( 1 ) RULE. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. 1. The petitioner, a registered society having the residents of Trans Jamuna area as its members, has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ for cancellation of allotment of land ad-measuring 2600 sq. metrs situated at Vinod Nagar (West), (Facing Dr. Ambedkar Park), Delhi in favour of respondent No. 3. Further a writ of mandamus is sought for a direction to restore the park to its original position with required facilities.

( 2 ) THE petitioner s allegation is that at the site a regular park exists for the last 20 years and the said park is also shown in the zonal plan/master plan of DDA. It is con- tended that trees, benches and other facilities were provided by respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that all of a sudden in April, 1998, the allotment of a part of the park was made in favour of respondent No. 3, who commenced construction activities. "no objection" has also been granted to respondent No. 3. It is further contended that petitioner attempted to get a copy of zonal plan. However, on account of alleged influence from political quarters, the copy of the plan was not made available. The allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 a charitable society for a hospital is assailed as being in violation of the provisions of Section 8 of the DDA Act. It is further claimed that the requisite statutory procedure for change of user in the Zonal Plan has not been followed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also argued that initially in the first affidavit filed, MCD had admitted that the land in question allotted to respondent No. 3 was being used as a park. In the additional affidavit filed by MCD, this admission is sought to be resited by claiming that the area in question was wrongly handed over as a park to MCD, but was meant to be used as a dispensary.

( 4 ) I have heard the counsel for the DDA Mr. V. K. Sharma in opposition to the writ petition and perused the counter affidavit. Mr. Sharma has placed reliance on certain photographs, which show that what is claimed by the petitioner as a developed park was in fact not so and it was a vacant piece of land covered by a boundary. In any case the crux of the controversy is the user of the land as shown in the Zonal Development Plan of DDA. Copy of the same has been produced on record. From a perual thereof it is seen that the same is marked for 0. 36 hectares as park and 0. 26 hectares as dispensary. Learned counsel for DDA further submits that the user in the Master Plan is shown as for "education and Health Facility Centre". I have also perused the minutes of the meeting held by the MCD and DDA, wherein it is recorded that along with the park of 0. 36 hectare the land for dispensary had also been handed over to MCD, which continued to maintain both. My attention has also been drawn to the fact that adjacent to the land in question, there is another park i. e. Ambedkar Park of 0. 325 hectares, apart from the park of 0. 36 hectares. Thus the situation is that there are two existing parks available and it is not a case that residents are deprived of this facility.

( 5 ) KEEPING in view these facts as also that the user of the land as shown in the Zonal Development plan, no case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. In view of this finding, the question of respondents having not followed the requisite procedure for change of user also does not arise. Writ petition is dismissed.