IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Park is a necessary not a mere amenity.
(2) 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.

Headnote:(a) Public Interest Litigation ¯ Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975, Sections 7, 12 and 15 ¯ Land use of land in question shown as recreational in the Zonal Development Plan approved by the State Government ¯ Land in question earmarked for parks ¯ Respondent no. 3 a society field application to the respondent no. 1 Development Authority for grant of permission to construct a temple on the site land in question ¯ Respondent no. 1 Development Authority by order dated 30.3.2010 amended on 10.5.2010 granted permission to the respondent no. 3 to construct Venkateswari Swamy Vari Temple and issued orders ¯ The appellants filed writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning the decision of respondent No.1 to sanction construction of temple ¯ Division Bench of the High Court held that as per the approved Zonal Development Plan, Town Survey No.2/3 (land in question) is earmarked for recreational use (park) and as such unless the State Government relaxes the use of land, respondent No.1 cannot grant permission for construction of temple ¯ However, the appellants’ prayer for quashing permission was rejected on the ground that mere allotment of the land for construction of temple will not give rise any cause of action unless permission for construction of temple is accorded by the first respondent on submitting the plans ¯ Hence this appeal ¯ Held, respondent No.1 has granted permission to respondent No.3 for construction of temple at the site in question ¯ There is nothing in the language of that order or the conditions enshrined therein from which it can be inferred that respondent No.1 had allotted land to respondent No.3 ¯ Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in deciding the writ petition by assuming that it was only a case of allotment of land ¯ The use of land in question in the approved Zonal Development Plan has been shown as recreational (park) ¯ The respondent no. 1 was not justified in granting permission to the respondent no. 3 for construction of the temple on the land in question ¯ Further, the respondent no. 3 was not the owner of the land in question, the land has not been allotted to it ¯ The respondent no. 1 in accepting the application of the respondent no. 3 for construction of the temple without making any inquiry about its title committed illegality, writ at large on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The questions which arise for consideration in this appeal are whether respondent No.1 - the Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority had the jurisdiction to grant permission to respondent No.3 - Sri Venkateswara Swamivari Alaya Nirmana Committee for construction of temple at the site of which land use was shown as recreational in the Zonal Development Plan approved by the State Government and whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was justified in refusing to nullify the decision taken by respondent No.1 by assuming that it was only a case of allotment of site.

3. Respondent No.1 was constituted under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, ‘the Act’) to promote and secure the development of different parts of the four towns, namely, Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali and Mangalagiri. In 1978, respondent No.1 acquired 91 acres land at Chenchupet, Tenali and prepared a layout plan for development. As per the approved plan, 10 sites were earmarked for parks. These included an area of 75 cents comprised in Town Survey No.2/3, Block No.1, Ward No.1, Chenchupet.

4. The Master Plan of Tenali town was approved by the State Government vide G.O.Ms. No.969 dated 21.11.1978 and the Master Plan of the urban area of respondent No.1 was approved vide G.O. Ms. No.144 dated 3.3.1988. After about 15 years, the State Government decided that the Master Plans be replaced by a comprehensive Zonal Development Plan. For this purpose, the Vice Chairman of respondent No.1 was authorized to take necessary steps. Thereafter, the area covered by the urban region of respondent No.1 was divided into 23 planning zones and it was decided that Zonal Development Plans be prepared on priority basis in respect of 15 zones including Tenali zone. The draft Zonal Development Plan of Tenali was published in the local newspapers and objections/suggestions were invited from the public. In the final Zonal Development Plan of Tenali town, which was approved by the State Government vide G.O. Ms. No.689 dated 30.12.2006, land use was divided into the following 9 (main) categories:

“1. Residential use Zone

2. Mixed Residential use Zone.

3. Commercial use Zone [Local, Central and General Commercial use].

4. Industrial use Zone

5. Public and Semi public use Zone

6. Recreational use Zone.

7. Transportation and Communication use Zone (Roads, Railways, Airports, Bus Depots and Truck Terminals)

8. Agricultural use zone.

9. Water Bodies.”

5. Respondent No.3, which was registered as a society in March, 2009 under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, submitted an application dated 28.5.2009 to respondent No.1 for grant of permission to construct a temple at the site which formed part of Town Survey No.2/3. After considering the objections received from the public, respondent No.1 passed resolution dated 4.2.2010 for grant permission to the Residents Welfare Association to construct Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Temple. In furtherance of that decision, Vice-Chairman of respondent No.1 issued order dated 30.3.2010, the relevant portions of which, as contained in Annexure P-4 of the SLP paper book, are extracted below:

“Therefore the `Residential Welfare Association’ is permitted to construct Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Temple in the earmarked site and orders are issued accordingly.

The said ‘Residential Welfare Association’ Alaya Committee is directed to follow the following conditions:

1. The said Association has no ownership rights on the site earmarked for Religious center in the IDSMT Scheme. The said Association has right to construct the temple only. The complete rights on the site and building shall rest with the UDA only.

3. The Association should not make use of allotted site for other purposes except for the construction of temple.

4. Temple should be constructed within three years from the date of issue of this order. Or else the UDA is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 921

IMPORTANT POINTS (1) Park is a necessary not a mere amenity. (2) 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.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Park is a necessary not a mere amenity.
(2) 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.