JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Kamlakar Sharma, who is an advocate practising in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur and is a keen environmentalist, Golfer and active Sportman and is deeply interested in the preservation of environment and ecology of the State of Rajasthan in general and City of Jaipur in particular, has filed Writ Petition No. 6826/94 in this Court as petitioner in person. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6855/94 has been filed by M/s. Rambagh Golf Club through it's Joint Secretary, Madhukar Chaturvedi and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1162/95 has been filed by Doctors resident of Jaipur, Dr. S.C. Kabra and Dr. N.S. Rathore, in the form of letter petition. Since the questions raised by the petitioners in all the three above-mentioned writ petitions are identical for consideration of this Court, the relief sought for against the respondents is identical and the petitions have been filed in larger public interest for the protection of environment, ecology and green areas of the city of Jaipur, the writ petitions have been treated as Public Interest Litigations and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the aforesaid writ petitions the petitioners have sought directions from this Court for restraining the respondent-authorities i.e. the State of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1) and Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'JDA') (respondent No. 2) from converting the green areas of Ramnbagh Golf Club which contains Golf Course and the Polo Ground situated just opposite the Rajasthan High Court and the State Secretariat buildings at Jaipur into commercial, residential, administrative, cultural and other activities which are not only contrary to the Master Plan of the city of Jaipur which is still operative but also violative of the statutory provisions as envisaged under the Constitution of India, Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959) and the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short the Act of 1982'). 3. 3. As conscious spirited citizens and having the realisation of the proposed move of the respondents which is likely to have adverse effects and implications on the health of the citizens of the city of Jaipur, this Court has been requested to intervene in public interest in enforcing the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the fundamental duties cast upon the respondents under Articles 48-A and 51-A of Constitution for the protection of environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur, all the green areas in Rambagh Complex which houses a Polo Ground and a Golf Course and which have been in consistent use of the residents of Jaipur since the times immemorial. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the open areas facing High Court and the Secretariat buildings popularly known as Ram Bagh Complex with its vast number of trees and well maintained grassy lawns located in the heart of the city serve to the residents of Jaipur fresh oxygen, regeneration, scavenging and purifying functions as lungs of the city, just as a human body cannot function without the lungs and the heart which supply fresh blood and oxygen to the body likewise preservation, protection and development of the green areas is of paramount importance with a view to have check over the increasing pollution in the city as a result of discharging of the pollutants by : A. 1. Increasing number of uncontrolled, unmonitored defective motorised vehicles such as Tempos, private mini-buses and State Roadways buses, 2. Coal and wood fuel used by a large segment of city population especially the slum dwellers etc., 3. Gaseous discharge from the septic tanks, sewerage etc. B. Particulate pollution from 1. Wind-borne fine dust from the unrestricted stone quarrying activities around the city of Jaipur, 2. Soot from the defective motorised vehicles. C. Bacterial and viral pollution from : 1. Lack of proper sewerage system and open sewerage in the city, 2. Improper collection, storage, transport and disposal of the highly infectious hospital waste in view of the vast increasing number of private hospitals/dispensaries/clinics in the city of Jaipur. 3. Open dumping of the organic household waste such as sanitary pads, diapers etc. on the streets. 5. In writ petition Nos. Improper collection, storage, transport and disposal of the highly infectious hospital waste in view of the vast increasing number of private hospitals/dispensaries/clinics in the city of Jaipur. 3. Open dumping of the organic household waste such as sanitary pads, diapers etc. on the streets. 5. In writ petition Nos. 6826/94 and 6855/94, the petitioners have contended that in view of the high- handed, arbitrary and unreasonable attitude of the State Government as well as the JDA instead of protecting the environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur are acting detrimental to it by planning to carry out construction activities at large scale in the area around Rambagh Complex and hence the petitioners have been left with no alternative except to approach this Court for issuance of appropriate directions restraining the respondents from carrying out through threatened and illegal action of destroying the environment and ecology. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that keeping the environment clean is a fundamental duty not only of the State but also of every citizep of the country. The protection of environment is the solemn duty of both the Central as well as the State Government. Keeping this aspect in view the framers of the Constitution of India by 42nd amendment as inserted by the amending Act of 1976 introduced Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) which cast fundamental duties on the State and its instrumentalities to protect and safeguard environment of the State. Article 48-A envisages:-"the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country." Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution provides that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India amongst others to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests, lakes, rivers and wild. life, and to have compassion for living creatures." Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been given a very wide meaning and connotation so as to include not only the right to life and liberty but also enfolds within its compass, the right to live with human dignity and includes all those aspects of the life including the protection of environment, nature and ecology of the State which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living. 7. 7. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the city of Jaipur has undergone considerable expansion and development during the past two decades. On account of development there has been massive reduction of open areas and wherever it was possible, buildings in a haphazard manner have been constructed by the authorities thereby leaving no space for the residents of Jaipur City to breathe in fresh air with the result that more or less all green areas of Jaipur have been wiped out as a result of expansion of the desert and concrete jungle. Except for very few gardens including the area in question, there is no green area left in the city and the only open areas are Rambagh Complex, housing Polo Ground and Golf Course, Tal Katora and Chaugan Stadium. Outside the walled city of Jaipur there exists Ramniwas Garden, which by an order of this Court in the matter of Ram Chander Kasliwal, Advocate v. State of Rajasthan (PIL), reported in 1993 (2) WLC, 501 , was closed to vehicular traffic with a view to protect the' said area from encroachment, pollution and from being destroyed. 8. It has been next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the authority which was entrusted with the task of development of the city of Jaipur has failed in its duty in development of the gardens and open spaces even in the colonies where small open areas were meant to be kept, have been allotted by the authorities for construction of buildings whether commercial or residential with a view to destroy the environment and ecology of the city. As a result of the construction activities carried out by the authorities in haphazard manner, no green area has been left in the city of Jaipur except the areas as referred to above. