( 1 ) THE petitioners are the Welfare Association and residents of EA, EB and EC Pockets of the SFS Flats, Rajouri Garden Extn. constructed and developed by respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THE SFS scheme was published in April 1981 by respondent No. 1. It would be relevant to reproduce clause 2 and clause 17 (i) which are as under:

"2. The allotment under the scheme will be on the terms and conditions contained in this Brochure and the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968.

17 General i) The DDA reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of flats and scooter garages depending upon the actual feasibility at site prior or during the course of construction. Similarly, the DDA also reserves the right to change the facilities and specifications shown in the various plans and the text. There may also be some variations in the sizes of the individual rooms and overall covered area as per actual construction. The various plans as given in the Brochure are for the general information and guidance of the intending purchasers of these flats, and as such, do not guarantee the exact reproduction at site while undertaking the construction. " (Emphasis supplied)

( 3 ) ALONG with the aforesaid brochure of the scheme, a plan of the area was also annexed showing a neighbourhood park. A detailed lay-out plan of Rajouri Garden was also annexed to the brochure.

( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner arises on account of a decision of respondent No. 1 to allot land measuring 600 sq. yds. to respondent No. 2 for a community centre and to respondent No. 3 measuring 500 sq. yds. for a church. The petitioners have thus prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the change of the user of the neighbourhood park where the said allotment was stated to be located and for maintaining the park as it is.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein applied under the scheme looking into the plan of the area providing for a neighbourhood park and are now prejudiced by the conversion of the neighbourhood park, at least partially, into a community centre and a church. The learned senior counsel further submits that the said allotments could not have been made without following the due process of law of modification of the plan under Section 11a of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ).

( 6 ) LEARNED senior counsel further contends that the parks are the breathing spaces for a colony in the congesting urbanisation taking place. It is thus contended that the petitioners have a vested right and interested in continuation of the parks. Learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902 where the allotment of the land meant for a public park for construction to privately owned and managed institutes was quashed. It was observed as under:

"22. . . . THESE documents leave no doubt that the action of the Government and the BDA resulting in the resolution dated 14th July, 1976 have been inspired by individual interests at the costs and to the disadvantage of the general public. Public interest does not appear to have guided the minds of the persons responsible for diverting the user of the open space for allotment to the appellant. Conversion of the open space reserved for a park for the general good of the public into a site for the construction of a privately owned and managed hospital for private gains is not an alteration for improvement of the scheme as contemplated by Sections 19 and the impugned orders in that behalf are a flagrant violation of the legislative intent and a colourable exercise of power. In the circumstances, it has to be concluded that no valid decision has been taken to alter the scheme. The scheme provides for a public park and the land in question remains dedicated to the public and reserved for that pu