Open space reservation charges cannot be demanded where the required land has already been surrendered in a large layout.

Open space reservation land that had been earmarked for a layout was held to have already been handed over to the local body on the basis of official records and municipal possession, and the absence of a registered conveyance did not negate that transfer. For layouts exceeding 10,000 sq. meters, the development control regime required reservation of 10% of the area as open space and did not permit charges in lieu of that reservation; such charges were confined to layouts between 3,000 sq. meters and 10,000 sq. meters. Because the required land had already been surrendered, the additional OSR charge demand had no legal basis and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the open space reservation land had in fact been handed over to the local body; (ii) whether OSR charges could be demanded in addition to the OSR land already handed over, particularly where the parent layout extent exceeded 10,000 sq. meters.

Issue (i): Whether the open space reservation land had in fact been handed over to the local body.

Analysis: The land earmarked as OSR was found to have been handed over long ago to the Corporation, supported by contemporaneous official records and subsequent municipal possession and maintenance as a park. The absence of a formal registered conveyance did not displace the factual and legal position that the land had already passed into public domain and was under local body control.

Conclusion: Yes. The OSR land had already been handed over to the local body.

Issue (ii): Whether OSR charges could be demanded in addition to the OSR land already handed over, particularly where the parent layout extent exceeded 10,000 sq. meters.

Analysis: The development control regime and later development regulations consistently treated layouts above 10,000 sq. meters as mandatorily requiring reservation of 10% of the area for open space, without permitting charges in lieu of such reservation. Charges in lieu were available only in the intermediate category of layouts between 3,000 sq. meters and 10,000 sq. meters. Since the parent layout exceeded 10,000 sq. meters and the requisite 10% land had already been surrendered, the demand for additional OSR charges lacked legal basis. The continued insistence on a registered conveyance could not justify the monetary demand.

Conclusion: No. The demand for OSR charges was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand was quashed and the writ petition succeeded, leaving the petitioner free from the OSR charge liability claimed by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a layout above the prescribed threshold has already surrendered the required open space reservation land, the authority cannot additionally insist on OSR charges in lieu of the same reservation.

---