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question, Housing Polo Ground and Golf Course in the Rambagh Complex, commenced in the year 1972 and culminated in the passing of the Award dated 18.10.93 (Annex-R2/1). The petitioners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings of the land in question but the challenge is to the proposed user of the land by the respondents for carrying out residential, commercial, administrative and cultural activities etc. The petitioners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings of the land in question but the challenge is to the proposed user of the land by the respondents for carrying out residential, commercial, administrative and cultural activities etc. as the same is not permissible either under the Master Plan of the city of Jaipur issued in the year 1976 which is still in existence or in the Draft Master Development Plan - 2011 issued by the authority. It has been submitted in this context that the user of the land can also not be contrary to the Master Plan referred to above in which the land in question has been shown as green area and mandatory duty is cast upon the respondents to protect and further develop the green areas over the land in question and as a consequence it is not permissible either for the State Government or the authority to change or alter the land use or its present status. It has also been submitted that if the respondents are. permitted to carry out the conversion of land contrary to the existing master plan or to the proposed master plan of the city of Jaipur, it would result in deforestation and atleast 40,000 green trees which are presently in existence in the said area would be destroyed which shall result in disturbing the environment and ecology of the city. Even in the metropolitan city of Delhi major steps are being taken by the State Government for protection of environment and ecology by construction of huge public parks running into several acres in residential ares which have been directed to be maintained and protected by several orders passed by the Apex Court for protection of the environment and ecology of the city of Delhi which is considered next to Tokyo (in Japan) as highly polluted city in the world.8-A. Keeping in view the great emphasis throughout the world for maintaining the open spaces, gardens and green areas, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no justification for allowing the respondents to carry out their illegal and unauthorised activities of destruction of trees which would result in ecological imbalances and would also affect the environment of the city. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no amendment or modification in the existing or in the proposed Draft Master Plan should be permitted to be done by the respondents which would affect the basic structure of the Plan and which would be contrary to the constitutional provisions of Article 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. On the question of locus standi, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the Master Plan of Jaipur City which was prepared and published by the Town Planning Department of the State of Rajasthan in the year 1976, the area of the Rambagh Complex has been shown as open space and playgrounds and the Master Plan also indicates that the said areas would be developed further i; the present location which evidently means that no change was envisaged by the authorities with regard to the land use either in the existing Master Plan or in the proposed Draft Master Plan, as referred to above. Hence it is necessary that such open spaces and green areas should be maintained and further developed. It has been further contended that the area in question was converted into a Golf Course in the year 1944 and the Golf Course was deliberately and intentionally established at the present site considering the future expansion of the city and also the fact that this area would ultimately serve to the residents of Jaipur as Lungs of the City. The land housing Polo Ground is used by several persons visiting the club premises every day for morning walks with a view to breathe fresh air, since there is no other place in the city as open and green as the area in question. The preamble containing the introductory chapter in the existing Master Plan states that the Jaipur is well known as the Pink City of India. It is one of the very few planned cities in the country and is famous for its traditional Architecture and Civil Design aspects, well laid out roads, parks and palaces. Visitors to Jaipur can have a glimpse of the Town Planning principles of the late Medieaval Period actually put into practice. It is one of the very few planned cities in the country and is famous for its traditional Architecture and Civil Design aspects, well laid out roads, parks and palaces. Visitors to Jaipur can have a glimpse of the Town Planning principles of the late Medieaval Period actually put into practice. It further envisages that the Master Plan for Jaipur for the period 1971-91 was prepared finally in accordance with the requirements of Section 5(3) of the Act of 1959 and was finally approved by the State Government in accordance with Section 6(1) of the said Act. The Master Plan is thus a written statement of planning policy and principles for guiding the future growth of the city. It is accompanied by the land use plan and other maps indicating the translation into spatial dimensions principles and policies and provides definite guidelines both for the State Government as well as for the public. A perusal of the existing Master Plan reveals that the land in the city has been located for various uses in such a manner so as to promote more cohesive functions between the various activities of the city. Under the Heading 'Recreational' it has been provided in the Master Plan that the Public Parks and Open Spaces are more commonly known as the `lungs' of the city as they reflect to some extent the social and physical health of the people. Every urban area has to have a systematic and rational distribution of public parks, open spaces and recreational facilities. An effective plan has, therefore, been evolved for Jaipur for providing various types of recreational facilities at different levels i.e. local, district, city and regional levels. It is also intended to -develop selected wooded areas, lands around historical monuments and picnic spots around Jaipur to provide the much needed relaxed environment for week-end trips, group parties etc. 9. Under the heading `Parks and Open Spaces' :t has been specifically provided in the Master Plan that at present the only city level park in Jaipur is Ram Niwas Garden, which with the large increase in population, has become grossly inadequate. Two additional sites, one near Galtaji temple and the other in the Jhalana hills shall be developed as city and regional parks. These shall provide additional 750 acres for city/regional level parks. Two additional sites, one near Galtaji temple and the other in the Jhalana hills shall be developed as city and regional parks. These shall provide additional 750 acres for city/regional level parks. These parks shall be extensive in character and shall have formal and informal areas for various kinds of recreational activities. Some of the areas in these parks may have only large scale plantation, where people could just roam about in complete leisure and away from intense urban activity. 10. Under the heading `Stadium and Playground' it has been specifically provided in the Master Plan that there are two stadiums in Jaipur, namely, Chaugan stadium in the walled city and Sawai Mansingh Stadium near Rambagh. Both the stadiums are grossly undeveloped. It is intended to provide all active recreational facilities in these two stadiums. The existing polo ground and golf club in Rambagh complex shall also be retained. 11. