Judgment :- This writ petition is for issue of a mandamus forbearing the respondent Corporation of Madras from putting the playground located between the second cross street and first cross street, Trustpuram (Major) Kodambakkan, Madras. 600 024 within the specified boundaries either directly or through licensees or lessees to use other than what it is intended for, viz., a play field. 2. It is the case of the petitioner's counsel that the play ground referred to in the prayer of the writ petition is a play field within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Parks, Play fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act (XXVI of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and there is a clear prohibition under Section 6 of the Act preventing the land being put to use for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was used on the date of coming into the force of the Act, without the previous sanction of the Government. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the land is not declared as a playfield within the meaning of the Act and S. 6 of the Act will not apply. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is absolutely no averment in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner that the land in question is a playfield as defined by the Act. 3. Before referring the relevant provisions of the Act. It is necessary to advert to the following averments found in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitioner :- "Trustpuram Colony (Major) at Kodambakkam was developed under a scheme formulated under the City Improvement Trust Act in the year 1956-57. Under the said Scheme apart from providing for residential building, a playground was also provided. The said playground is at present situate between the second cross and fourth cross street. After the colony was developed and occupied by several residents, the said playground was handed over to the Corporation of Madras and is at present vesting with the Corporation of Madras, the respondent above named. The said Corporation has also displayed a sign board "Corporation Playground". The said playground is regularly used by many of our colony residents as playground and the respondent itself has located a gymnasium which youngsters of our area have been actively using the said facility for the past several years. The said Corporation has also displayed a sign board "Corporation Playground". The said playground is regularly used by many of our colony residents as playground and the respondent itself has located a gymnasium which youngsters of our area have been actively using the said facility for the past several years. This playground is also used by the students of the Government High School situate at Arcot Road, Madras 600024 as a playground....." * I submit that in the locality more than 750 families are residing. The playground is not only utilised by the residents of the Trustpuram but also the residents of Rangarajapuram, Varadarajapuram, United India Colony, Ganga Nagar, etc. 4. No doubt, the Corporation of Madras has not filed any counter-affidavit in this matter, but learned counsel for the respondent has taken the stand that there is no necessity for the respondent to file a counter-affidavit since there is no averment in the affidavit to bring the land within the definition of playfield contained in the Act. 5. The Act received the assent of the Governor on 19th February, 1960. By virtue of S. 1(3), the Act came into force in the City of Madras immediately. S.2(e) defines a playfield and piece of land adopted for the purposes of play, game or sport and used by schools or clubs. S. 3 enjoins the executive authority and in this case, the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras, to prepare a list not later than six months from the date on which the Act came into force in the area within the jurisdiction of the local authority and submit the same for the approval of the Government. Such list shall be correct and complete with plans and maps of all the parks, playfields and open spaces in the area referred to containing such particulars as may be prescribed. Sub-sec.(2) of S.3 states, the Government shall as soon as may be, after the receipt of the list and other documents referred to in sub-sec. (1) publish the list in the prescribed manner and such publication shall state at what place and time the maps, plans and documents aforesaid will be available to the public for inspection. Sub-sec.(2) of S.3 states, the Government shall as soon as may be, after the receipt of the list and other documents referred to in sub-sec. (1) publish the list in the prescribed manner and such publication shall state at what place and time the maps, plans and documents aforesaid will be available to the public for inspection. S.4 provides for objections or suggestions in writing being made by any person interested with regard to anything contained in or relating to the list to the Government, within three months from the date of publication under sub-sec. (2) of S. 3. The Government has to consider the objections and suggestions and make such inquiry as it thinks fit and approve the list with or without modifications. The approval of the Government under sub-sec. (3) of S. 4 shall be published in the prescribed manner and such publication shall contain the list and shall also state at what place and time, particulars relating to the matters mentioned in the list will be available to the public for inspection. It is only a park, playfield or open space which is specified in the list published under S. 4 or 5 of the Act which will fall under S. 6 which reads as follows : No park, playfield or open space specified in the list published under S.4 or 5 shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, be used for any purpose other than the purpose or purposes for which it was used on the date of the coming into force of this Act under sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 or on the date with effect from which this Act is extended to the local area concerned under sub-sec. (4) of S. 1. as the case may be". 6. The language of S. 6 is very clear that it will apply only to such parks, playfields and open spaces specified in the list published under S. 4. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent asserts that the land in question was not included in any list published under S. 4 of the Act. There is no averment in the affidavit of the petitioner that the land in question has been included in any such list, nor any document has been produced by petitioner to support the contention that it is a playfield falling within the scope of the Act. 8. There is no averment in the affidavit of the petitioner that the land in question has been included in any such list, nor any document has been produced by petitioner to support the contention that it is a playfield falling within the scope of the Act. 8. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that even the definition of playfield under S. 2(e) requires that the land should not only be adopted for the purposes of play, game or sport but also used by schools, colleges or clubs. While there is a vague averment in paragraph 2 that the playground is also used by the students of the Government High School situate at Arcot Road, Madras-600024 as a playground, the averments in paragraph 5 are to the effect that the playground is being used by the residents of Trustpuram, Rangarajapuram, Varadarajapuram, United India Colony, Ganga Nagar, etc. Thus, there is no clear averment that the land in question is being used as a playfield by any particular school or college. Hence, this land will not fall within the definition of S. 2(e); at any rate, it is not included in the list published under S. 4 and therefore, it cannot be treated as a playfield within the meaning of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the specific averment in the affidavit that the land was handed over to the Corporation by the Trustpuram after the formation of the Colony and vested in the Corporation thereby and the averment that the Corporation has displayed a sign board 'Corporation Playground' in the land in question will be sufficient to prove that it is a playfield within the meaning of the Act. According to learned counsel, in the face of such express averments, it is for the respondent to file a counter-affidavit denying the same and to establish that it is not a playfield as defined in the Act. I do not agree. The two averments referred to by the learned counsel do not make out a case that the land in question is a playfield as defined by the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there is no necessity whatever for the respondent to have filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 10. In the circumstances of the case, there is no necessity whatever for the respondent to have filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments found in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 10. Hence, no case has been made out by the petitioner to issue a writ. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.