The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the respondents to stop the construction of wards on land meant for a public park and held that the construction activity would be in violation of Articles 21, 49, 51-A(g) of the Constitution as the existing park area which is the only open space in the residential area can be destroyed and the citizens particularly the residents of the area would be deprived of the quality of life to which they are entitled under the law and to maintain ecology of the area.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners, residents of Balaji Colony in Tirupati, which purchased land and formed a Layout with the permission of the Tirupati Municipality. The petitioner made a representation to Municipality seeking permission to install a gate from the southern side of his house but the Municipality replied that it is not possible since the said place is earmarked as Park as per the layout, meanwhile, the respondent staff at the behest of the local politicians started clearing the park area and informed the residents around that a ward Sachivalayam and Community Hall is going to be constructed in the said place. The present petition was then filed by the petitioners under Article 226 seeking to restore and develop the public park on the land as it was meant for the public park as per the layout.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondent had admitted that the said area was earmarked for public purpose as per the layout and the averment of the respondent that it was earmarked for a public purpose, but not a public park, was preposterous and absurd. It was further argued that the public purpose necessarily means that the place earmarked for parks, community halls, playgrounds, utilities etc and the courts while dealing with similar issues have held that the construction of Ward Sachivalayam cannot be constructed in the ‘place earmarked for a public purpose’.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the subject site was not earmarked for a park and the same was vacant since the formation of the layout in the locality and there were no trees in the said land and the petitioners have no prima facie case to file the present writ petition. It was further argued that the site was vested with the respondent corporation for several years and they had filed the present petition for their personal gain with an intention of grabbing the land.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that in view of the law declared in a catena of perspective pronouncements, the site reserved for a public purpose in the layout cannot be used for any other purpose and it is for the benefit of the public and if any conversion is permitted to such land, the residents of the layout will lose not only their amenities and also right to enjoy clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civil amenities like roads etc., and such conversion is impermissible under the law and thus any conversion of land reserved for public purpose into house sites by the State depriving the residents of layout to enjoy the benefit in the reservation of such plots for public use is grave illegality.
The court after referring to various judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions stated that the open spaces vested in the Local Authorities while making layouts are held by them under Public Trust and they are obliged to utilize such open spaces exclusively for the purpose for which they were earmarked and any deviation, for however different laudable object, will not subserve the interest of the public and thus the proposed construction by the respondents cannot be given approval and the construction activity would be in violation of Articles 21, 49, 51-A(g) of the Constitution as the existing park area which is the only open space in the residential area can be destroyed and the citizens particularly the residents of the area would be deprived of the quality of life to which they are entitled under the law and to maintain ecology of the area.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents not to construct Ward Sachivalayam and community hall by converting the place earmarked for the park in the land and to restore and develop the public park in the said land.
Case Title: Danda Narasimhulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.24011 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Gangaiah Naidu and N. Bharath Babu
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Mr. G.V.S. Kishore Kumar and Mr. M. Manohar Reddy
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
