Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohalla Vikas Samiti vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 (NOC) 205 (RAJ), AIRONLINE 2019 RAJ 754, (2019) 4 RAJ LW 3499, (2019) 4 WLC (RAJ) 302
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 16) [CW-17046/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17046/2018
Mohalla Vikas Samiti
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.M. Lodha, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. V.D. Dadhich,
Ms. Rekha Borana, AAG
Mr. Manoj Bhandari,
Mr. R.S. Saluja
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 10/07/2019 Pronounced on 03/09/2019 Reportable Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice
1. The public interest litigant in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks directions to the respondents to take appropriate steps to stop the illegal use of park for holding the marriages and other functions, by the fourth respondent.
2. The facts of this case are that the Kamla Nehru Colony -which is situated between Chopasani Road and Guoron Ka Talab, Jodhpur- was developed by the erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the "UIT") as scheme area which spread over an area measuring 114 acres of land. The petitioner submits that the scheme was planned and has reserved separate areas for differing land uses, including park, playground and open (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (2 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] spaces wherein 66.61 acres of land is reserved for the residential purposes, 2.2 acres of land for commercial purposes, and 14.32 acres of land is reserved for park, open space and play ground. Apparently, the colony is divided into three Sectors i.e. A, B and C. Situated on one side of the colony, a 130 feet wide road Soorsagar Road. A strip of land parallel to the road has been left open and reserved for parks, playground and open space.
3. The petitioner submits that the open space also finds mention in the Master Development Plan finalized and issued by the State Government and that the entire open space is classified as Green Belt Area. Claiming that Sector A of the colony shares a part of the open space- on one side- it is alleged that a part of the open space land measuring 90x90 square feet, (located opposite Sector A facing Pratap Nagar Road) was developed into a public park in 2001 and was named as Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Park. The park, according to the petitioner was handed over to the local residents for maintenance, upkeep and use.
4. The petition alleges that the fourth respondent - the Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhay Seva Sansthan (hereinafter referred as the "Sansthan") in 2004 was given possession over the land of the park and that it started construction upon it. The petitioner submits that upon enquiry it was revealed that the Sansthan claimed that the park was handed over to it pursuant to an agreement it had entered into with UIT, with the object of proper use and maintenance as a community center. The petitioner submits that such occupation is without authorization or any legal sanction.
5. It is argued, on behalf of the petitioner, that the use by the Sansthan of such park land for any other purposes is contrary to the Master Plan. Learned counsel for the petitioner argue that the use of such land for purposes other (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (3 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] than green or park area, is destructive of the very concept of town planning, is arbitrary and destroys lung spaces badly needed in the city. Learned counsel relied on the relevant extracts of the Master Plan to submit that the use as a unauthorized marriage hall is impermissible.
6. It is submitted that the use of the area earmarked for parks and play grounds is also contrary to the guidelines framed by the Municipal Corporation in 2015, which stipulated that no area or building can be used for purposes of social functions like marriages etc without specific permission. Such permission can be granted only if the construction is in accord with the Master Plan; further permission cannot be used for littering in the area and causing nuisance.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the development in the area earmarked for parks and as open space, in the Kamala Nehru Colony, in the present case, has been thwarted, deliberately, by the Sansthan's use of the premises and its vicinity as an unauthorized marriage hall. It is highlighted that the area is cordoned off, for parking vehicles of guests who visit the center for marriages and other private functions. Counsel also pointed out that the space is further littered after the completion of marriage or such other private functions, with filth and garbage and disposal of such refuse, particularly inorganic matter such as plastic waste, tends to degrade the area. In short, it was argued that the fourth respondent has been given a free hand in regard to the use of the entire open space, whose development has not been possible, because the residents are so far prevented access, due to the unauthorized use as marriage hall and for unauthorized parking of vehicles.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Sansthan opposed the petitioner's contentions. He submitted that the premises in (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (4 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] question is situated in open space. The Sansthan disputes that the entire open space is described and classified as a green-belt. There is no material on the basis of which it can be said that the premises in question is locked. It is further submitted that the premises in question has been described by the petitioner as a public park, but it is wholly incorrect. The premises in question is a community center and in Soorsagar Assembly Constituency, there are about 109 centers. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a document, which is marked as Annexure-R/4/1, wherein premises in question has been described as a community center in the list.