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically stated at the bar that the aforesaid statement made by the Town Planners in the existing Master Plan to retain the existing polo ground and golf course in the Rambagh Complex serve as a binding commitment on behalf of the respondents to the residents of Jaipur City not only to retain existing Polo Ground and Golf Course in the Rambagh Complex but also to further develop the said recreational facilities over the land in question. Hence it was contended by the learned counsel that in view of the solemn assurance to the residents of Jaipur as aforesaid no deviation or departure should be permitted either with regard to the land use by converting the same into commercial or residential, administrative or any other use which would be contrary to the land use indicated in the existing Master Plan. It has been further contended that even in the Draft Master Plan-2011 issued by the authority, no change has been envisaged with regard to the user of the land in question. Under the heading `Environmental Balance' it has been provided that Jaipur region has experienced an emergence of environmental crisis in terms of depletion of water, forest, soil erosion, flora and fauna and climatological changes. 12. Under the heading `Environmental Balance' it has been provided that Jaipur region has experienced an emergence of environmental crisis in terms of depletion of water, forest, soil erosion, flora and fauna and climatological changes. 12. Under the heading `Plan Policies' it has been provided at item No. 9 and 12 as under : "(9) Conservation of historical monuments and development of places of tourist interest and cultural significance be declared priority areas for development of facilities of National and International level. (12) Areas established to be of ecological importance be safeguarded against any unsympathetic land use and be developed only as tourist destinations and major recreational facilities." 13. Under the heading `Approach to Planning' it has been indicated as under:- "Even though the time frame of planning for present purpose is taken to be upto the year 2011, it is important to view the region in a much longer perspective. Cities are not meant for one human life span, they are meant to serve many generations to come. It is the self-sustenance in this time perspective which is an important aspect to be considered while planning areas for physical expansion to accommodate increasing population. It is not practical to keep drawing concentric rings of roads every twenty years, for history has shown and proven that settlements have many intangible dimensions for its direction of growth besides spatial planning. ................................ The physical form of J.D.A. region, its existing road network, directions of growth, and all other related factors combined together, point out to only one most suitable solution. In case of J.D.A. Region, a star shaped formation with fingers of urbanisation extending along major movement corridors punctuated by bulbous nodes and the greens of agricultural fields penetrating deep into the urban areas of the city emerges out to be the only plausible solution." 14. In the Chapter `The Development Plan' under the heading `Activity Distribution' the following urban nodes have been proposed in the Master Development Plan : 1. Transportation. 2. Facilities, Utilities and Services. 3. Eco system and environment. 4. Tourism. It will be pertinent to mention the Eco System and Environment and Tourism wherein it is indicated as under : "Eco System and Environment : It is important that all development programmes are sensitive to the issues related to the fragile eco-system and are implemented while maintaining balance with nature. 3. Eco system and environment. 4. Tourism. It will be pertinent to mention the Eco System and Environment and Tourism wherein it is indicated as under : "Eco System and Environment : It is important that all development programmes are sensitive to the issues related to the fragile eco-system and are implemented while maintaining balance with nature. It is vital that development plans are so executed that as far as possible pollution free environment is available in the region. Jaipur and its surrounding areas have been facing acute problem of dwindling forest covers, soil erosion, silting of water bodies and channels, lowering of ground water table etc. Besides these various forms of pollution, is an increase in urban areas. Ecological and environment aspects are thus the matter of great concern and have been given due importance in the proposals of this Master Development Plan." .......................... Built Environment, Character of the City, Conservation of the Urban Heritage which is an essential indicator of the quality of life is proposed to be given due importance in the Plan proposals." "Tourism : Jaipur Region has vast potential for development of Tourism as a major Economic activity. The Plan proposes for development of Tourist Facilities both for international and inland tourists wherein the Culture of the State and the region is expected to be projected for promotion of Tourism. Conservation of Walled City, and other areas of Architectural, Historical, Cultural importance is proposed to be made an essential component of promotion of Tourism Development Programmes." It has been further indicated as under : "With an overall perspective, Tourism and Recreation at regional level has been divided into following categories viz : (i) Foreign Tourists (ii) Inland Tourists (Indian) (iii) Local Tourists (iv) Weekend stay Tourists from neighbouring states. (v) Recreational Tourism for the population of the region. (vi) Tourism intermixed with Conferences, Seminars, Conventions, business work trips. (vii) Recreation related to travel for other reasons. City of Jaipur though has much to offer to outside tourists, it offers very little to the population of the region for recreation." 15. Under the heading 'Environment' it has been further indicated as under:- "Environment : Good quality of life of the citizens of Jaipur Region is the major objective of this Master Development Plan. The quality of life amongst other things is dependent on the physical and social environment of the Region. Under the heading 'Environment' it has been further indicated as under:- "Environment : Good quality of life of the citizens of Jaipur Region is the major objective of this Master Development Plan. The quality of life amongst other things is dependent on the physical and social environment of the Region. The social environment is created by a complex combination of physiological, sociological, economical aspects. It also continues to have a bearing on many intangible aspects of human life. Physical environment of a Region is however, more tangible in nature and is directly affected by various functions and activities both man made and natural, operative in the Region. To ensure a good quality of life, aspects relating to environment have been given utmost importance. The attributes constituting environment which are proposed to be catered in implementation of the Master Development Plan, after detailing in Zonal Development Plans are outlined as under : Natural Environment : (1) Conservation of Natural Resources. (2) Optimum utilisation of land resources. (3) Development and preservation of forest covers, Regional forests, parks and open spaces. (4) Conservation and development of flora and fauna. (5) Soil conservation. (6) Water harvesting, Conservation and Recharge of Ground water. The land classification studies made using remote sensing information were examined and after assessing the agricultural potentials of lands in the region, urbanisation has been proposed saving valuable agricultural land from urban uses to the extent possible, within limitations of the expanding developments and emerging growth directions. ............................... Similarly, forest covers, forest areas and other areas which serve as lungs of the region and help in maintenance of local micro-climatic conditions are proposed to be protected and developed." 16. Under the heading 'Forest Covers in the Region' it has been proposed as under:- "1. .......... 2. .......... 3. The forest areas, gardens and parks be developed to further promote tourism both foreign ' and domestic and to fulfil recreational requirements of citizens of Jaipur Region and surrounding areas." 