Local bodies may take possession of earmarked OSR land despite non-execution of a gift deed.

An approved housing layout earmarked roads, parks, public-purpose areas and open-space reservation (OSR) land. The original promoter did not execute a gift deed conveying the OSR land to the local body.

The petitioner, who had purchased 3 cents and 268 sq. ft. from the promoter and held a patta in his name, challenged a Coimbatore Corporation notice directing him to vacate and hand over the OSR land.

The notice followed earlier proceedings and an enquiry in which the petitioner participated, pursuant to this Court’s directions in an earlier writ petition.

He contended that ownership had not been transferred and that the Corporation could not claim the land.

1. Whether the Corporation could require the petitioner to vacate and hand over land earmarked as OSR in an approved layout despite the absence of a gift deed.

2. Whether the impugned notice should be quashed on the grounds that the petitioner held title and a patta, and that the matter had already been considered in earlier proceedings.

The Court relied on Association of Vasanth Apartment Owners v. V. Gopinath, 2023 INSC 123, for the proposition that non-gifting does not absolve the local body’s right to take possession of OSR land, which must be used only for its designated public purpose.

It also cited V.N.R. Nagar Welfare Association v. The District of Town and Country Planning & Ors., CDJ 2024 MHC 2168, which required planning violations and encroachments to be addressed through due process and an opportunity to affected persons.

The Court additionally quoted Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) by LRs v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1995) 1 SCC 47: reservation for public purposes may leave the owner with only a residual interest and allow the local body to manage the land for public benefit, but the right to manage is not itself a right to claim transfer of ownership without legal authority.

The Court treated the land’s designation as OSR in the approved layout as controlling its permitted use and relied on Vasanth Apartment Owners to conclude that the absence of a gift deed did not prevent the local body from taking possession and maintaining the land for its designated purpose.

It noted that the petitioner had received opportunities to contest the Corporation’s position, including an enquiry following the earlier writ proceedings, and found that the present grounds repeated those previously raised.

Although the Court quoted Pt. Chet Ram Vashist on the distinction between managing reserved land and acquiring its ownership, it dismissed the petition without separately reconciling that principle with its conclusion on the Corporation’s authority to take possession.

It dismissed the writ petition, made no order as to costs, and closed any connected miscellaneous petitions.