ORDER : (K. KUMARESH BABU, J.) The Writ Petition had been filed challenging the order of rejection passed by the second respondent, rejecting the claim of petitioner to construct Kalyanamandabam in the place earmarked for the public purpose. 2.Heard Mr.A.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram, learned counsel appearing for RR1 and 2 and Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a larger extent of land originally belonging to his grandfather which was inherited by him and in which he had been benefited with a layout approval. In the said layout approval an extent of 24,562 Sq.ft was earmarked for public purposes and land measuring 4,500 Sq.ft had been earmarked for shopping facilities. The land earmarked for public purposes was fenced to restrict any unauthorised entry and was in his custody and possession. He had also gifted an extent of 96,387 Sq.ft in favour of the Corporation/ first respondent in which the roads had been laid in the approved layout. When that be so, the petitioner had made an application for construction of a Kalyanamandapam in the land earmarked for public purposes and construction of a professional consultation office for engineers and auditors in the land meant for commercial purposes. The said applications had been rejected by the Authority under the impugned proceedings by holding that the lands have been earmarked for a specific purposes and had been handed over to the corporation. He would submit that at no point of time there is no gift deed executed by the petitioner as a developer of the land in favour of the first respondent in respect of the lands that are earmarked for public purposes and for shopping purposes. What had been gifted by the petitioner are the lands only in which the roads had been laid in the said layout. Hence, he would submit that the claims of the first respondent that the lands had been handed over to the first respondent is fallacy. Since, the land have not been either acquired by the authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act nor has been gifted by the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to use the said land for which it had been earmarked. Since, the land have not been either acquired by the authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act nor has been gifted by the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to use the said land for which it had been earmarked. 4.He would further submit that the workers and labourers of the first respondent had unauthorisedly entered upon the land and dug up trenches and also laid a road and therefore, in such circumstances, he would submit that the impugned order is not only liable to be set aside but the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss and damage caused to the lands of the petitioner. He had also placed reliance upon Section 36 to 39 of the Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to contend that if the lands earmarked for public purposes has not been acquired, then such demarcation of the lands would be released and the owner cannot be deprived of using the land in the manner he wishes to. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judges of this Court in support of his contention. 5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1& 2 would contend that when a land had been earmarked as per section 49 of the Act, the same need not be acquired under the provisions of section 36 of the Act. He would submit that application of Section 36 to 39 of the Act would only be applicable in cases where a detailed development plan or a regional development plan are made notified by the authority concerned. In the present case, the lands were not notified either under detailed development plan or a regional development plan but was lands for which approval had been granted under Section 49 of the Act. He would further submit that when such lands are earmarked, the developer only hold lands under trust for the benefit of the purchasers of the land in the layout and he cannot claim to be the owner of the property. He would further submit that when such lands are earmarked, the developer only hold lands under trust for the benefit of the purchasers of the land in the layout and he cannot claim to be the owner of the property. He had also relied upon judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in S.A.No. 510 & 518 of 2019 dated 26.04.2019 and contended that such persons who was the developer of the land cannot claim to be the owner of the land and that Section 38 of the Act could not be applicable in a case where a layout had been developed under Section 49 of the Act. Hence, he would seek dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the third respondent reiterating the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first and second respondents. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court made in 2019 (14) SCC 411 , submitted that the petitioner ‘s claim deserves no merits and is liable to be rejected. 7.I have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 8.Admittedly, the lands in which the petitioner had sought building plan permission has been earmarked for a particular purposes namely for public purposes and shopping purposes in the layout approval granted to him. 9.I had an occasion to consider a similar claim made by a person in whose favour the layout had been granted and had rejected the similar claim made by the petitioner herein in the Writ Petition disposed of by this court on 31.01.2025 in W.P.(MD) Nos.20230 & 22130 of 2017 in the said Writ Petitions, this court have held that the application of Section 38 of the Act cannot be made in respect of a layout approval granted under Section 49 of the Act. This court had also followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corpn., of Greater Mumbai vs. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar reported in 2019 (14) SCC 411 , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court had held held that when an area had been earmarked for a particular purposes under the layout even then such lands are held by the land owner which promoted the layout only as a trustee of the purchasers of the land in the said layout. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs from the order in W.P.(MD).Nos.20230 & 22130 of 2017, is extracted hereunder:- 12.The first question that is posed upon before this Court is as to whether the lands that have been earmarked for public purposes under the Provisions of Section 49 of the Act would have to be acquired under the Provisions of Chapter-IV of the Act particularly under Section 36 of the Act and if not acquired whether by application of Section 38 of the Act such lands would be released from such reservation. 