MODERN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY Vs. NIZAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two special appeals have been filed by the appellant Modern Educational and Cultural Society against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12. 4. 1993 passed in two writ petitions, one of which was filed at the instance of Nizam and Ors. and another by the appellant Modern Educational and Cultural Society. Dispute pertains to allotment of a piece of land admeasuring 4877 sq. yards (4077. 8 sq. mtrs.) by Jaipur Development Authority (in short `the JDA') in favour of the appellant by its order dated 6. 9. 89 in Nu- Lite Colony, adjoining the Tonk Road, Jaipur which has been developed by the Nu- Lite Housing Cooperative Society (in short- `the Housing Society' ). The writ petition filed by Nizam and Ors. was in fact a letter petition which was registered as a public interest litigation (Writ Petition No. 332/90) whereas the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was an off-shoot of the first writ petition. While in the writ petition filed by Nizam and Ors. , challenge was made to the allotment of a land earmarked as an open space in the lay out plan of a housing colony proposed by the Housing Society. Second writ petition was filed by the appellant herein with the prayer that the JDA be directed to handover possession of the land alloted to them and be restrained from allotting such land to any other person. Since the dispute pertains to the common piece of land, both the writ petitions were disposed of by the common judgment impugned herein.

(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.) WHILE referring to the lay out plan as originally proposed by the Housing Society to the JDA as also the plan which was finally approved by the JDA, Shri Kamlakar Sharma argued that a perusal of the later plan would reveal that different five patches of the land were earmarked therein as facility areas without any specifications being made whether they shall be used as parks, gardens, lawns or children's play grounds etc. The land which was allotted to the appellant was also indicated only as a facility area. The impugned judgment however proceeds on the assumption that the land allotted to the appellant which was reserved as facility area was meant only for park, garden, lawn and children's play ground although there was no basis for such an assumption. In fact, four shops and thirteen plots were proposed over part of the land allotted to the appellant in the original lay out plan proposed by the Housing Society which is also indicative of the fact that the land was never meant to be reserved for public park, garden, lawn or play ground etc. Shri Kamlakar Sharma argued that the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short `the Act') nowhere specifically provides for the definition of facility area though open space and public park have been included in the definition of `amenities' as given in Section 2 (2) of the JDA Act, 1982. But the word `facility' has been used in the master plan which provides for the community facilities like educational, medical, recreational facilities etc. to be made available in various planning areas so as to achieve the object of the plan keeping in view the residential density, local character and future expansion. Educational facility being one of the facilities envisaged in the master plan of the Jaipur City, no restricted meaning can be given to the word `facility area'. In other words, Shri Kamlakar Sharma sought to argue that facility area does not necessarily always mean public park or children's play ground but it can also include schools as educational facility.