Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The learned Single formulated a question of general importance for adjudication of the dispute which for the facility of the reference is reproduced hereunder:

Whether an open space/spaces reserved as per approved scheme under Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division, Reconstruction and Improvement of Plots) Rules, 1975 could be allotted by Jaipur Development Authority to a private person/body for a school.

3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order ultimately held that the allotment of the land in dispute made by the JDA in favour of the appellant for setting up a school was illegal being null and void and therefore the JDA was further restrained from making allotment of the land in question to any private person or body in future.

15. Adverting now to the merits of the case, we find from the records which have been placed for our perusal by the learned Counsel representing the JDA that the case of the Housing Society for conversion of the land under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion & Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 was processed on the basis of their application dated 24.3.1982. The Additional Collector (Land Conversion) by his letter dated 17.5.82 called for the comments of the Chief Town Planner who by his communication dated 9.8.1982 while according conditional consent for approval of the proposed lay out plan suggested changes in the dimension of various plots and apart from other measures, also suggested that since no open space has been left in the Colony, Plot No. B-16 to 21 may not be converted and should be kept as open space and size of certain other adjoining plots was proposed to be reduced so as to accommodate the allottees of these six plots. The Chief Town Planner also objected that proposed sub-division design does not meet the standards as per the Rules 1975 regarding open space, facilities and road, therefore, relaxation in these rules was also be necessary. The Additional Collector while passing the provisional conversion order dated 18.2.93 approved the proposal for keeping the lands covered by Plot No. B-16 to B-21 as open land and reduction in the size of other lands accommodate the allottees thereof. The matter was then placed before the Building Plan Committee in its meeting held on 30.5.94 which was chaired by the Commissioner, JDA. Deliberations in the meeting were preceded by the inspection of the site by members of the BPC on 25.5.94 which approved the plan with an additional modification that the proposed shops close to the facility area should not be approved. It is this area which was eventually alloted to the appellant herein. On perusal of the proposed lay out plan as also the finally approved lay out plan which was placed before us by the learned Counsel for the JDA, we found that the major part of the disputed land was originally shown as open space by the Housing Society but the BPC, when it approved the plan with modifications, expanded this open space by including therein the areas falling under thirteen proposed residential plots and four proposed shops for which it did not grant approval.

2(17) 'public purpose' includes any purpose which is useful to the public or any class or section of the public and the requirement of land reserved or designated in a plan, project or scheme or for any other purpose under this Act.

18. The learned Single Judge on analysis of the entire law on the subject including the provisions contained in the Rules 1975 came to hold that the sanctioned plan under such Rules had statutory character and no deviation therefrom was permissible unless the plan was revised under Rule 32 on the grounds provided therein. It was held that in the scheme of the Rules, provision has been made for open space/spaces for parks and gardens etc. intended to be used by the public which form an altogether different category than the areas reserved for educational facility and other facilities. This being the basic difference between two categories, the ownership of the land falling in the first category shall vest in the UIT and now the J DA after the approval of sub-division of plots as provided in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30 but the ownership of the plots reserved for educational facilities and any other facilities falling in the second category remains with the developer. It is the lands of the later category which the developer can transfer to any person or body for the purpose of setting up a school. But the open spaces intended to be used by public in general stand dedicated to the public for common objective and must therefore remain with the State and its instrumentalities such as IDA, Municipal Board, Municipal Corporation or any other public authority. Such open spaces cannot be allotted to any private person or body. Their use cannot be changed or converted by the JDA. It was therefore held that vesting of such areas in the UIT and for that matter, in the JDA is for the specific purpose of developing and maintaining them but this vesting does not give any absolute right to the JDA/ UIT to sell out lands covered by such areas to private person or body.

19. What we have to therefore examine is whether the aforequoted conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the face of the law available on the subject and interpretation of the provisions of the Rules 1975 and the Act of 1982 are sustainable in law. Although Rule 30(2) of the Rules 1975 does provide that "as from the date of the approval of the subdivision by the Trust, ownership of roads, parks and open spaces shall vest in (he Trust" but such vesting by virtue of Rule 30(2) cannot be considered as absolute vesting in the sense of vesting of other lands available at the disposal of the JDA. Such vesting being consequence of the approval of sub-division, reconstitution and improvements of the plots under the Rules of 1975 and consequential approval of the lay out plan by the JDA, has to be taken as a vesting conditioned by the specific provisions contained in such Rules. In our considered view, the JDA has not been correctly following the Rules of 1975 while approving the lay out plans for subdivision, reconstitution and improvement of plots by broadly putting different utilities and amenities under the heading of 'facilities'. When" the Rules of 1975 specifically require the different uses being specifically indicated in the lay out plan as residential, commercial, parks and open spaces, educational, roads and streets and other uses such as schools, shops and other public amenities like water, surface drainage, sewerage, electric lines, the earmarking of such amenities areas collectively as facilities would be simply acting contrary to the intention of the Rules and betraying the faith reposed by the legislature the rule making authority. The rule making authority has taken pains by requiring to not only separately indicate the lands meant for different utilities and amenities but has gone to the extent of even prescribing the minimum size with reference to the number of plots, the size of the area and the population to which such amenities would cater. This can be illustrated from Rule 13 of the Rules of 1975 where the minimum of 650 sq.mtrs open space was required to be earmarked for totlot with minimum dimension of 18 mtrs/60 feet on one side and such area would serve to 30-40 plots in an area having the radius of 195-240 mtrs (650-800 feet). In the same Rule 13, minimum size of local park has been indicated to be 3,000 sq.mtrs (3,630 sq.yards) with minimum dimension of one side being 15 mtrs. (150 feet) which would cater to the needs of 200-250 plots in an area having the radius of 360-450 mtrs. (1200-1500 feet). Similar parameters have also been given for educational facilities such as nursery school, primary school, secondary and higher secondary school in Rule 14 of the Rules where the rule making authority has indicated the area and population to which such school shall serve. For example a nursery school catering to the needs of 1500 population living within the radius of 180-240 mtrs (600-800 feet) shall have 0.2 to 0.4 hectares of land preferably adjoining an open space or tot lot. Similar parameters have been given in regard to-primary schools where for a population of 4000 living in the radius of 360-480 mtrs. (1200-1600 feet) would have 06. to 1.2 hectares of land preferably adjoining local park. For a secondaiy/higher secondary school for population of 10000 to 12000 living within the radius of 750 mtrs (2500 feet) an area of 2-2.8 hectares shall be recommended preferably adjoining local park. Similarly Rule 16 has also prescribed similar parameters with regard to small shops, small kiosk, general shops, shops cum residence, shops cum office and godown etc. We have given reference to some of these rules to show that the rule making authority has taken a meticulous care to ensure that in the matter of sub-division, reconstitution and improvement of plots. The JDA has however followed these rules more in breach while approving the lay out plan of the housing colony in question.