Overarching Public Interest In Unhindered Flood-Mitigation Projects Prevails; Madras High Court Permits Eco Park And Water-Storage Works On Land Previously Leased to Race Club
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras, Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has allowed the State’s appeal and modified an earlier status quo order to permit the government to proceed with development works on government land previously leased to a race club. The Court authorised the State to continue strengthening and developing ponds on the site to store excess rainwater and to establish an eco park, treating these as flood-mitigation projects in public interest. It noted an urgent and compelling need for such measures, which are intended to improve air quality, reduce pollution sources and lessen the risk of the city being inundated during heavy rains, while the dispute over lease termination and possession continues before the Judge
The appeal arose from an interim “Status Quo” order dated 04.07.2025 passed in an application filed by the Madras Race Club in a civil suit. The suit sought a declaration that G.O.Ms.No.343 dated 06.09.2024, terminating a 1946 lease over 160.86 acres in Venkatapuram, Adyar and Velachery Villages, and the consequential communications, were null and void. An Original Application was filed seeking protection from dispossession from the suit property, in which the Single Judge granted a status quo order.
Also Read: Letter Of Intent (LoI) A Promise In Embryo; No Vested Right Until Preconditions Met : Supreme Court
The State submitted that the interim order obstructed flood mitigation works already underway on the property, including excavation and strengthening of four ponds and preparatory work for an Eco Park. After hearing both sides, the Division Bench initially modified the order on 22.10.2025 permitting the State to carry out works relating to pond development and other public interest projects. The respondent thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of with certain clarifications.
The Division Bench proceeded to hear the appeal, noting the State’s position that the status quo order impeded environmental and flood-mitigation projects, and the respondent’s contention regarding the effect of the Supreme Court’s order. The Bench considered the need for public infrastructure, climate-related concerns, Article 39(b) implications, and principles governing interim injunctions.
The Court recorded that the status quo order “hinders/impedes the State from carrying out works related to strengthening/development of the four ponds… and development of Eco Park” and that interference was warranted.
It noted studies on Chennai floods, referring specifically to the IISc Report titled “Chennai Floods 2015 – A Rapid Assessment,” and stated that the report “records that the floods… resulted in large-scale devastation across Chennai… claiming more than 400 lives… over 4 million people were affected” and that the economic loss was estimated at USD 3 billion. The Court further recorded that industrial operations had halted, essential commodities became scarce, and large tracts of crops and livestock were destroyed.
The Bench observed that four ponds had already been excavated on the property and that “the above 4 ponds along with proposed additional ponds… would mitigate adverse impact of floods in… Velachery, Adambakkam, Madipakkam, Guindy, Pallikaranai and adjoining areas.” It also recorded that the proposed Eco Park included sponge ponds, water bodies and green cover intended to promote tourism, ecological balance and reduce pollution.
In discussing climate-related obligations, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, noting the extract: “Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution, etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21” and “there is a constitutional imperative… to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the man-made and natural environment.” The Court stated that using the property for ponds and an Eco Park “would help maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment by reducing pollution.”
The Bench further recorded that the land was Government land and that projects for public interest aligned with Article 39(b), quoting the Supreme Court in Abu Kavur Bai to explain that ‘distribute’ means “to allot, to divide into classes or into groups… the system of disbursing goods throughout the community.” It also noted concerns under the public trust doctrine.
Regarding interim injunctions, the Court cited Raunaq International Ltd. stating that an interim order must not be granted without considering “balance of convenience, the public interest involved and the financial impact” and that any stay halting public projects must provide for reimbursement of public cost if litigation fails. It also quoted Skipper Construction warning against “the mechanical manner in which some courts have been granting interim orders… without realizing the harm… to public interest.”
The Court concluded that there was “an overarching public interest in ensuring that the projects… are proceeded with unhindered/unimpeded.”
The Court stated that “the order of ‘Status Quo’ dated 04.07.2025… warrants interference.” We are thus inclined to modify the order of ‘Status Quo’ and permit the State to carry out all works related to strengthening/development of ponds to store excess rain water while permitting the development of Eco park which is conceived to mitigate adverse impact of floods, promote tourism, reduce pollution and serve as a natural habitat for several flora and founa species.”
“Accordingly, the original side appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr. D. Ravichander, Special Government Pleader
For the Respondents: Mr. Vaibhav R. Venkatesh.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Madras Race Club
Case Number: O.S.A. No. 335 of 2025
Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam; Justice Mohammed Shaffiq