9. Counsel further submitted that the possession over the park in question was made over to the fourth respondent, and according to the petitioner, the said park was usurped by the said respondent. However, on the basis of the agreement, the premises in question was given to Sansthan for maintenance as a community centre and community purposes. Therefore the petitioner's contention is misleading. It is further submitted that such community centers are constructed and made available for the public use through certain agencies like fourth respondent and in 2004, the premises in question was given under an agreement to it and at the relevant point of time, there was a hall measuring 86x54 feet with two rooms and other facilities like toilet etc. on the ground floor as one unit. There was also a Stage measuring 42x42 feet along with rooms toilet etc. before the statute of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay was installed.
10. Thereafter, in 2008, further constructions were made by the UIT and as such, three units were built by the UIT within the premises in question. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the document agreement. It is further submitted that there are three units (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (5 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] in the premises in question between these units - two spaces were developed by the Sansthan, with lawn etc. The premises in question were handed over in 2004 with certain conditions and it was specifically stated that the premises in question can be given for functions/celebrations (public and private including marriage) and for that, maintenance charges will be Rs.2,000/- per day which has now been increased to Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the premises in question is not notified as a park but kept as a community center and is given for function/celebrations including marriage functions. But the petitioner has not brought on record all these facts.
11. The Sansthan's counsel further submitted that the premises in question have been used for various functions/celebrations (public and private like marriage) since 2004. Neither the petitioner nor Shri Dalpat Vaishnav raised any objection for last more than a decade. On the contrary, the premises in question was used by Shri Dalpat Vaishnav, who filed the writ petition in the name of the Society. So far as the submission of the petitioner that the so-called complaints/representations made by some persons is concerned, such is the case only after 2017-2018.
12. It is urged that some information was sought by the local MLA in 2009. Thereafter, no complaint was made by the local MLA though she has been representing the area for last three consecutive terms. This clearly shows that the MLA was also satisfied after getting the information. It is further submitted that initially, the premises in question was given to the Sansthan for the last 10 years. Thereafter, it was extended upto 2017 and in 2017 again, it was extended for five years. It seems that during that period of 2017-18, the said representations/complaints annexed with the petition were filed, which clearly show that when the matter of (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (6 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] extension was under consideration before the competent authorities, then these complaints / representations were filed with the oblique motive.
13. Counsel for the Sansthan further submitted that in terms of the representation dated 26/03/2018 the petitioner stated it was charging higher amounts than the fixed and receipts were not issued. It is submitted that the allegation that the charge for one day is Rs.10,000/-, out of which, only a charge of Rs.2,000/- is given to the Municipal Corporation is without basis.
14. Learned senior counsel points out that the knowledge of the deponent is not disclosed in the petition. It is urged in this regard, that no specific pleading is made in the writ petition. Counsel relied on copy of the application form for allotment as well as receipt to allottee marking the said document as Ann.R/4/3, which clearly shows that presently a sum of Rs.5,000/- per day is charged for use of the premises with electricity charges of Rs.1,000/- per day for cleanliness (scavenging of Rs.2,000/-), amount is required to be paid to the municipality directly and it is the duty of the allottee to ensure cleanliness (scavenging). Security to the tune of Rs.10,000/- is taken separately, which is refundable. There is no person before the court to say that his security amount has not been refunded.
15. It is alleged that there are specific directions in the premises in question that no person can use non-vegetarian food and liquor. In such circumstances, the allegation of littering is wholly unfounded because in a function such as marriage celebration, no one can use liquor and then throw empty liquor bottles on the road. Therefore, the allegation levelled in the notice is baseless. It is further submitted that in the notice, the petitioner stated that a huge amount of Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1 lac is realized by the Sansthan, whereas (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (7 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] in the representation (Annexure-7), it is stated that a huge amount between Rs,.75,000/- to Rs.80,000/- is being charged against security. However, in other representations, no such allegations are made. Even then, there is no one before the court alleging that such an amount was charged from him. It is, therefore clear, that on account of certain oblique motive, such representations have been made.
16. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner did not disclose in the pleadings of writ petition about the maintenance of the premises in question, which is being done by the Sansthan by spending huge amounts for the salary of 2-3 chowkidars, electricity charges, repair work and other expenditure.
17. The Jodhpur Development Authority, in its affidavit, submitted that the land was handed over to the Municipal Corporation in 2013 and that the latter body is therefore responsible for the upkeep and maintenance. It also submits that the entire area (a part of which is in question in these proceedings) is set apart for playground/open space and recreation purpose.
