JUDGMENT : (Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) Under assail is the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.5779 of 2024. The Greater Chennai Corporation is the appellant before this Court. 2. The writ petition came to be instituted by the respondent-Anna Nagar Western Extension Association represented by its Secretary. The writ was instituted challenging the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Zonal Officer, Zone-7, Greater Chennai Corporation for eviction of the respondent from the library cum reading hall and the tennis court situated adjacent to the park. 3. The learned single Judge, taking note of the facts, quashed the order dated 21.02.2024 and directed the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation to consider the appeal filed by the respondent on 27.10.2023 in the light of the observations made in the writ order impugned. The writ Court further observed that the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation can hold discussion with the respondent Association or any other public representative and pass appropriate orders/frame any scheme in a constructive and inclusive manner. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.M.Sureshkumar appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the respondent has no right over the property. Admittedly, the subject park belongs to the Corporation. The erstwhile Ambattur Municipality permitted the respondent to construct a library cum reading hall in the land measuring 801 sq.ft., situated adjacent to the Corporation park and maintain the same. Subsequently, the Corporation received many complaints that the respondent is abusing the Corporation land and building by renting the building for commercial activities. Thus the Corporation has initiated action. By affording opportunity to the respondent, the order of eviction was passed and possession had already been taken over by the Corporation and the building is under lock and seal from 04.05.2022. The respondent was permitted to take their belongings kept inside the building, which has already been locked and sealed by the Chennai Corporation. 5. Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would oppose by stating that the Corporation has not expressed their grievance about the solution granted by the writ Court. The writ Court directed the Zonal Officer to dispose of the appeal. A further direction was issued to the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation to find out a workable solution between the Association and Corporation. The writ Court directed the Zonal Officer to dispose of the appeal. A further direction was issued to the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation to find out a workable solution between the Association and Corporation. Instead of resolving the issues, appeal has been filed with a delay and the said delay has been condoned by this Court. It is further contended that the respondent is maintaining the library and the tennis court for several years and the same have been utilized for the benefit of the people residing in the locality. They have constructed the building in the year 1992 and the public were permitted to utilize the library and thus there is no reason to evict the respondent from the premises. The allegations raised by the Corporation are false. The respondent has not involved in any commercial activity. Therefore the writ appeal is to be rejected. 6. Heard the parties to the lis on hand. 7. By order dated 01.07.1991, the Commissioner, erstwhile Ambattur Municipality granted permission to the respondent to construct the library building and maintain the same. Perusal of the said order reveals that it is a permission granted to the respondent and no rent has been collected for the land or the building constructed. Thereafter, the Commissioner, erstwhile Ambattur Municipality passed an order in proceeding dated 30.08.1995 permitting the respondent to maintain the park situated adjacent to the library building with a specific condition that the public must be permitted to use the library and tennis court and the second condition is that the land should be handed over to the Municipality whenever the Municipality require the land. In the said permission order, there is no indication about the leasing of land or payment of rent by the respondent. 8. The permission granted to maintain the library cum reading hall and the tennis court in proceedings dated 01.07.1991 and 30.08.1995 respectively, would clearly indicate that the respondent is neither a tenant nor a leaseholder, but only a permissive occupant . Therefore, a mere permission to utilize the Corporation land would not confer any right whatsoever for permanent possession or otherwise. Pertinently, the erstwhile Ambattur Municipality had been merged with the Greater Chennai Corporation with effect from 30.10.2011. Therefore, a mere permission to utilize the Corporation land would not confer any right whatsoever for permanent possession or otherwise. Pertinently, the erstwhile Ambattur Municipality had been merged with the Greater Chennai Corporation with effect from 30.10.2011. After merger, the land vest with the Greater Chennai Corporation absolutely and the permission granted by the erstwhile Ambattur Municipality was neither renewed nor the Greater Chennai Corporation has granted any lease to the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent has not paid any charges or rent for running the library or tennis court. Since the Corporation received several complaints against the respondent Association stating that they are utilizing the public land for commercial activities and earning money, the Corporation has conducted an enquiry and thereafter initiated action to evict the respondent. 9. The notice dated 08.04.2022 was issued to vacate the Corporation premises. The respondent filed W.P.No.11072 of 2022 challenging the said notice. The writ Court passed an order on 11.07.2023 directing the Zonal Officer, Zone-7, Greater Chennai Corporation to consider the representation submitted by the respondent and pass final orders and till such time final orders are passed, status quo was directed to be maintained. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a representation to consider their case. The Zonal Officer passed orders rejecting the request of the respondent. Thereafter, further writ petition was filed in W.P.No.5779 of 2024, which has been disposed of by the writ Court on 05.03.2024, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 10. The writ Court, instead of determining the right of the respondent to hold the Corporation land, provided scope for negotiations and to resolve the issues amicably. When the subject land belongs to the Greater Chennai Corporation and the respondent is not paying any rent or charges to the Corporation and only being a permissive occupant pursuant to the permission granted by the erstwhile Ambattur Municipality, the writ Court ought to have determined the right of the parties for the purpose of granting any relief in the writ proceedings. 11. When the land, being a public land, belongs to Greater Chennai Corporation, such negotiations would be impermissible. Public lands are to be protected for the benefit of the people by the Corporation. Even the Corporation cannot utilize the land, except for the purpose for which the land is to be maintained under law. 11. When the land, being a public land, belongs to Greater Chennai Corporation, such negotiations would be impermissible. Public lands are to be protected for the benefit of the people by the Corporation. Even the Corporation cannot utilize the land, except for the purpose for which the land is to be maintained under law. That being the legal position, the solution for negotiations would yield no result nor do any service to the cause of justice. The Corporation is the trustee of public property and the authorities are bound to maintain the same as per the procedures contemplated. Therefore, the Commissioner has no option, except to decide the issues in accordance with law. Thus there is no scope for negotiations with a private association. The Commissioner cannot exercise his discretion in the matter of allotment of land to his whims and fancies and therefore the writ order is impracticable and no such discretion can be conferred on Chennai Corporation to negotiate with a private association in the matter of allotment or granting permission to the private association to utilize the Corporation land, more specifically, within the Chennai City limits. As far as Greater Chennai Corporation is concerned, decisions are taken by following the due procedures as contemplated. The Commissioner is not empowered to take individual decision in all circumstances, except otherwise that such power has been conferred under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules. Therefore, negotiations with private parties to deal with the Corporation land may go against the public interest. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the contempt proceedings initiated, the appeal submitted by the respondent Association was disposed of by the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation in proceeding dated 30.01.2025. 12. In the present case, the respondent has not produced any document to establish that they are lessee or paying rent or charges to the Corporation. Thus they have no right or vested interest to possess the property. At last, the respondent can be construed as permissive occupant and such permissive occupant has no right to claim permanent possession of the Corporation land. Thus they have no right or vested interest to possess the property. At last, the respondent can be construed as permissive occupant and such permissive occupant has no right to claim permanent possession of the Corporation land. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent has not established even a semblance of legal right for claiming the Corporation land, which is a public property and the Corporation, being a trustee, cannot be allowed to part with the property to a private association for the purpose of constructing any building or running tennis court or library cum reading hall. Even if such decision is taken, an agreement or lease must be entered into by following the procedures as contemplated. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the order dated 05.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.5779 of 2024 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed.