Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Landmark Judgment Upholds Validity of Open Space Reservation Regulations, Ensuring Public Access to Recreational Areas

04 September 2024 9:52 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of Rule 19 of the Development Control Regulations (DCR), affirming the importance of open spaces and ensuring their accessibility for public use. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, resolves a long-standing legal dispute over the interpretation and implementation of regulations pertaining to open space reservations (OSR) in urban layouts.

The case, which was brought before the Court, involved a challenge to Rule 19 of the DCR, as well as related regulations governing open spaces. The Court examined the constitutional validity of the impugned Rule/Regulation and assessed whether it violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 300A (right to property) of the Constitution of India.

After a careful examination of the facts and legal arguments presented, the Court observed that Rule 19, being a statutory provision, was valid and not ultra vires the Act. The Court further determined that the impugned Regulation fell within the scope of the Act and was not ultra vires either.

One crucial aspect addressed in the judgment was the concept of communal and recreational purpose concerning the OSR areas. The Court interpreted the word "communal" to include not only the members of the layout but also the general public, particularly in cases where the layout exceeded 10,000 square meters. This interpretation emphasized the objective of the law to extend the benefits of open spaces to the wider community.

Supreme Court stated, "Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school, etc., in a layout plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general." This observation reinforced the notion that open spaces serve the common good and should be accessible to all.

The Court drew inspiration from international practices, including the United States, where the notion of required dedication and reservation of land for public purposes has been upheld even in the presence of constitutional provisions such as the taking clause under the 5th Amendment. This affirmed the legitimacy of regulations that ensure the provision of facilities like roads, streets, sewers, playgrounds, and parks in new subdivisions.

In light of these findings, the Court unequivocally concluded that the impugned Rule/Regulation did not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the property owners. It emphasized that the OSR areas should not be diverted for any other purpose and must be diligently utilized in accordance with the specified rules and regulations.

Furthermore, the Court recognized the need to balance justice and practicality, particularly in cases where certain portions of the gifted land had already been in use by the public. While the Court decided against reversing such land transfers, it directed that any excess land, beyond the area used for public access, be utilized solely for open space reservations.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 13, 2023

ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’  OWNERS   vs GOPINATH & ORS.

Similar News