13.A reading of Section 36 of the Act would indicate that if any land required, reserved or designated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan, new town development land or a land pooling area development Scheme, only then such lands shall be deemed to be the land needed for the public purposes and would have to be acquired under the relevant Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Only if such acquisition had been made of such land reserved, allotted or designated for any purposes specified in such plans, only then such lands shall be reserved for such reservation, allotment or designation. Chapter-IV cannot be made applicable to a plan that is sanctioned under Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act is an independent Provision where on a request made by a land owner, development is permitted on the land for which the area are earmarked for the purposes. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by application of Section 38 of the Act it is deemed that the lands have been released as no acquisition had taken place is a fallacious contention and out right rejected. 14.The second issue that is required to be dealt is as to whether the lands earmarked for public purposes ought to be necessarily gifted by the land owner in favour of the Municipal Authority and if not whether the land owner is entitled to use the said land for any other purposes. It is to be seen that when a land is sought to be developed by forming a lay out, the law requires certain portion of the land to be reserved for public purposes, such as, open space reservation which is normally used as a park, construction of community hall, shops, Schools, etc., for the benefit of the public at large. It is to be seen that when a land is sought to be developed by forming a lay out, the law requires certain portion of the land to be reserved for public purposes, such as, open space reservation which is normally used as a park, construction of community hall, shops, Schools, etc., for the benefit of the public at large. When such planning permission is granted, such area earmarked for such purposes would have to be used only for the said public purposes. Having earmarked for the public purposes for obtaining the layout approval and sold the lands which are earmarked for residential or commercial purposes to various third parties, the areas earmarked for public purposes but not gifted to the Local Authority would only be deemed to have been held by such land owner in trust representing the various persons who have purchased the plots from the original land owner. 18.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Pt.Chet Ram Vashist vs. Municipal Corpn of Delhi reported in 1995 (1) SCC 47 had held that the effect of such reservation is that the owner ceases to deal the land in dispute and holds the land for the benefit of the society or public in general. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:- 6. 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. The effect of such reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit of the society or the public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it. It may be true as held by the High Court that the interest which is left in the owner is a residuary interest which may be nothing more than a right to hold this land in trust for the specific purpose specified by the coloniser in the sanctioned layout plan. But the question is, does it entitle the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred to the authority free of cost. But the question is, does it entitle the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred to the authority free of cost. That is not made out from any provision in the Act or on any principle of law. The Corporation by virtue of the land specified as open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to manage it in the interest of the society in general. But the right to manage as a local body is not the same thing as to claim transfer of the property to itself. The effect of transfer of the property is that the transferor ceases to be owner of it and the ownership stands transferred to the person in whose favour it is transferred. The resolution of the Committee to transfer land in the colony for park and school was an order for transfer without there being any sanction for the same in law. 19.The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of Municipal Corpn., of Greater Mumbai vs. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar reported in 2019 (14) SCC 411 had held that the public interest requires some area to be reserved by means of open space, park and play ground and that there cannot be any change or action contrary to the legislation as it could be an abuse of statutory provision. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- 7.This court has laid down that public interest requires some areas to be preserved by means of open spaces of parks and play grounds, and that there cannot be any change or action contrary to legislative intent, as that would be an abuse of statutory powers vested in the authorities. Once the area had been reserved, authorities are bound to take steps to preserve it in that method and manner only. These spaces are meant for the common man, and there is a duty cast upon the authorities to preserve such spaces. Such matters are of great public concern and vital interest to be taken care of in the development scheme. The public interest requires not only reservation but also preservation of such parks and open spaces. In our opinion, such spaces cannot be permitted, by an action or inaction or otherwise, to be converted for some other purpose, and no development contrary to plan can be permitted. 8. The public interest requires not only reservation but also preservation of such parks and open spaces. In our opinion, such spaces cannot be permitted, by an action or inaction or otherwise, to be converted for some other purpose, and no development contrary to plan can be permitted. 8. The importance of open spaces for parks and play grounds is of universal recognition, and reservation for such places in development scheme is a legitimate exercise of statutory power, with the rationale of protection of the environment and of reducing ill effects of urbanisation. It is in the public interest to avoid unnecessary conversion of ‘open spaces land’ to strictly urban uses, for gardens provide fresh air, thereby protecting against the resultant impacts of urbanization, such as pollution etc. Once such a scheme had been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the MRTP Act, by inaction legislative intent could not be permitted to become a statutory mockery. Government authorities and officers were bound to preserve it and to take all steps envisaged for protection. 20.Now analysing the claim of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court extracted supra, the claim of the petitioner to use the land to his own benefit, the land which had been reserved for public purposes under the approved layout to his own benefit on the claim that such land are not acquired or gifted in favour of the Local Authority, would have to only fail. 10.In such an event, I am unable to countenance the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11.In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed. How we, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.