The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of land earmarked for public amenity cannot be changed without considering the rights of the affected parties and maintaining ecological balance.

( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of writ petition No. 849 of 2001 (Shriram Colony Mohalla Sudhar Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others ).

( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Municipal Corporation against the order of single Judge. The brief facts of the case are as under :-RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 3 have filed a writ petition before the Single Bench, challenging the inaction of appellants in not deciding the revised layout plan and granting permission for construction. Respondents/petitioners contended that their grandfather Late Shri Ramawtar Sharma was the ownerof lands; out of which he carved out number of plots and developed a colony, which is known as SHRIRAM COLONY". Said Ramawtar Sharma bequeathed the ownership of the lands owned by him in the said colony to the respondents/petitioners. It is further contended that on 17/03/1989 Department of Town and Country Planning, Gwalior allotted plot Nos. 71, 72, 73 and 74 in the name of petitioners. The name of petitioners was mutated in the records of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. Petitioners wanted to surround the said plot Nos. 71 to 74 by erecting a boundary wall only through the length and width of the plots at the corner end. An application was submitted with the Officer of Ward No. 11 on 20/03/1990 for seeking permission for construction of the boundary wall. The said application was acknowledged by Ward Officer on 20/03/1990 itself and was entered in the Inward Register atserial No. 1074. No sanction for construction was received from the respondent No. 1, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior or Ward Officer in pursuance of the application dated 20/03/1990. Petitioner then served a notice to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and copy of the notice was sent to the Ward Officer regarding intention of the petitioners. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioners that since there was a deemed permission as contemplated in Section 295 (3) of the Municipal Corporation Act, petitioners after notice proceeded with erection of the boundary wall. The boundary wall was constructed on 27/04/1990. It is contended that as soon as erection of boundary wall was completed, objection was raised by the residents of colony and some complaints were made to the various Authorities, challenging the act of petitioners. On 19/06/1990 members of the Municipal Corporation along with aid of local police reached the aforesaid plots and demolished the boundary wall. Authority of Municipal Corporation has also carried away the material with them. Petitioners contended that this act is contrary to law, arbitrary and petitioners have been put to financial loss of Rs. 70,000/ -. Petitioners are entitled for costs of Rs. 50,000/- towards the materials which were carried away by the Officers of the Municipal Corporation. After demolishing the wall, petitioner No. 1 contacted the Collector, Gwalior, Administrator and Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and showed them the documents which he possessed. Thereafter, vide Annexure P/7 detailed communication was sent to the Corporation. On account of this action petitioners filed a writ petition No. 954 of 1990. While the petition was pending, petitioners submitted an application along with plans to Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, for revision of layout plan. The said Authority vide letter dated 23/01/1991 accepted the layout plan and intimated the same to the petitioners as well as to the respondents. After sanction of the revised layout plan, petitioners submitted the same to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. Municipal Corporation informed the petitioners that since petition is pending before the High Court, therefore, revised layout plan cannot be considered. Petitioners have now challenged the action of respondent No. 1 in not considering the layout plan as erroneous and refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Earlier petition was disposed of on 24/11/1992 and resp