ASOPA, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition is directed against the action of the respondents of carrying out the construction in the park area measuring 18 x 18 mtrs. marked "a" in the map (Annex.-I) and the marked portion `c' to `d' in the park-A in Annex. III. THE petitioner is also seeking direction to restrain the respondents from making any construction in the area marked `b' in Annex. III.
(2.) IN the writ petition the main grievance is only with regard to Park-A situated at Shopping Centre constructed in Sector No. 3 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur by making assertion that the respondents have permitted the vegetable vendors to carry on the construction of shops which will reduce the area of the park from 18 mtrs. North-South to 9 mtrs. on the ground that the Housing Board prepared a scheme known as Shastri Nagar Housing Scheme and after approval of the Government, the same was published in Gazette wherein three pieces `a', `b' and `c' marked in Annex. 1 reserved as facility area of the park, therefore, they have no authority to change the scheme. The Housing Board and its officers-respondents No. 2 to 4 have filed common reply and raised objection that the writ petition filed by the unregistered society is not maintainable. They have admitted the fact of framing of the scheme, construction of 1500 houses, shopping centre and the reservation of facility area as park marked as `a', `b' and `c' in the plan. The Housing Board has further admitted the fact that they have no right to change the scheme. In reply they have also submitted that the vegetable vendors Association `phal Sabji Vikreta & Thela Vyavsaya Sangh' submitted a representation to the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, on which the decision might have been taken to allot the similar piece of land to the petty traders on depositing Rs. 2,000/ -. it is also submitted in the reply that the said scheme was entrusted to Municipal Corporation on 23. 2. 93 for general maintenance and on 4. 1. 98 the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation inaugurated the shops of fruit and vegetable vendors which were installed by raising platforms. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by the Housing Board and submitted that the petitioner Vikas Samiti is a registered Society with regard to the objections taken by the Housing Board in its reply and a perusal of the Registration Certification would reveal that the same is of the year 1995-96. Although, there was an order on 6. 6. 89 for maintaining status quo but still said inauguration is said to have taken place. On 10. 10. 2001 the Municipal Corporation was impleaded as respondent No. 6. and was directed to appear with record on 12. 11. 2001. The Municipal Corporation filed the reply on 25. 10. 2004 and has admitted the fact that the said scheme was handed over to it for general maintenance but the reply of the Municipal Corporation is silent with regard to the fact of grant of any allotment/permission to raise platform to the vegetable vendors and has further submitted that the concerned respondent can file reply in the better manner. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Board as well as the Municipal Corporation were/are under an obligation to keep the facility area marked as park which vests in public as it is. After publishing the scheme in the official Gazette, they become trustee of the area reserved for the park and have no right of disturb/destroy the same. The only right vests in them is to maintain the same that too in the interest of the public. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has cited (1) Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B. S. Mudappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902, (2) Nizam and Others vs. Jaipur Development Authority and Others, AIR 1994 Rajasthan 87, (3) Virender Gaur and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 577, (4) M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 388, and (5) M. I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Others, (1999) 6 SCC 464.
(3.) THE counsel for the Housing Board has submitted that the Housing Board cannot vary or change the scheme as admitted by them in reply to Para No. 10 of the writ. THE further submission of the counsel for the Housing Board is that the park is basic facility and three pieces of land were kpt vacant as facility land and were shown as parks in the map. However, the main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the Housing Board is that the writ petition is not maintainable as no resolution and document to prove that the petitioner is a registered Association. No one appears on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, therefore, the aforesaid contents of the reply of the Municipal Corporation, will be taken as contention on behalf of the Municipal Corporation. I have considered the record of the writ petition and further considered the rival submissions of the parties. ;