The main legal point established in the judgment is that the change of land use from green belt to residential area was a violation of constitutional provisions related to environmental protection, and the authorities had a duty to maintain such spaces as per the doctrine of public trust.

ORDER :

1. The appeals have been preferred as against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow, deciding two Writ Petitions by the common order dated 08.02.2006 questioning the change in master plan 2021 and land acquisition proceedings.

2. The facts, in short, unfolds that the area in question was reserved for green belt in the master plan that was prepared in the year 1995. A fresh master plan was prepared and approved on 31.03.2005. The area was changed from green belt to residential one on the prayer being made by the Lucknow Development Authority. Surprisingly the act was done in tandem, the date on which the master plan was modified, the area in question was changed from green belt to the residential one. On the same day, a notification had been issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'). A corrigendum was issued on 05.05.2005 and later on 24.10.2005 that shows the notification had been issued under Section 4(1), 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in utter haste. A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 24.10.2015.

3. The area to be acquired in the notification under Section 4 was 266.661 Hectares for the purpose of expansion of Gomti Nagar at Lucknow. Out of this, 203.189 Hectares area belongs to individual landowners and rest of the area belonged to the Government. The declaration under Section 6 was confined to the area 203.189 Hectares. The total area reserved for the green belt in the master plan was 266.661 Hectares.

4. A Writ Petition was preferred in the month of June 2005. The High Court had passed an interim order of status quo with respect to the disputed property. The petitioner in the Writ Petition had prayed for the relief to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of master plan especially challenging the legality and validity of a portion of the Master Plan of 2021 converting green belt area to residential. Adarsh Samuhik Sahkari Krishi Samiti Limited owned land in area 10.102 Hectares whereas Lal Bahadur owned 0.512 Hectares. The prayer was also made in the Writ Petition to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act invoking the urgency provision.

5. The Lucknow Development Authority had issued a Public Notice on 23.02.2005 inviting objections/suggestions to the Draft Master Plan by 04.03.2005. In the Draft Master Plan, the disputed land was shown for parks and open spaces/green belt. After considering the objections/suggestions, the Master Plan was finalised, which was later approved by the Government on 31.03.2005, and notified on 09.04.2005.

6. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Master Plan of 2021 was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 11 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short "the Act of 1973"). The area could not have been changed from greenbelt/open spaces to the area reserved for development of residential colonies. The action was based on malice in law. It was unreasonable, arbitrary and tantamount to the colourable exercise of power, and it was contrary to reports of the expert's Committee. The action was in violation of Articles 21 and 48A of the Constitution of India. The authorities were guilty of acting contrary to the public interest and duty to protect the environment that was their constitutional duty and tantamount to removing of oxygen filled lung spaces that are absolutely necessary for the healthy environment for the inhabitants of Lucknow. There is a paucity of such spaces, it would result in ecological imbalance and hazardous to the health. The notification under section 4 of the Act was bad in law; inquiry under Section 5A could not have been dispensed with.

7. The stand of the Lucknow Development Authority in the reply was that Writ was not maintainable. The Master Plan had been notified after following the due process of the Act of 1973. The objections were duly invited. Thereafter, the