JAGADISH Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners styling themselves as rate-payers end residents of v Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, have brought this action for a declaration that the allotment of civic amenity site no, 19,V block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, in favour of the corporation of the city of Bangalore by the Bangalore development authority as illegal and void and for prohibiting respondent-1 from altering the character of the : said site and also for a declaration that the said site is a civic amenity site intended as a play-ground and a park.

(2.) the facts, briefly stated, areas follows:site No. 19 is situate between 10th and 11th main road, Jayanagar v Block, measuring 91 metres towards east to west and 298 metres towards north to south out of which the existing park ares extending up to storm water drain is of an extent of 91 x 165 metres. The remaining portion measures 91 x 134 metres inclusing of storm water drain. It is in the latter portion that there is a proposal for construction of a community hati. In the comprehensive development plan prepared by raspondent-1, the land on the southern side is indicated by an abbreviation under letter 'p' which connotes that it is meant for a park and the southern portion of the site is earmarked for general purpose which is indicated by the letter 'g' implying both public purpose and semi public purpose. On a representation made by respondent-3, respondent-2 proposed to put up a community hall in a small portion of the area intended for public and semi public purpose in the site in question. The decision to construct a community hall at the cost of Rs. 9 lakhs was supported by a resolution of respondent-2. The petitioners on coming to know of the proposed construction, took an exception to it since it was their belief that the site in question is a civic amenity site intended to provide a large play-ground and a park to the local residents and also serve as a lung-space to the denizens. It is stated that, for over 20 years, the residents had been using the site in question as a playground and that some top ranking sportsmen had their initial grooming there. It was in april, 1984 that the petitioners are supposed to have learnt that the site in question to the extent of an area measuring 150'x 150' was allotted to respondent-2 for the purpose of building a community hall and a working women's hostel. On seeing that there was collection of materials for construction purpose brought on the sits in question by respondent-2 despite the alleged protest of the residents and commencement of digging and other operations, the petitioners, in order to stall the construction, preferred this writ petition.

(3.) statement of objections has beenfiled on behalf of respondent-2 denying the violation of any Rule or regulation in the matter of construction of a community hall in a portion of the site in question which has been reserved for a public and semi public purpose. According to the counter filed. Community hall would subserve public purpose and public interest without offending any lawandit would also meet the growing needs of the rate-payers of the locality who otherwise would have to incur enormous expenditure for purposes of marriage and similar needs in community halls or kalyan mantaps built and maintained by private persons. The proposed construction of a girls hostel is denied by respondent-2. The main thrust of the objection is that the utilisation of the space in the site in question for construction of a community hall is not inconsistent with the purpose indicated in the entries made in the comprehensive development plan and that portion of the site in which the community hall is to be built is not reserved for either a park or a playground. Respondent-2 has also taken the stance that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. On the other hand, it is maintained that it is at the instance and on the request of respondent-3 that respondent-2 intended to put up a community hall entirely for the benefit of the local residents and strangely enough the petitioners are opposing such a construction.