17. Under the heading 'Soil and Water Conservation' it has been indicated as under : "Soil conservation, water harvesting, ground water recharge and conservation of water are major priority areas and require thorough studies and programmes of forestation and other protection measures. In this reference programmes are proposed to be drawn with collective efforts of Departments of Forest. Tourism, Irrigation, Agriculture, Water Shed Development and Soil Conservation, PHED and JDA. 18. In this reference programmes are proposed to be drawn with collective efforts of Departments of Forest. Tourism, Irrigation, Agriculture, Water Shed Development and Soil Conservation, PHED and JDA. 18. Under sub-heading 'Urban Greens, Parks and Play Grounds' of heading 'Man Made Environment' it has been indicated as under "URBAN GREENS, PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Strong emphasis is proposed to be laid on greening of not only the proposed urban areas but also the existing developed areas. The hierarchy of parks, open spaces and other recreational areas as outlined by TCPO and other organisations regulating urban development are proposed to be strictly adhered to, while developing new areas and considering regluarisation of existing developed areas. In the new schemes, that are to be developed by various Govt. and other agencies, it is proposed that mandatory provisions be made for reservation of minimum specific percentage of land for open areas, parks and woodlands etc. The percentage of parks and woodlands in the industrial estates be also made mandatory and this percentage may be slightly higher than for Residential areas. Similarly for large commercial and institutional estates a specific provision for green areas, parks and wood-lands be made. It is proposed that in the existing residential schemes, open spaces, parks and play grounds and children's play areas be demarcated and developed. The existing areas for parks, gardens and open spaces in various housing schemes of JDA, RHB, JNN, and Schemes of Housing Co. Op. Societies etc. be developed and protected against encroachment and unauthorised occupation. It is proposed that the parks and gardens in the schemes be so planned that future maintenance and development can be facilitated by optimising the resources. For this purpose it is proposed that size of parks and gardens be minimum of approx. two acres. Smaller totlots and Children play areas may be considered for housing clusters to cater the group of families. Adequate arrangements for basic necessities like parking, urinals, drinking water etc. and incidental facilities like restaurants eatable hawkers etc. be made in suitable locations while developing large parks and gardens. In each of the satellite towns and second order of settlements large recreational parks be planned along major traffic routes which could serve as recreational areas for residents of Jaipur city also. 19. In the Chapter captioned 'Plan Implementation' it has been indicated as under : "Integrated approach of development supported by equitable participation by all sectors. In each of the satellite towns and second order of settlements large recreational parks be planned along major traffic routes which could serve as recreational areas for residents of Jaipur city also. 19. In the Chapter captioned 'Plan Implementation' it has been indicated as under : "Integrated approach of development supported by equitable participation by all sectors. coordination amongst all agencies and public participation can only make a plan successful." 20. In the Additional Text of Draft Master Development Plan-2011, JDA, Region, it has been indicated as under : "After the broad delineation of the JDA Region in 3 major categories namely Urbanisable area, Ecological Zone and Rural area, it is important that various urban nodes formed out of concentration of various activities, facilities or functions are highlighted so as to cater to various infrastructural and other functional requirements of these Urban Nodes. .......................... Accordingly 32 major urban nodes catering to urban functions have been identified including the existing nodes. Each of these urban nodes will be a combination of various urban functions giving rise to a complex urban system. These are expected to cater to the requirements of the Region commensurate to the total expected increase of population in the J.D.A. Region. From the point of view of importance of certain predominant activities expected to occur or existing in these urban nodes they have been classified into major categories as under : 1. Predominantly Commercial Nodes; 2. Predominantly Industrial Nodes; 3. Predominantly Public and Semi Public; 4. Predominantly Recreational Nodes; The physical delineation of these urban nodes in the drawing showing land utilisation is of illustrative nature. These nodes as delineated encompass physical area more than the expected actual requirement, thus ensuring a play of urban systems and economic considerations which establish precise and specific land utilisation patterns amongst different functions. ................................... Such a system of delineation of urban nodes both at Regional, Zonal and local area level is the only plausible solution to regulate land utilisation in the present scenario of development process envisaged for the region. In this manner a flexibility is available for locating the activities which will form the land use pattern. ................................... It is essential to strike a balance between the desire lines of public at large and the need to have a compact and cost effective urban development. In this manner a flexibility is available for locating the activities which will form the land use pattern. ................................... It is essential to strike a balance between the desire lines of public at large and the need to have a compact and cost effective urban development. To achieve this, housing is proposed to be developed with a mix of plotted development, row housing and apartment housing in new areas to be taken up for development in all planning zones." 21. In the aforesaid Additional Text of the Draft Master Development Plan, the activities (functions) have been indicated in the Chart under three categories; (a) Compatible Activity; (b) Partly Compatible Activity: and (c) Non Compatible Activity. While commercial activities like public exhibitions, catering, Cinema Houses, Hotels, Motels, Petrol Pumps etc. have been indicated as Compatible activities, Sport complex, Parks, Open Spaces and Playgrounds and public utilities (RSEB, PHEB and Telecom) have been shown as Non-Compatible Activities. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a balance has to be struck and maintained between compatible and non-compatible activities as indicated in the aforesaid Additional Text of Draft Master Development Plan, by the respondents. 22. On the question of locus standi of the petitioners in filing the aforesaid writ petitions, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the immediate cause which gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions is that on 17.12.94, a news item was published in all the local newspapers including Rajasthan Patrika (Annex-3) wherein the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Rajasthan while addressing the Jewellers of Jaipur as well as NRIs gave them assurance that a Jewellery Market (RATNA AABHUSHAN BAZAR) would be established in Jaipur and the State Government would provide land for the aforesaid purpose. The aforesaid news item also indicated that the land would be allotted by the State Government for the establishment of the aforesaid market in Ram Bagh Complex which obviously would result in destroying the entire green area of the Ram Bagh Complex and creation of commercial, residential and adminisirativ;; complexes in the said complex and would also result in disturbing the environment and ecology of the Jaipur City. A perusal of the aforesaid news item (Annex-3) clearly reveals that a decision was taken in the High Level meeting presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Minister to the effect that for construction of the aforesaid complexes 70-80 thousand square meters of land shall be provided and the construction thereof shall commence immediately and shall be completed by the year 1997. This fact has not been specifically controverted by the respondent-Authority in its reply to the writ petitions although during the course of hearing it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that regarding the land use the respondent- authority would strictly adhere to the norms and guidelines as laid down in the Master Plan of 1976 in not disturbing or removing the green areas of Jaipur City including the land in question in Ram Bagh Complex. Hence the binding nature of the Master Plan of 1976, which has been extended by the notification upto 1997, cannot be disputed and is still operative. Any development plan which is drawn up further either by the State Government or J.D.A. has to be strictly in conformity to the guidelines laid down in the same before drawing up any scheme for further development and urbanisation of the City of Jaipur. 