A Division Bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman said the Single Bench had applied the Rule which was applicable only to industrial development.
As long as open space area is not disturbed and the width of the road is maintained, it cannot be contended that the permission granted by authorities is liable to be set aside, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held while granting relief to a real estate promoter.The court was hearing appeals, including an appeal filed by Sankara Seetharaman of Visvas Promoters, against a Single Bench order directing that developments, if any, in the places earmarked for a primary school, park, community hall and open space had to be treated as unauthorised and were liable to be removed.The writ petition was originally filed by Agrini Enclave Houses and Flats Owners Association, seeking a direction to the authorities to remove unauthorised developments in areas earmarked for the park, community hall, primary school, the car parking, and the open space in the approved layout. The Single Bench allowed the petition. The appeals were filed challenging it.A Division Bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman said the Single Bench had applied the Rule which was applicable only to industrial development. The judges said the Single Bench was also of the view that specific areas allotted for the primary school, community hall, park, and the playground, in the original layout had been utilised by the promoter for his own monetary benefits. The permission was granted only for group housing and group development, which was permissible under a G.O.The very condition imposed at the initial stage indicated that any change of user could be effected only with the permission of the competent authority. Accordingly, subsequent permissions were obtained. It was not in dispute that the open space, viz., the lung space, had been maintained as the park, and the OSR was still maintained at more than 10%. The Corporation had also asserted in its counter affidavit that more than 10% was still being maintained.The only grievance was that the 10% area, other than the park and meant for the school and other recreational purposes, had not been utilised and had been sold. This area was always retained by the developer for its own interest. With the permission of the authorities, they retained it as an old building instead of demolishing it for use as the school. As long as the need for establishing the school had not arisen, it could not be said that the area should be utilised solely for that purpose.The lung space was still being maintained. What had been sold was only a saleable interest, the judges said and set aside the Single Bench order. Published - June 29, 2026 09:26 pm IST