18. Before dealing with the merits of the dispute, it would be necessary to extract the relevant translated parts of the Jodhpur Master Plan. They are as follows:
"2.13 From the point of view environment, parks and playgrounds have importance. For a healthy life, these spaces occupy primacy and are of great value. Mandor Garden, Umed Gardens, Nehru Park, etc are existing recreational spaces. Machiya Park, near Kylana lake, Ashok Garden near Pal Road and etc are under development. Various small parks and similar open spaces are proposed to be developed in the various colonies of Jodhpur, which would fulfil the larger object of protecting the environment. Existing open spaces include Gandhi Maidan, in Sardarpura, Ravan chabutra (Platform) on the Barhavi Road crossing, etc. These places are meant for cultural and religious occasions, and for fairs and exhibitions. The Barkatullah stadium is an international level facility used for national and other (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (8 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] sports and sporting occasions. The Railway stadium and the stadium near the High Court too are used for sports, exhibitions and public gatherings. Apart from these similar facilities are available in various schools, universities, etc. In the city, the space available for growth and protection of healthy environment, in the form of entertainment, recreation, sports, exercise, lung spaces, exhibitions, etc is 1133 acres which forms 6.94% of the total development area.
*************** ***************** 4.8 Recreational spaces Facilities, in the form of land and open spaces, for entertainment, recreation, sporting activities, in the form of playgrounds, community centres, large parks, stadium etc for the residents of Surya Nagar has been earmarked in the plan.
4.8 (1) Parks, Playgrounds and Open spaces Parks, playgrounds, community and cultural centres, stadia, libraries, etc are an integral part of the planning for development. Apart from entertainment and recreation, these have importance in education as well. Within the city, large parks act as lungs. The multiple levels of planning developed are neighborhood, head level, sectoral level, city level and area or regional. It is proposed to develop the Machiya park as a safari park. In many areas, development is prohibited on account of location of high-tension wires in the vicinity. A minimum of 100 feet are provided away from high tension wires for development of roads. It is proposed to develop the Osiya bai area due to its religious and cultural significance and natural uniqueness."
19. A copy of the revised Layout plan for the scheme and its vicinity was produced. It is evident from a plain look at the plan that the area, i.e a strip of land, parallel to the public road, (in which a railway track exists) has been earmarked as green belt/park. A copy of the JDA's notings were produced during the hearing. They show that an area of 22, 248 square feet (2066 square metres) has been exclusively given to the Sansthan; the latter has enclosed it with a boundary wall. The common case of the Sansthan and the Municipal (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (9 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] corporation is that by an agreement (a copy of which was produced by the Sansthan), entered into in the year 2004, (between the Sansthan and JDA) the community centre was handed over to the said organization for maintenance and upkeep. It is also a matter of record that the Sansthan has been using the constructed area (which contains one large building and two smaller ones) for marriage and other social functions. Furthermore, in terms of the policies (framed on 27.10.2015) of the Municipal Corporation, marriage halls cannot operate without permission or license. The Sansthan had admitted during the hearing that it does not have such a license and has applied for it.
20. It is evident that the area (2066 square metres) over which the Sansthan has exclusive control, was initially handed over to it in 2004 by the JDA. The respondent corporation continued with the same state of affairs, after the colony was handed over for upkeep and maintenance. The Sansthan says that the structures put up in the area, are for community use. However, it has not produced any material apart from the fact that it is letting out the building and its vicinity for marriages and social functions.
21. The materials on record do not indicate the total extent of the land earmarked for parks, open spaces and playgrounds. The petitioner avers that a little over 14 acres is earmarked for that purpose, in the layout. That area (14 acres), however, would include other areas earmarked for parks, open spaces and playgrounds.
22. In Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and others, (1991) 4 SCC 54, the Supreme Court, speaking about the need to factor in preservation of parks, in the planning process, stated as follows:
"Public park as a place reserved for beauty and recreation was developed in 19th and 20th century and is associated with growth of the concept of equality and recognition of importance of common man. Earlier it was (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (10 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] a prerogative of the aristocracy and the affluent either as a result of royal grant or as a place reserved for private pleasure. Free and healthy air in beautiful surroundings was privilege of few. But now it is a, 'gift from people to themselves'. Its importance has multiplied with emphasis on environment and pollution. In modern planning and development it occupies an important place in social ecology. A private nursing home on the other hand is essentially a commercial venture, a profit oriented industry. Service may be its motto but earning is the objective. Its utility may not be undermined but a park is a necessity not a mere amenity. A private nursing home cannot be a substitute for a public park. No town planner would prepare a blueprint without reserving space for it. Emphasis on open air and greenery has multiplied and the city or town planning or development Acts of different States require even private house owners to leave open space in front and back for lawn and fresh air. In 1984 the B.D. Act itself provided for reservation of not less than 15 per cent of the total area of the layout in a development scheme for public parks and playgrounds the sale and disposition of which is prohibited under Section 38-A of the Act. Absence of open space and public park, in present day when urbanisation is on increase, rural exodus is on large scale and congested areas are coming up rapidly, may give rise to health hazard. May be that it may be taken care of by a nursing home. But it is axiomatic that prevention is better than cure. What is lost by removal of a park cannot be gained by establishment of a nursing home. To say, therefore, that by conversion of a site reserved for low lying park into a private nursing home social welfare was being promoted was being oblivious of true character of the two and their utility."