23. Hence the petitioners have been constrained to file the aforesaid writ petitions in public interest for the protection of environment and ecology so that the residents of Jaipur City may not be deprived of their rights to breathe fresh and pollution free air. Development of today cannot be at the detriment of future. 23. Hence the petitioners have been constrained to file the aforesaid writ petitions in public interest for the protection of environment and ecology so that the residents of Jaipur City may not be deprived of their rights to breathe fresh and pollution free air. Development of today cannot be at the detriment of future. Hence the petitioners have sought issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to retain the open spaces and parks in the City of Jaipur including Ram Bagh Complex which includes Polo Ground and the Golf Course and have further sought direction from this Court for issuance of : (i) a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction with a view to restrain the respondents from altering the status of any open space, park, play- ground and green areas in the city of Jaipur and also to restrain the respondents from carrying out any construction of buildings or roads in any of the said ares of the city of Jaipur including Ram Bagh Complex Golf Course and Polo Ground etc., (ii) to restrain the respondents from altering the land use of any open space, play-ground, parks, green areas etc., in any of the future Master-Plans for the city of Jaipur; and (iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 24. In Writ Petition No. 6855/94 which has been filed by M/s. Ram Bagh Golf Club through its Joint Secretary Mr. Madhukar Chaturvedi, petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has been contended by the petitioner that this club is popularly known as Ram Bagh Golf Club and has been in existence in the city of Jaipur since the year 1944. The said club has been rendering valuable service to the residents of Jaipur by providing recreational facilities such as Golf and Polo where both, national and international matches are held every year and hence it is catering to the maintenance of healthy environment as well as good health of the citizens and also ensures ecological plannings. It has been contended inter-alia that after the independence of the country development.of Jaipur City was taken over by the Urban Improvement Trust (for short 'UIT') and the Municipal Council and in the year 1959 UIT was created under the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959. It has been contended inter-alia that after the independence of the country development.of Jaipur City was taken over by the Urban Improvement Trust (for short 'UIT') and the Municipal Council and in the year 1959 UIT was created under the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959. These autonomous bodies were quite conscious about the healthy environment but could not withstand the pressure of growing construction activities which resulted in reduction of green areas in the City of Jaipur.24-A. It has been contended by the petitioners that inspite of massive destruction of the trees, the petitioner-club has made every possible effort to maintain and preserve the green areas in Ram Bagh Complex by carrying out plantation of trees at a very large scale which are in existence in the said complex. It has been further contended by the petitioner-club that for the maintenance and development of the club, financial assistance was required and for this purpose the Central Government accepted the request of the petitioner-club by sanctioning financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 38.22 lakhs vide letter dated 12th of November 1993 vide Annexure-2 which is addressed to the Director of Tourism by the Under Secretary, Government of India concerning the central financial assistance for upgradation of Ram Bagh Golf Club, Jaipur. Out of the above amount Rs. 10,000,00/- were handed over as first advance to the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (for short 'RTDC') which has already been utilised by the petitioner-club for greening the area by carrying out plantation and by putting up barbed fencing wire in order to protect the plants and the trees from animals and also to prevent encroachments within the periphery of the club. It will be pertinent to mention the salient clause 8 of the sanction letter, dated 12th November, 1993, which is as under : "Maintenance of the ambience and environment must be kept in view while developing/upgrading the golf course. Any construction activity such as of a club house. must be in conformity with the natural surroundings." ................................... "The State Government will regularly furnish quarterly report of the progress of work and expenditure incurred. Such statement/report must be duly certified, by the nominees of the Govt. of India." ................................... Any construction activity such as of a club house. must be in conformity with the natural surroundings." ................................... "The State Government will regularly furnish quarterly report of the progress of work and expenditure incurred. Such statement/report must be duly certified, by the nominees of the Govt. of India." ................................... "The funds sanctioned will be kept in a separate account to be operated solely for the purpose of which the money has been sanctioned." It is apparent from the above that very purpose of sanction of the above amount which was meant for development and promotion of the club with a view to protect the environment and promotion of recreational activities like golf and polo besides morning and evening walkers in the green area in Ram Bagh Complex will stand lost and defeated if the respondents are permitted to carry out construction activities by raising commercial, residential, administrative and cultural complexes which would result not only in destroying the green area of the club but would also affect adversely the environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur. It has been further contended by the petitioner that in view of the proposed move of the respondents that the green area in question would be used for setting up commercial, residential and administrative complexes a campaign was launched by environment loving citizens headed by Hon'ble Chief Minister opposing the move of the State Government to change the complexion of the said area. This fact is borne out from the copy of the campaign 'lungs of Jaipur' marked as Annex-3 to the writ petition. 25. