Walkers' Club vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

V.M. Velumani, J.—The petitioner, in this public interest litigation, seeks to forbear the respondents herein from establishing "Traffic Park Driving Training School" in the Vandiyur Kanmai Lake Park, K.K. Nagar, Madurai City, by changing the nature and deforesting the park.

According to the petitioner, by the proceedings, dated 28.09.1995 in Na.Ka. No. K14/147035/95, the District Collector, Madurai, the second respondent herein handed over 8.5 acres of land to the petitioner Club for the purpose of maintaining the walkers area on condition that the entire walking area has to be properly maintained and fencing has to be built around the park and necessary plants have to be planted and maintained and necessary electric lights have to be fitted and maintained. Further, there was a condition that the buildings or permanent structures should not be erected. The petitioner Club is maintaining 2 1/2 acres of land on the bank of Lake Vandiyur Kanmai, for the purpose of walking at a straight stretch of 1 1/2 Kilometers. The entire area has been laid with Ultra Tech Cobble Paver Blocks. Under the Self Sufficiency Scheme, 1/3rd of amount was contributed by the petitioner Club and 2/3rd of amount by the Governmental body. The petitioner Club planted 300 plants and is maintaining the area, by putting up electrical lamps, by spending petitioner Club member''s contribution.

While so, in the year 2004, the second respondent, the District Collector allowed one M/s. Chakkara Scates for establishment of skating rink. The petitioner Club challenged the same, by filing W.P. No. 536 of 2004 and another W.P. No. 3391 of 2004, seeking to remove all the encroachments in the Vandiyur Lake and the feeding Channel Sathayar and to remove the skating rink constructed inside the southern part of the Tank. K.K. Nagar Residents'' Association filed one Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1514 of 2006, seeking for removal of encroachments in the Vandiyur Lake and its feeding Channel Sathaiyar, desilt and deepen the Tank, by removing the bushes and trees, sand heaps and bunds inside the Vandiyur Lake. This Court, by common order, dated 27.10.2006, disposed of W.P. Nos. 536, 3391 of 2004 and 1514 of 2006. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

"(i) To locate and take effective steps for removal of encroachment on the Vandiyur lake, including on the bund area of the lake.

(ii) To locate and take effective steps for removal of any encroachment on the connecting water channel Sathalar.

(iii) To take effective steps for removal of weeds and also to deepen the existing lake area by digging and desilting. For the aforesaid purpose, the official respondents are also required to take sufficient financial assistance from the State Government and even though the State Government is not a formal party (of course the District Collector is a party), it is expected that all necessary aid would be given by the State Government to remove the weed and deepen the lake so that the water storage capacity would be considerably increased.

(iv) To examine the possibility of water of the lake being contaminated by entry of waste water from outside and to prevent such waste water entering the lake by any suitable method including the construction of water/sewage treatment plant, if necessary.

(v) To appoint an expert committee to examine whether the existence of skating rink is likely to inundate the surrounding area in future. If it is found that skating rink does not adversely affect, such skating rink shall be allowed to continue as it is being used by many children. However, the authorities should ensure that such rink is affordable so that the wider section of public can utilize the same. In case the skating rink is allowed to continue, the question whether it should be maintained by the Government (official respondents) directly or by the fourth respondent Association is a matter left to the discretion of such authorities. However, in case it is decided that such maintenance should be by the Government, amount if any incurred by the fourth respondent for its construction may be refunded. It is made clear that this direction should not be construed as expressing any opinion on this aspect and the matter has to be considered and finalised by the first respondent and if it is found on review by the expert committee that existence of the skating rink is a threat to the proper maintenance of the lake, the District Collector may take steps for removal of the skating rink.

(vi) Whenever it is felt necessary to remove any encroachment, it goes without saying that necessary steps should be taken by following the appropriate procedure of law, obviously by giving opportunity of hearing to the persons likely to be affected."

While so, the fourth respondent recommended for establishment of Traffic Park Driving Training School inside the Vandiyur Park and for allotting places to private Organisation to teach the driving skills to learners. In the circumstances, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.

The third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the scheme has been formulated to form a landscaped garden on the western bank of the Tank and also construction of boating jetty, swimming pool and Indoor Stadium at the time of proposal of skating rink. The petitioner Club filed W.P. No. 536 and 3391 of 2004. By the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 28.09.1995, in Na.Ka. No. K14/147035/95, the petitioner Club was given permission to maintain the park and surrounding area. The said permission can be revoked at any time. The third respondent denied the statement of the petitioner Club that the fourth respondent recommended for construction of "Traffic Park Driving Training School" inside the place of Vandiyur Park. But, the recommendation is only for construction of Children Traffic Park to create awareness among the children to learn and get trained about Traffic Rules and Regulations.

The written instructions given by the District Collector, Madurai, the second respondent, dated 12.04.2013, to the learned Special Government pleader is also produced before this Court and the same is taken on file. In the said proceedings, the second respondent has stated that a lot of vacant land is available in the Vandiyur Park, out of that, only 2 1/2 acres of land is proposed to be utilised for the Traffic Educational Park for children. In paragraph 9 of the said instructions, the second respondent has stated that the proposed Children''s Traffic Park will have the following facilities:

"(i) Miniature of the original traffic atmosphere like Two lane and four lane roads, Automatic Signals, Schools, Hospitals, Zebra crossing.

(ii) The maximum length is 180 metres and breadth is 35 meters in the north side and 79 meters in the south side.

(iii) Minicycles, Mini bikes, light weighted pedal cars and battery operated toy cars with maximum speed of 5km/hr and these can be controlled by remote also.

(iv) Around the Park, a gallery is supposed to be formed for the use of visitors/parents.

(v) Lot of place is available around the park for planting trees."

When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this Court appointed three Advocate Commissioners to inspect Vandiyur Lake and file their report. The Advocate Commissioners filed their report in the month of October 2015. In the said report, the Advocate Commissioners have stated that Channel No. 9 of Vandiyur Kanmai, which is one among the main channels to bring water from the source, is encroached on either side by private individuals, which prevents free flow of water and the Lake requires de-silting to store the water.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

This Court, by common order dated 27.10.2006, made in W.P. Nos. 536 and 3391 of 2004 and 1514 of 2006, directed the authorities concerned to remove all the encroachments. The relevant portion of the said order is already extracted above. In view of the said order, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to remove forthwith all the encroachments by due process of law for de-silting the channel, and Kanmai, so as to enable free flow and storage of the water and also to ensure prevention of encroachments in future.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.