By the Court.—In the city of Meerut, there is an area called the Town Hall and Gandhi Park; the area is used by morning walkers and it is not in dispute that it is the only open area available in the vicinity. A Committee consisting of the Chief Engineer of the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, the Chief Engineer of the Nagar Nigam, Meerut and a member of the Development Authority resolved on 23 January, 2015 to construct a multi level parking facility in the area of the park and to develop a park on the roof top of the parking facility. The existing park is also known as Gandhi Park as a statue of the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, is installed in it. The statue of Mahatma Gandhi is sought to be re-located towards the park near the main gate of the Town Hall, in the process of redeveloping the area into a multi level car parking facility. The petition, which has been filed in public interest, calls into question the legality of the proposed re-development.

2. Two counter-affidavits have been filed in response to the petition. The Vice Chairperson of the Meerut Development Authority has stated in his counter that there was an acute shortage of parking space for vehicles and hence, a decision was taken to select the present location for the construction of a multi level car parking facility. The counter states that on the top floor of the multi level car parking facility, a park and play ground would be developed and two heavy lifts would be provided for transporting people to the top floor of the multi level car parking facility. However, the affidavit fairly states that in the event, this Court holds that it would not be proper to construct a multi level car parking facility, having due regard to the environmental needs of the area, the Committee would find out some other place for the construction of a multi level car parking facility.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of the Nagar Nigam. According to the counter, the area of the Town Hall, which ad-measures 7200 square meters, is not recorded as a park in the revenue records, but the land is being used as open area for the Town Hall. The counter admits that the land adjacent to the Town Hall is being used in the interest of the general public. The submission of the Nagar Nigam is that a decision has been taken to construct a multi level car parking facility at the Town Hall, since it is situated in the centre of the city and is of “great interest to the public at large”.

4. From the affidavits filed in the present proceedings, it is clear that the area is recorded as a Town Hall in the revenue record. What is also not in dispute is the existence of the park adjoining the statue of Mahatma Gandhi. Again, what is not in dispute before the Court, is that the area is an open space and is being used as such by the general public as a recreation space including by morning walkers. There is no dispute about the factual position that there is no other open area in the vicinity, which would subserve the purpose.

5. The Supreme Court has in a line of authority, beginning with the decision in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902, taken a serious view of the violation of urban planning norms resulting in a diversion of public parks and open spaces for alien purposes. In Bangalore Medical Trust, a nursing home was sought to be situated on a public park. Holding that this was impermissible, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

“(23) The scheme is meant for the reasonable accomplishment of the statutory object which is to promote the orderly development of the city of Bangalore and adjoining areas and to preserve open spaces by reserving public parks and playgrounds with a view to protecting the residents from the ill-effects of urbanisation. It was meant for the development of the city in a way that maximum space is provided for the benefit of the public at large for recreation, enjoyment, ‘ventilation’ and fresh air. Thi