Using Public Parks For Any Other Purpose Would Amount To Breach Of Trust: MP HC Directs Demolition Of Community Halls
📌 Explanation in Detail
1. Background of the Case
In many towns and cities, public parks are earmarked under municipal laws or master plans for the public’s use (greenery, recreation, environment, children’s play areas, etc.).
Local authorities sometimes divert this land for other purposes (community halls, shops, parking, etc.).
A petition was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the construction of community halls inside public parks.
2. MP High Court’s Ruling
The Court ruled that using public parks for any other purpose amounts to a breach of trust.
Parks are held by the Municipal Corporation as trustees for the benefit of the public.
Diverting or allotting such land for non-park purposes (community halls, shops, or commercial structures) is illegal.
The Court ordered:
Demolition of community halls and structures built on land originally designated as public parks.
Restoration of land for park use only.
3. Principle Behind the Judgment
Public parks are public trust property.
The government or municipal authority cannot change its use arbitrarily.
This principle flows from the Public Trust Doctrine, which states that certain natural resources like air, water, and green spaces are held by the State in trust for the people.
4. Important Case Laws Referred
M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464
SC held that public parks cannot be converted into commercial complexes.
Parks are meant for public recreation and ecological balance.
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa (1991) 4 SCC 54
Land reserved for a park was converted into a hospital site by municipal authorities.
SC struck down the conversion, holding that public parks are for the people’s benefit and authorities are only trustees, not owners.
K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi (1974) 2 SCC 506
Municipality allowed construction of a cinema hall in a residential zone.
SC held that municipalities cannot act contrary to the master plan; they must protect residents’ rights.
These precedents strongly influenced the MP HC decision.
5. Implications of the Judgment
Authorities cannot justify construction of community halls, marriage halls, or commercial use on park land.
Citizens can file public interest litigations (PILs) if park land is misused.
Ensures ecological preservation, public health, and urban planning discipline.
📊 Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Madhya Pradesh High Court |
| Issue | Construction of community halls on public park land |
| Ruling | Such use is a breach of public trust |
| Direction | Ordered demolition of community halls built on park land |
| Legal Basis | Public Trust Doctrine – parks are for public benefit, not diversion |
| Key Case Laws | (1) M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) (2) Bangalore Medical Trust v. Muddappa (1991) (3) K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Udipi Municipality (1974) |
| Impact | Parks must be used only as parks; authorities are trustees, not owners |
⚖️ In short: The MP HC reaffirmed that parks are for the public, not for municipal exploitation. Any diversion (like community halls) is illegal and must be undone.
RELATED Blog
0 comments