Court directed enforcement of the lock-and-seal order pending government consideration of regularisation.

The petitioner association and individual residents challenged the Commissioner’s lock-and-seal order dated 25 January 2023, as well as earlier municipal and Government proceedings, concerning a community hall constructed on land described as open-space reservation (OSR) land.

The petitioners’ counsel disputed that description, contending that the land had been earmarked as “well and garden.”

The Court recorded that no approval had been obtained for the construction, which had been put up in 1996.

The petitioners sought liberty to approach the Government for relaxation and regularisation.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to have the challenged lock-and-seal order and related proceedings quashed, thereby preventing interference with their claimed rights over the property and its use as a community hall.

2. Whether the petitioners could be permitted to seek Government relaxation and regularisation, and what interim course should apply to enforcement of the lock-and-seal order.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking certiorarified mandamus.

The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or substantive legal test governing construction on OSR land or regularisation.

The Court granted liberty to seek Government relief but did not hold that the construction was legally capable of regularisation or determine the parties’ underlying property rights.

The Court noted both the absence of approval for the hall and the petitioners’ request to seek relaxation and regularisation from the Government.

Rather than decide the disputed character of the land or the merits of the challenge to the impugned proceedings, it left those matters to be addressed through the petitioners’ proposed Government application.

It directed enforcement of the impugned order on 27 October 2026, while making the petitioners’ rights subject to the Government’s decision.

It granted the petitioners liberty to approach the Government for appropriate relief, subject to terms and conditions; any order obtained may be challenged by the private respondent.

The Commissioner was directed to enforce the impugned order on 27 October 2026, and the petitioners’ rights were to abide by the Government’s decision.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.