Public purpose land in approved layouts vests with local authorities and cannot be converted or sold.

The Petitioner filed a writ of certiorari to quash a final show cause notice dated 17.04.2023 issued by the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, which directed the Petitioner to vacate an encroached portion of land reserved for "public purpose" in an approved layout.

The layout, approved in 1971, sanctioned 86 residential plots while reserving Plots A and B for public purposes; the Petitioner occupies Plot No. 87(A), which falls within the reserved area.

The Petitioner contended they were a bona fide purchaser and that their specific land was not part of the suit schedule in previous litigations (Second Appeal No. 510 of 2019) involving the same layout.

The Respondent Corporation maintained that public purpose lands vest with the local body and that other similarly situated encroachers had already been evicted following Supreme Court orders.

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a mere show cause notice regarding the removal of encroachments on public purpose land.

2. Whether a person who purchases land reserved for public purposes in an approved layout can claim rights against the local authority’s enforcement action.

Civil rights between parties cannot be adjudicated under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Land reserved for public purposes (such as OSR or streets) in an approved layout vests with the local authority and must be protected for public benefit, as established in Association of Vasanth Apartment’s Owners v. V. Gopinath and Others (2023 INSC 123).

Any sale or conversion of such public purpose land into residential plots is null and void.

The Court reasoned that a show cause notice typically does not provide a cause of action for instituting writ proceedings as it is a preliminary step in administrative action.

The Court observed that once a layout is approved, the areas designated for public purposes vest with the local body; consequently, any individual in occupation of such land is an encroacher.

The Petitioner’s claim of being a "bona fide purchaser" was rejected as a defense against the Corporation; the Court clarified that if the purchase was induced by fraud or misrepresentation by a vendor, the Petitioner’s remedy lies solely against that vendor, not against the public's right to the land.

Since the underlying legal issues regarding this specific layout had already been settled by the Supreme Court in related proceedings, the Petitioner could not claim immunity based on the technicality of the suit schedule.

The Court granted the Petitioner two weeks from the receipt of the order to submit a detailed explanation and documents to the Corporation.

The Respondent Corporation was directed to consider such representation and subsequently proceed with enforcement action if the land is confirmed to be a common purpose area.

No costs were awarded.