrounds) and buildable public amenity plots (reading rooms, clinics, schools, or commercial shops).

                     5.2. It is further submitted that unlike OSR lands, which must be gifted free of cost to the local authority, the title to a buildable facility plot remains with the private owner and, in the instant case, neither the local body nor any public agency acquired or purchased the subject plot in over 45 years.

                     5.3. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is submitted that the planning authority examined the proposal in accordance with law and formally granted approval for reclassification and subdivision.

                     5.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that although the interim order originally granted was not extended subsequently, the sixth respondent displayed utmost respect for the judicial process and did not proceed with any construction activities, patiently awaiting the outcome of the present writ petition. He added that the sixth respondent had left the land unutilized for over 45 years.

                     5.5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the present writ petition is a second bite at the cherry. The same petitioner association, though its name was framed in the Tamil language in prior proceedings, had previously filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29943 of 2013 seeking almost identical relief and the said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 30.06.2016. It is emphasized that even at the time of disposal of W.P.No.29943 of 2013 on 30.06.2016, the Circular dated 29.12.2015 and the Minutes of the Empowered Committee Meeting dated 27.11.2015, which form the primary subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, were very much in existence and available, yet no challenge was mounted against them by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner thereafter filed Review Application (Writ) No.123 of 2016 against the order dated 30.06.2016 and the said review application was dismissed by this Court on 19.10.2016.

                     5.6. Learned Senior Counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the initial ex parte interim injunction stalled lawful development despite all statutory sanctions being obtained in accordance with law, causing serious financial prejudice and preventing the exercise of ownership rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution.

6. To appreciate the statutory mechanism governing conversion of unutilized public amenity plots, the relevant extract of the Minutes of the 30th Empowered Committee Meeting dated 27.11.2015 is set out below:

                     Extract from Minutes of the 30th Empowered Committee Meeting (Dated 27.11.2015):

                     “The Committee discussed in detail and decided that the Director can issue orders for conversion of use from public purpose (saleable only) to other allowable uses like residential etc., if the following are fulfilled:

                     a) The saleable plot/site earmarked for public purpose building has not been developed for the earmarked purpose and lying vacant for at least 5 years from the date of planning permission granted by the Planning Authority.

                     b) The same public purpose facility for which the plot is earmarked i.e. Kalyana Mandapam, Community hail, School, Dispensary etc., is available outside the approved layout within a vicinity of 2 to 3 kms.”

                     [emphasis supplied]

7. Before adverting to the merits of the challenge raised in the present writ petition, styled as public interest litigation, let us consider the true purport of a public interest litigation. Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was designed to expand locus standi, allowing public-spirited bodies to enforce statutory duties, prevent administrative arbitrariness and safeguard environmental and public assets held in trust by civic bodies. However, a PIL cannot be sustained where the grievance lacks statutory foundation and seeks to re-agitate matters settled in prior litigation.

8. There is absolutely nothing produced before this Court to show or establish that the authority which passed the impugned orders and circulars lacks the jurisdiction or power to pass such orders. The statutory power to formulate planning guidelines and approve layout modifications is fully vested in respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the relevant planning statutes.

9. The petitioner association cannot be permitted to repeatedly litigate the same subject matter. The Division Bench of this court had already disposed of W.P.No.29943 of 2013 filed by the very same petitioner on 30.06.2016, placing the decision within the administrative discretion of the authority. The subsequent review application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner failed to challenge the Circular dated 29.12.2015 or the Minutes dated 27.11.2015 at that stage despite their full availability, disentitling them from reopening settled issues under the guise of a fresh public interest litigation.

10. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to certain decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his claim.

                     (A) In Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa((1991) 4 SCC 54), the Supreme Court held that land reserved for a public park in an approved scheme cannot be converted into a private hospital site. The said decision is distinguishable on facts. The said decision concerned an established public park, where ownership was vested in the public authority for environmental protection. It does not apply to private, buildable facility plots where title remains with the owner and statutory rules expressly authorize conversion upon non-acquisition.

                     (B) In PT. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi((1995) 1 SCC 47), the Supreme Court ruled that a municipality cannot compel a private developer to transfer title of school or park sites free of cost without statutory authority and due compensation. In fact, this decision directly supports the plea of the sixth respondent. Designating private land for a civic facility does not divest the owner of title. Forcing an owner to keep private property unbuilt indefinitely without acquisition or compensation violates constitutional protections under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

                     (C) In Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association v. Subbathal(Judgment dated 12.4.2007 in W.A.No.156 of 2000), a Division Bench of this Court held that lands earmarked for public amenities cannot be arbitrarily diverted by local bodies without adhering to statutory conversion procedures. The said case dealt with arbitrary municipal redirection without statutory framework. Here, the reclassification was executed strictly pursuant to statutory Development Regulations and a published policy circular after a 40-year non-acquisition period.

                     (D) In Thai Nagar Welfare Association v. Special Commissioner((2008) 7 MLJ 458), the High Court set aside an administrative exemption that allowed non-buildable layout open space to be turned into commercial godowns. The said decision addressed mandatory non-buildable OSR. The subject property in this writ petition is a buildable amenity plot (Reading Room) governed by distinct regulatory rules allowing reclassification.

11. It is to be noted that in respect of OSR Parks/Playgrounds, it must be gifted free of cost to the local body via registered gift deed. Title vests in the municipality. Reclassification to private residential use is permanently prohibited. Whereas in respect of buildable facility plots reserved for community facilities like reading rooms, clinics, schools, the title remains with the private owner and requisition for conversion of such plots for residential plots, if any received from the owner of such plots is favourably considered by the department concerned, as has been stated explicitly by the second respondent in its counter affidavit.

12. The subject land (24,746 sq.ft.) was designated as a buildable facility site in 1974, but was never gifted to the Pammal Municipality, nor acquired by any government agency. The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent confirms that the authority evaluated the statutory criteria and accorded valid approval.

13. It is also apparent that between 1974 and 2019 (over 45 years), no public authority sought to acquire the site or construct a reading room and thereby the land remained unutilized for over four decades. Even when the interim order was not extended, the sixth respondent patiently refrained from undertaking construction activities during the pendency of this writ petition.

14. In the case at hand, when all the authorities have categorically held that the land in question is earmarked as “Reading Room” and “Community Hall”, even as per the DTCP approved layout and, therefore, it was resolved to permit conversion of reading room site into residential use upon subdivision, this court cannot infer based on the assertions of the writ petitioner that the property is under the control of the third respondent and not under the control of respondent Nos.6 and 7.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim injunction granted earlier is hereby vacated and W.M.P.No.31168 of 2026 is allowed, while dismissing W.M.P.No.18056 of 2019. There shall be no order as to costs.