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that contrary to the above, some influential and powerful Jewellers including non-resident Indians who have no interest whatsoever in development of the city of Jaipur and its environment, met the Hon'ble Chief Minister with a view to pressurise him to make available a piece of land which could be utilised by them for setting up of Gem Stones and Jewellery market centre which is 100% commercial activity. In support of the above contentions the petitioners have annexed press cuttings of the Rajasthan Patrika dated 16.12.94 and 18.12.94 vide Annexures 4 and 5 respectively. In support of the above contentions the petitioners have annexed press cuttings of the Rajasthan Patrika dated 16.12.94 and 18.12.94 vide Annexures 4 and 5 respectively. Perusal of the said news items reveals that a high level meeting was convened by Hon'ble Chief Minister in which large number of jewellers and non-resident Indians from America, Germany, Switzerland and Thailand were invited. In the said meeting an assurance was conveyed to the participants that the State Government shall take immediate measures to make available 70-80 thousand square meters of land for setting up Gem and Jewellery market and the task shall be completed by the year 1997 and the said complexes shall start functioning with effect from the year 1997. Being aggrieved by the proposed move of the non-petitioners in damaging and destroying the green areas in question which would adversely affect the environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur and challenging the said impugned action of the respondents, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions on the grounds inter-alia : (a) that the action of the non-petitioners in removing the barbed fencing around the petitioner-club for the purpose of construction of the Gem and Jewellery Complex in the Ram Bagh area and the proposed action of the construction of the roads across the green area from Bhagwandas road to Prithviraj Road is clearly illegal, invalid and contrary to the existing Master Plan which has statutory force under Chapter 5 of the J.D.A. Act, 1982, (b) that the power of plan development vests in J.D.A. and not in the State Government. In the present case the decision has been taken by Hon'ble Chief Minister who has got no jurisdictional authority under the J.D.A. Act, 1982, (c) Decision regarding allotment of the land, if any, can be taken only by the J.D.A. and not by the State Government, (d) Any decision taken in such a situation would be detrimental to the development of the environment and health of the citizens of Jaipur as it would be contrary to the directive principles of State Policy under Article 48-A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution of India. 26. 26. The petitioner-club has sought directions from this court for issuance of a suitable writ, order or direction for restraining the non-petitioners from removing the barbed fencing around the club and for further restraining them from causing any damage to the green area maintained by the petitioner-club and from constructing any road within the club area and/or from cutting and uprooting trees within the petitioner's club area. The petitioner has further sought a direction for restraining the non-petitioners from raising any construction or allotting any land within the area possessed by the petitioner-club and the polo ground and/or from altering the land use contrary to the Master-Plan of the city of Jaipur and also a direction to the non-petitioners regarding preservation of the green areas over the land in question.26A. During the course of hearing Mr. K.K. Sharma petitioner-in-person in SBCWP No. 6826/94 and Shri M.C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate with Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the petitioner-club in SBCWP No. 6855/94 have vehemently contended at the bar that to keep the environment free from pollution is not only the solemn duty of the State Government but also of every citizen. It is" essential for the sustenance of human life and development that protection of environment and ecology of the city should be primary concern and duty of the respondents. In this backdrop the petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petitions seeking the directions, as referred to above. 27. Since the respondents have failed in their primary duty to protect the environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur and in view of the threatened impugned action in disturbing the green areas around Ram Bagh Complex, the petitioners have been constrained to file the aforesaid writ petitions for enforcement of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 read with Articles 48-A and 51- A(g) of the Constitution so that the respondents may be called upon by this Court to perform their statutory duties and obligations enjoined upon them by the Constitution of India for protection of environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur and also to prevent them from raising any commercial, residential or administrative construction over the land in question.27A. After hearing learned counsel for the petitiones, on 23rd December, 1994 this Court issued notices to the respondents to show cause as to why the said writ petitions may not be admitted and allowed and the rule was made returnable within three weeks. By the interim-order dated 23.12.94 this court has directed the parties to maintains status-quo with regard to the land in question. On 2.3.95, Shri S.M. Poddar, learned Govt. Advocate for the State (respondent No. 1) and Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for J.D.A. (respondent No. 2) appeared in this Court. The matter was heard on the question of confirmation of status-quo by the parties vide S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 6039/94 in SBCWP No. 6826/94, filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this court praying therein that inspite of earlier interim order of this Court dated 23.12.94 directing the parties to maintain the status-quo the respondents had removed the barbed wire fencing and the iron gates around the Ram Bagh Golf Course on 19.12.94 which had resulted in destruction of the green area of the club and there was further likelihood of damage by the stray cattle. After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court vide its order dated 24.1.95 directed the respondents not to cause any hinderance in the restoration of the barbed fencing in the area of the golf course and were further directed to hand-over the iron gates of the club which were removed at the instance of the respondents. The interim order dated 23.12.94 was ordered to continue till the final disposal of the writ petitions. 28. Aggrieved by the aforesaid interim-order dated 24.1.95 the respondents had preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court vide SLP No. (C) 12253. The Apex Court vide its order dated 8.5.95 while not interfering with the status-quo order passed by this Court, requested this Court to hear and finally decide the writ petitions expeditiously. 29. In support of their contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the following judgments : 1. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 S.C. 359 . 2. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 S.C. 652 3. Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 662 . 4. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 S.C. 359 . 2. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 S.C. 652 3. Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 662 . 4. T. Damodhar Rao and Ors. v. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and Ors., AIR 1987 A.P., 171 . 5. Banglore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa, AIR 1991 S.C. 1902 . 6. Ram Chandra Kasliwal, Advocate v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1993 (2) WLC (Raj.) 501 . 7. Municipal Council, Ratlam, v. Vardhichand and Ors., AIR 1980 S.C. 1622 . 8. M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I. and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 463 . 9. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 S.C. 420 . 10. Tarun Bharat Sangh v. U.O.I. and Ors., 1992 Supp. (2) SCC, 448 . 11. M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I. and Ors., 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 85 . 12. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1988 S.C. 2187 . 13. D.D. Vyas and Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, AIR 1993 All. 57 . 14. People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal. 215 . 15. Doman Paswan and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1988 Patna, 341 . 