23. In the decision reported as Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa and Others (2004) 8 SSC 733, stated the law in the following terms:
"22. In all developed and developing countries there is emphasis on planned development of cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalisation of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and regulations framed thereunder. Zoning and planning do result in hardship to individual property owners as their freedom to use their property in the way they like, is subjected to regulation and control. The private owners are to some extent prevented from making the most profitable use of their property. But for this reason alone the controlling regulations cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The private interest stands subordinated to the public good. It can be stated in a way that power to plan development of city and to regulate the building activity therein flows from the police power of the State. The exercise of such governmental power is justified on account of it being (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (11 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] reasonably necessary for the public health, safety, morals or general welfare and ecological considerations; though an unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with the private ownership of the property may not be justified."
24. The above decision was followed later in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others,(2006) 3 SCC 434. In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others (2006) 3 SCC 549 the Supreme Court held as follows:
"The world has reached a level of growth in the 21st century as never before envisaged. While the crisis of economic growth is still on, the key question which often arises and the courts are asked to adjudicate upon is whether economic growth can supersede the concern for environmental protection and whether sustainable development which can be achieved only by way of protecting the environment and conserving the natural resources for the benefit of humanity and future generations could be ignored in the garb of economic growth or compelling human necessity. The growth and development process are terms without any content, without an inkling as to the substance of their end results. This inevitably leads us to the conception of growth and development which sustains from one generation to the next in order to secure "our common future". In pursuit of development, focus has to be on sustainability of development and policies towards that end have to be earnestly formulated and sincerely observed. As Prof. Weiss puts it, "conservation, however, always takes a back seat in times of economic stress". It is now an accepted social principle that all human beings have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their well-being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are conserved and preserved in such a way that present as well as the future generations are aware of them equally."
25. All these judgments were noticed and the ratio, applied by this court in Gulab Kothari v State of Rajasthan 2017(2) RLW 1178 (Raj) which has underscored the inviolate nature of the master plan documents, and further that areas meant for public use, such as open spaces and playgrounds, cannot be diverted for other uses:
"102. As a matter of fact, the fundamental object of providing ecological zone or green belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the land permanently open so as to protect natural or semi natural environment;(Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM)
(12 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] improve air quality within the urban area and to ensure the lung spaces for the inhabitants of the urban area. In other words, the permanent openness is the most important attribute of ecological zone/green belt and for this reason, while designating the land use in such area, the care is taken that it remains largely undeveloped and only eco friendly development not affecting the natural and healthful environment comes up within the area. In the considered opinion of this court, the green belt/ecological zone specified in the Master Development Plan in furtherance of welfare of the inhabitants of the area forms basic feature of the Master Development Plan, which once established, is not permissible to be altered even while undertaking the revision of the Plan or the preparation of the new Plan. Even the area which is shown in the various Master Plans as Green Zone/Area (G2) abutting G-1 developed as buffer to promote a continuum to G-1 is permissible to be used for the activities other than those specified only in exceptional circumstances in the interest of the general public and not otherwise to serve an individual interest.
******** ********* ******
106. To sum up, whatever may be the compulsion for the economical growth, the right of the citizens to a healthy environment has to be protected and therefore, in the garb of the planned development, the land falling within the eco sensitive zone/ecological zone/green belt cannot be permitted to be unscrupulously put to use for the purposes other than those specified else, the basic goal underlying the Master Development Plan, the welfare of the people in ensuring quality of life by creating healthful environment for the present and future generations, shall stand frustrated.
107. Coming to the peripheral control belt as provided under Jodhpur Master Plan 2001-2023, Ajmer Master Plans 1971-1991 and 2023, Kota Master Plan 2001- 2023, Udaipur Master Plan 1997-2022 and Bikaner Master Plan-2001-2023, it is to be noticed that, peripheral control belt around the cities are provided so as to prevent and control unauthorised and unplanned development around the existing urbanisable area of the city and therefore, the land falling within the peripheral control belt is permissible to be used only for restrictive low density development purposes specified. It is true that the peripheral control belt as defined under the different Master Plans does not indicate that it will (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (13 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] continue to remain so even after the plan period but then, certainly, during the operative period of the Plans, the land falling within the peripheral control belt is not permissible to be used for the purposes other than those specified and ordinarily, cannot be put to any other use."
