V.K. BANSAL Vs. SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIFE is a glorious and precious gift of nature, a gift that one tries to retain being at war with 'time'. But the magnificent lumino -sity of life is lost if life is lived without proper health. Health is the true essence of life and no one would barter it for all the tea in China. Provision for open air, pure water and avoidance of polluting substances are the call of the day to preserve and sustain a hygienic atmosphere in otherwise hustle -bustle urban areas. With the growth of population these aspects have gained priority, on the foundation of the first premise that prevention is better than cure. Any curtailment or any effort to curb this phenomenon is not to be mildly countenanced. The present public interest litigation exposes the unconcerned attitude and non -responsible proclivity of the Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai, Durg in its attempt to convert an open space to a residential area contrary to the previous Scheme violating the promise to the people of the locality and above all destroying the quintessence of human life, health. Their action, therefore, called in question in the present writ application by a group of public spirited persons praying for issue of appropriate writ in the nature of prohibition and such other writs restraining the Respondents to abstain from converting an open space, which the Petitioners have referred to in the petition as a park (Ashok Vihar) to a residential area.

(2.) THE factual backdrop as portrayed by the Petitioners is that Special Area Development Authority Bhilai (hereinafter referred to as 'SADA') had formulated a development plan under its residential scheme called Motilal Nehru Nagar (East) and further developed blocks in this residential colony to attract its purchasers. A copy of the map of the said scheme has been annexed to the writ petition as 'Annexure P/1'. As per the said scheme certain areas were left out to be used as green belts parks. Apart from the earmarked portion the open space for development of park, other facilities were also made available which impressed the people to be covered under the scheme and accordingly, applied for grant of residential plots in the said scheme called Motilal Nehru Nagar (East). It has been stated in the petition that the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were granted plots on which they have constructed their residential houses. The Petitioner No. 3 and 4 being the members of Bhilai Steel Employees Housing Cooperative Society Limited were allowed to get allotment and they have constructed their respective houses. In the year 1991 the Petitioners came to know that the Chairman of 'SADA' has disposed of part of land earmarked for parks and schools in the approved layout 'Annexure P/1' as residential plots. It has been averred in the petition that area which was earmarked for being developed as a public park had been developed by the people of the locality after reaching an understanding with Chairman of 'Sada' in June, 1988 and the said park is popularly called Ashok Vihar and the park in question has a fence with gate which has been provided by 'SADA' itself. The Petitioners have further pleaded that they have challenged the illegal conversion. They have made a representation to the 'SADA' Authorities but the same has become an exercise in futility. In the Winter of 1994 when the Petitioners found that some people were measuring and demarcating the plots in Ashok Vihar and further came to learn that It was sought to be converted as the residential blacks 7 -B' and plots were being carved out, they approached this Court for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) A rejoinder has been filed to this return by the Petitioners indicating inter alia that the 'R -1' which has been annexed to the counter affidavit is of 24 -10 -91 which has been approved under Section 28 of the Act though objections were called for under Section 50 of the Act. Mandatory provisions as provided under Rule 18 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Niyam, have not been followed and the mandatory requirement of newspaper publication has also not been complied with. Apart from this aspect it is also stated in the affidavit that the earlier scheme which has been brought on record under 'P -1' could not have been modified by 'R -1', more so, for converting a park or an open space to a residential area. An additional rejoinder has also been filed highlighting certain legal provisions. An application for taking additional document on record has also been filed whereby a map has been annexed as a part of the petition to indicate that land in question had also been earmarked as 'park' in the plan which was made by the Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Bhilai before its transfer to 'SADA'.