29A. The matter of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (supra), is a first case of its kind in the country involving the issues relating to environment and ecological balance. This was a matter relating to the Lime Stone quarries and what safeguard should be adopted by the State with regard to the Mining Operators which may not have adverse affects on the environment and ecology. It was held by the Apex Court as under:- "It is for the Government and the Nation and not for the Court, to decide whether the deposits should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental considerations or the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It may be perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilisation that would indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advice, Government should take a policy decision and firmly implement the same. ................................... It may be perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilisation that would indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advice, Government should take a policy decision and firmly implement the same. ................................... The consequences of such interference with ecology and environment have now come to be realised. It is necessary that the Himalayas and the forest growth on the mountain range should be left uninterfered with so that there may be sufficient quantity of rain. The top soil may be preserved without being eroded and the natural setting of the area may remain intact. ................................... We are not oblivious of the fact that natural resources have got to be tapped for the purposes of social development but one cannot forget at the same time that tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way, there may not be any depletion of water resources and long-term planning must be undertaken to keep up the national wealth. It has always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation." 30. In the matter of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun and Ors. v. State of U.P. (supra), the question which came up for consideration before the Apex Court was regarding the protection of the environment and ecology as a res-,,t of the consequential effects and hazards resulting from the working of the lime-stone quarries. The Apex Court while directing the closure of the lime-stone quarries permanently after consideration of the report of Bandhopadhyaya Committee, constituted by the Court, held as under:- "This would undoubtedly cause hardship to them, but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affection of air, water and environment. However, in order to mitigate their hardship, we would direct the Government of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh that whenever any other area in the State of Uttar Pradesh is thrown open for grant of lime-stone or dolomite quarrying, the lessees who are displaced as a result of this order shall be afforded priority in grant of lease of such area and intimation that such area is available for grant of lease shall be given to the lessees who are displaced so that they can apply for grant of lease of such area and on the basis of such application, priority may be given to them subject, of course, to their otherwise being found fit and eligible." 31. In the matter of Gandhi Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Ltd. and Anrs. v. State of Raj. and Ors. (supra), relating to acquisition of the land in question, but on a different aspect, not pertaining to the user of the land but on the question of acquisition, the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land in dispute were challenged by the appellants-land owners, by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India earlier before the Rajasthan High Court and subsequently by way of an appeal before the Apex Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions on 15th October, 1982 and quashed acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan were, however, allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.2.86 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was reversed. Thereafter the land-owners preferred an appeal before the Apex Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of-this Court. The land is popularly known as Rambagh area/ Princes House and/or Rajmahal. According to the appellants the lands were private properties of Maharaja of,Jaipur. The Gandhi Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti (Samiti), the appellant, acquired the vacant parcels of the land situated in Rambagh Palace and in the compound of Raj Mahal comprising 3,49,000 sq. yards for a sum of Rs. 1,02,00 000 by way of three deeds of conveyance executed on March 29, 1972 and registered on April 3, 1972. 32. The Gandhi Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti (Samiti), the appellant, acquired the vacant parcels of the land situated in Rambagh Palace and in the compound of Raj Mahal comprising 3,49,000 sq. yards for a sum of Rs. 1,02,00 000 by way of three deeds of conveyance executed on March 29, 1972 and registered on April 3, 1972. 32. After the purchase of the land, the Samiti prepared a development plan of the land according to which 500 residential plots of different sizes were to be developed on the land. The samiti on June 24, 1972 submitted the development plan to the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (the Trust) for sanction. The trust raised objections and the matter was referred to the State Government. The State Government further raised objections and as such the matter remained under correspondence for quite some time. 33. On March 24, 1973, the State Government issued notice under Section 52(2) of the Act wherein the owners of the land and other interested persons were called upon to show cause as to why the land be not acquired. A separate notice dated March 26, 1973 was sent to the appellant- Bhawani Singh. Objections were filed by the Samiti as well as by Bhawani Singh. The Officer-on-Special Duty, Town Planning Department, Government of Rajasthan heard the objections and submitted his report dated April 2, 1974 for the consideration of the State Government. The State Government rejected the objections and issued two notifications dated July 11, 1974 under Section 52(1) of the Act which were published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated September 27, 1974. It was at that stage that the appellants challenged the acquisition by way of writ petitions before the High Court.33A. On the question of acquisition of the land in question with reference to the powers of the State Government under Section 52(1) of the UIT Act, it was held by the Apex Court that the land can be acquired by the State Government at the instance of the Trust or Department of the Government or of any prescribed authority. On the question of acquisition of the land in question with reference to the powers of the State Government under Section 52(1) of the UIT Act, it was held by the Apex Court that the land can be acquired by the State Government at the instance of the Trust or Department of the Government or of any prescribed authority. It was further held that the power to acquire the land either for execution of the schemes framed by the Trust under Chapter 5 of the Act or for any other public purpose under the Act, is not open to question since no fault can be found with regard to the procedure followed by the State Government in this regard. The Apex Court while upholding the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court further observed that the decision to acquire the land was on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the State Government in accordance with Section 52(1) of the UIT Act and it was not necessary for the State Government to have framed a detailed scheme or development plan before exercising powers under the said provision. It was further observed that it is sufficient if a decision in that respect is taken and the detailed scheme is left to be worked out at the stage of execution of the plan. With regard to the question of public purpose regarding acquisition of the land in question, it was held by the Apex Court that since notification in the present case specifically provides that the land was being acquired for the purpose of development plan and construction of residential, commercial, administrative and 'cultural buildings, the Apex Court placed reliance upon the following findings recorded by the learned Division Bench of this Court which examined the question in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, 1975(4) SCC, 285 and rejected the argument on the. following reasoning : "It is true that these are all cases under the Land Acquisition Act and public purpose is required to be specified in the