The overarching public interest principle then is that the society has to preserve and protect the environment, as we live upon resources, borrowed, as it were from the future generations.
26. In this case, it is a matter of record that the Sansthan has been using the community centre buildings primarily for marriages and social functions. The Master Plan does not indicate control norms for the extent of constructions that can be used within open spaces, for other purposes. Necessarily, it has to bear a small proportion. In the present case, it is not clear what is the larger open area; certainly, neither the JDA nor the Municipal authorities have developed such larger area according to the available records. Furthermore, it is also clear that the fourth respondent Sansthan has been letting out the premises for marriage and other social events. Although it denies the allegation, the fact is that without authorization and an approved plan for garbage disposal, invariably, the site and its vicinity would be littered for days:
perhaps even weeks. The brunt of this unsavory and unhygienic position has to be borne by the local residents living in the vicinity. The JDA- and now, as its successor, the Jodhpur Municipal corporation have given out the premises to the Sansthan almost for an indefinite period. This is clearly impermissible, considering the public trust doctrine, which was explained by the Supreme Court in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v C. Kenchappa and Others (2006) 6 SCC 371 in the following terms:(Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM)
(14 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] "The Public Trust Doctrine (which, found its way in the ancient Roman Empire) primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of their status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government and its instrumentalities to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public."
As the court understands, no property right or interest has been created in the Sansthan's favour. However, allotment for an indefinite period undercuts the control by the public authority, and even the Municipal Corporation's accountability to the law: to ensure that the facility and open spaces are used by all, and available to all. Material resources such as water and rivers (Ref In Re. Special Reference No.1 of 2001 Cauvery River Water (2004) 4 SCC 489 Petroleum and natural gas (Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 1; forests (M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC 388) essential commodities and foodstuffs (Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd.Etc. v State of Mysore and Others (1972) 1 SCC 23) electricity generation and distribution (Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd v State of Assam and Others (1989) 3 SCC 709) have been held to be of public importance, in respect of which the State, has to assure equitable access and availability, to the greatest numbers. Access to open areas and lung spaces is of equal if not greater importance. They cannot be enclosed nor given away by the state or its agencies, or reserved for use by a few or the privileged.
27. In the light of the above observations, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to forthwith ensure that marriage and other such social functions are not held in the premises of the fourth respondent Sansthan. The Municipal (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (15 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] Corporation shall review its policy regarding permitting use of open spaces and green areas for marriage, social and religious functions, in the following regard:
(a) The duration of the function, in terms of use for the total number of days in a year: it should endeavor to ensure that no more than 4 days in a month (or a total of 50 days in the entire year) are used for such function.
(b) The timings for each function should be clearly indicated and strictly complied with.
(c) Each marriage or social event should be approved; for this purpose, the Municipal Corporation should create an online booking portal, which should indicate availability of such facilities in approved marriage halls. The application should be approved only if the concerned individual or organization undertakes to clear garbage and submits a plan for this purpose; the corporation should ensure that a separate deposit for this purpose is obtained from the applicant in advance, which may be refunded only if the site is brought to the position as it was before the function was held;
(d) The municipal corporation should ensure that premises constructed within open public spaces and parks are used for other recreation purposes, such as indoor games, gathering of local residents, fitness purposes (gyms, badminton courts etc). Exclusive allotment of such community lands should not be given to any one or any organization, henceforth.
(e) The Muncipal corporation is hereby directed to forthwith review the terms of allotment to the fourth respondent, and take steps to terminate the arrangement (after giving reasonable notice to it) so as to avoid use of the premises only for social and marriage purposes, denying the public the use of such common facilities. It is however, open to permit the Sansthan to hold functions, if it satisfies the terms of the (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM) (16 of 16) [CW-17046/2018] guidelines of 2015, on temporary allotment basis, subject to the above directions.
(f) The Municipal corporation shall ensure that common lands meant for use by the public are developed into parks and playgrounds, depending on their location and most appropriate use. Wherever needed, community centres too may be opened. However, such facilities shall not be handed over to individuals or concerns on any long lease or such arrangements.
(g) The above exercise shall be completed within two months. It is clarified that these directions would be in force, till appropriate regulations or rules are framed, strictly in consonance with the master plan and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
28. The writ petition is allowed, in terms of the above directions. There shall be no order on costs. All pending applications too, are disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ Parmar/-
(Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 08:58:39 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)