Public parks, chowks, chogans, play grounds, wide streets, roads, squares, and public open spaces for community gardens, physical exercises, games, festivals, meetings, functions are to be safeguarded for perpetual public use and making them inalienable.

G.M. Lodha, J.-Peoples development through ensuring “environmental purity” public parks, chowks, chogans, play grounds wide streets, roads, squares, and public open spaces for community gardens, physical exercises, games, festivals, meetings, functions are to be safeguarded for perpetual public use and making them inalienable. Safeguards for them contained in constitutional mandates of Articles 47, 48 and 51 and Municipal, U.I.T. Panchayat and easementary laws, whether to be undermined and scrapped for commercial benefits of colonisers, housing societies and even Municipalities or state authorities, is the pivot of legal debate in this “public interest litigation”.

2. Theseare three connected appeals Nos. 156/80, 17 1/80 and 206/80 in which the enlightened citizens of Bundi in widen public interest for protecting a public park area of the city of Bundi, have filed these suits. The Municipal Board started auctioning the plots out of the public park for construction of shops as a commercial proposition. The citizens felt that they are being deprived of the valuable amenities of Public Park where people gather for public meetings, social religious and political and entertaimment, etc., since last several years.

3. Thecivil litigation resulted in a contest between the enlightened citizens, who claimed that the civil body should not auction this important, valuable and useful land of the public for commercialisation and pecuniary benefits. The Municipal Board on the contrary contested both factually and legally this proposition.

4. The finding of the lower Court is that although meetings are held and land is used for play ground etc., but there is no easementary right.

5. The first appellate Court held that there must be an easementary right by prescription and further the villagers’ right can be curtailed or altered. It was also held that the plaintiffs are required to prove that they have been enjoying such rights since times immemorial without any obstruction and interruption and as of right without taking permission.

6. The first appellate Court held that it is true that religious meetings and political meetings and entertainment programmes and games, etc., have been held in this Azad Park quite for some time, but mostly with the permission of the Municipal Board. The Court then held that so far as games are concerned, the game of Gulli Danda or lavendar, etc., in the present age cannot be said to create a just and proper right, because they do not add to the beauty or progress of the city. It was then held that there are cabins on the road sides which are to be removed and as only 1/30th part of the Azad Park would be utilised for it, it would not reduce the major dimensions of the Azad Park nor it would reduce the substantial user of the Azad Park for citizens. In view of the above, the first appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court on the relevant issues. Both the lower Courts have said that the plaintiffs have a right to file the suit.

7. During the pendency of the appeal some of the defendants have died and their legal representatives have not been brought on record. In this respect applications have been filed by the respondents on 30-10-1980. Mr. Sharma and Mr. Jain argued that the entire suit abates, but I am of the opinion that in a dispute of this nature the citizens have challenged the Municipal Board’s interference in civic rights and the amenities, the suit as a whole can never abate. It should not be forgotten that we are in an era where the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the doctrine of locus standi and further the old obsolete adversary system of litigation of us between the panics have undergone radical changes. The new era horizons and dimensions of public litigation have been recently given still new dimensions by the Supreme Court in AIR 1987 SC 1086 (M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India) where social action litigation for compensation has been held to be maintainable even without