In Supreme Court of India
Writ Petition Appeal No. 8261 of 1984
T. Damodhar Rao And Ors.
The Special Officer, Municipal corporation
Date of Judgement
20 Jan. 1987
Justice P. A Choudhary
1. In this case the petition has been filed by the resident and the rate of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
2. These residents are living around the marked area that is specifically left for the development of a park on that area.
3. Rate payers and the residents filed a petition before Andhra Pradesh High court challenging the permission granted by municipality to the Life Insurance Corporation of India and Income Tax Department to construct their residential houses in the area to which the park was allotted.
4. In the petition they request the court to instruct Municipal Corporation public Park according to the development plan which was made earlier. In that development plan it was decided to cover 99.19cents acres of land by the park.
5. However, 37% of that land was acquired for the purpose of building homes of LIC. Small portion of that land was sold to the Income Tax Department because they also wanted to get houses in that area.
6. In this case the petitioner challenge before High court Andhra Pradesh that 51 acres of land out of 151. Cents in plan should not allowed to be used by LIC and IT Department .
Issues raised in the case:-
- Whether the Income Tax Department and LIC can legally use a land to accomplish their residential purpose.
The petitioner argued that residents residing that area are very economically backward as well as poor. According to the further affidavit allegations, majority of the residents of Hyderabad have no space and open spaces left to make them relax and lead healthy life. Additionally they argued the Municipal Corporation bound by law to not to permit any part of that land to be for any purpose other than the development of park.Furthermore, the petitioner argued that with the purview of Section 112 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 creates imposition of mandatory duty on Municipal Cooperation to make provisions for public parks as well as garden ,playground etc. Therefore, it is a statutory obligation of the Corporation to develop park in that recreational zone as was decided in the development plan.
In this case the respondent submitted a letter which was wrote by Special officer of Municipal Corporation in which it was written that in the year 1975, the developmental plan for twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad has come into force. In the developmental plan, the entire stretch of Land from lower Tank Bund Road to Hussain Sagar surplus has been earmarked for recreational zone wherein residential houses are not permitted . They further argued that it is not illegal to permit LIC and Income Tax Department to acquire the land.
Judgement of the case:-
The apex court after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the parties that is LIC and I. T. Department have been well within their legal powers as owners of their properties to build residential houses. But that ownership right which is in question is being curtailed in the development plan. The law used is the enjoyment of the ownership rights subjective to the requirements of the development plan . Along with this the Court also observed that declarations regarding demarcations of the land user contained in a development plan published under statutory authority are statutorily enforceable under Section 112 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955. This provision creates legal duties as well as imposes legal obligation on the land owners and public authorities. The Court held that using of that land by Income tax Department and LIC is illegal and contrary to law.The Court issued mandamus forbidding respondents from raising any structures.
Significance and Critical analysis of development:-
The judgement pronounced by the honourable judge is reasonable and justified as per my view as it protects Article 21 of Indian Constitution under various heads. The judgement protects the theory of ownership in the constitutional point of view that means according to the judgement enjoyment of life and its attainment under the Article 21 of Indian Constitution is not bad and reasonable. As we know constitution always embraces the preservation and protection of mother earth without which life cannot be enjoyed. Restrainment from enjoying of natural resources should be regarded as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution under the ambit of Right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, pronouncement of the honourable judges satisfy the provisions of Constitution of India as well as equity and good conscience