RAJENDRA MENON, J.

1. As common questions of law and fact are involved in all these three petitions, they are being decided by this common order. These petitions which have come up for hearing after a period of 27 years are glaring examples of a play ground/stadium being used, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Lal Gera Vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2011 SC 2970 and various other judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of illegal constructions being made contrary to the development plans, master plans and various other requirement of law with regard to constructions and developments in urban areas.

2. In the garb of financial crunch, the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur which wanted to develop a permanent gallery in a stadium, so also to construct rooms/offices for sports persons and sports association entered into an agreement under a promoter builder scheme with the respondent Contractor (builder) and consequently a commercial complex has been constructed where various activities unconnected with sports or sports related activities, contrary to the development plan are being carried out. Making a complaint with regard to misuse of the stadium complex, these Public Interest Litigations were filed in the year 1989.

3. In the case of Krishan Lal Gera (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that no part of a stadium or sports ground can be used for non sport or commercial purpose un-connected with sporting activity. In the present case, in total disregard of the aforesaid Judgment, the master plan and the statutory development plan for the area, various activities are going on, in the complex in question which is not at all related to the sports or sports related activity. That apart, in the development and construction of the shopping complex, various principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, deprecating the manner in which such constructions are made by builders in urban areas and cities contrary to the statutory master plan/development plans is also writ large in this case.

4. All these petitions have been filed in Public interest and grievance of the petitioners as indicated herein above are with regard to the act of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and the respondent builder in the matter of constructing a commercial complex in the Wright Town stadium (Pandit Ravi Shanker Stadium) complex.

5. In M.P. No. 2861/89 petitioners are residents of Wright Town, Jabalpur, staying in and around the stadium in question and have questioned the construction of a commercial complex. It is their case that the commercial complex being constructed around the stadium which is a play ground, is without the authority of law. It is alleged that the construction for non residential purpose i.e. opening of shops are illegal, unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of law. It is said that for making the construction proper approval from the State Government or the Director of Town and Country Planning as is required under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, (herein after referred to as "the Adhiniyam 1973") has not been obtained. One of the petitioner in the said case Shri Vijay Shanker Shukla appeared in person and submitted a written note of argument. It is the case of these petitioners that for the purpose of development of the area within Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, a development plan has been formulated and by referring to various provisions of Section 5, 14, 15, 16, 17 and finally Section 19 of the Adhiniyam 1973. It is said that the land use map has been published and a development plant in accordance to the requirement of Section 19(4) of the Adhiniyam of 1973 has also been issued known as "Jabalpur Development Plan". It is said that in the land use map as per the development plan, this area is reserved for a play ground and recreational area and referring to clause 16.32 of the master plan, it is argued that such an area can be used only for