notification, but a contention has been advanced that the public purpose should be specified with particularity and the specification should not be vague. Such a contention was repelled. following reasoning : "It is true that these are all cases under the Land Acquisition Act and public purpose is required to be specified in the notification, but a contention has been advanced that the public purpose should be specified with particularity and the specification should not be vague. Such a contention was repelled. In Section 52(1), no doubt, the requirement is that the notice should specify the particular purpose but having regard to the area of the land sought to be acquired, it was not possible to specify with precision, what land is required for which particular purpose. The total land acquired from village Bhojpura and Bhawani Shankerpura i.e. Rambagh area is 0322 Bighas 8 Biswas and the total area acquired from village Hathrohi, the residency area is 65 Bighas 16 Biswas. In view of the acquisition of the large areas, the notices fulfilled the requisite condition of specification of a particular purpose and in our opinion, it was sufficient to state in the notices that the lands are required for administrative, commercial and residential buildings." Consequently the Apex Court held that there was no infirmity in the above referred reasoning of the High Court and the appeals were consequently dismissed.33B. In this respect it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue before the Apex Court was not regarding proposed user of the land for the purpose for which it was required but the validity of notification pertaining to the acquisition of the land in question was upheld by the Apex Court and not the manner in which the land is to be used and also the question pertaining to the user of the land in the context of construction of residential, commercial and administrative complexes as co-related to the environmental and ecology of the city of Jaipur as high-lighted in the Master Plan of 1976 which is still operative and in force was not discussed. It was contended by the learned cousnel that the petitioners have not challenged the acquisition of the land in question but the question which has been raised for consideration of this Court in the present writ petitions pertains to the mode and the manner of .the user of the land as co-related to the environmental and ecological aspect which was neither argued nor raised for consideration of the Apex Court and is a separate issue which is to be considered and decided by this Court. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that M/s. Rambagh Golf Club was a person interested with reference to Section 52(2) of the UIT Act and since objections were invited by the State Government to which petitioner-club was a party and objections were heard and considered and thereafter decision was taken by the State Government vide order dated 11.7.94 (Anxex-16) to the Writ Petition No. 6855/94, to retain the land in question for the benefit of petitioner-club for polo and golf games, its user by the petitioner-club was not open to question. A perusal of the said document reveals that the proposal of the State Government, that notwithstanding the acquisition of the land in question, the same may be leased out to polo and golf club according to the needs in case the authorities of this club are willing to pay the lease money as may be decided by the Government as to how much lease money would be required from the club, will be decided after the acquisition of the land, has not yet been implemented. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the respondents have not impleaded the petitioners as necessary parties to the case and the matter was decided without hearing the petitioners who are persons interested and are in continuous possession of the land in question. 34. In the matter of T. Damodhar Rao and Ors. v. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Ors. (supra), the question which came up for consideration in a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was as to whether the nature of the user of the land which was fixed under the development plan, was binding on the Corporation ? It was held by the. v. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Ors. (supra), the question which came up for consideration in a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was as to whether the nature of the user of the land which was fixed under the development plan, was binding on the Corporation ? It was held by the. High Court as under:- "The purpose of compulsory acquisition proceedings which is to transfer compulsorily the title to private property from one owner to another owner does not in any way alter the binding nature of the developmental plan. Whether a particular piece of land is compulsorily acquired or is sold voluntarily or is allowed to be in the hands of the previous owners, the direction of the developmental plan dictating the uses to which that particular piece of land could be put will prevail and will have to be honoured." It was further held that where the land was reserved under the approved development plan for the purpose of recreational park, a portion of it cannot be used by the person for whom it was acquired for construction of residential houses. 35. On the question of acquisition, it was held by the High Court that acquisition does not alter the binding nature of the development plan. It was further held that mere transfer of ownership cannot change the character of the development plan i.e. the purpose for which the land is to be used as per the Master Plan. The limited question of acquisition cannot change the user of the land as indicated in the Master Plan and that no user is permissible contrary to the development plan. Rule of law requires the authorities to implement the development plan and the public authorities are bound to enforce those obligations. 36. The obvious conclusion which emerges from the above judgment is that it is not' permissible to the authorities to convert or change the user of the land in question on the plea of acquisition of the said land, since the public authorities are bound to enforce the obligations enjoined upon them by the Master Development Plan and they cannot convert the user of the land contrary to the development plan. The object of acquisition has nothing to do with its user if the same is contrary to the development. plan. 37. The object of acquisition has nothing to do with its user if the same is contrary to the development. plan. 37. In the matter of Banglore Medical Trust v. S. Muddappa and Ors. (supra), in an appeal arising out of the judgment of Karnataka High Court on the question of maintainability of Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the said High Court, the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether conversion of public park into a private nursing home by the appellant-Banglore Medical Trust was justified and as to whether the inhabitants of the locality whose park was converted into a nursing home had no cause of action to invoke the equity jurisdiction of the High Court ? It was held by the Apex Court that the purpose for which the Banglore Development Act (12 of 1976) was enacted is spelt out from the preamble itself which provides for establishment of the Authority for development of the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto. To carry out this purpose the development scheme framed by the Improvement Trust was adopted by the Development Authority. Any alteration in this scheme could have been made as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 19 only if it resulted in improvement in any part of the scheme. A private nursing home could neither be considered to be an amenity nor it could be considered improvement over necessity like a public park. The exercise of power in conversion of public park into private nursing home therefore was contrary to the purpose for which it is conferred under the statute. It was further held by the Apex Court as under:- "The entire proceedings before the State Government suffered from absence of jurisdiction. Evenr the exercise of power was vitiated and ultra vires. Therefore the orders of the Government to convert the site reserved for public park to civic amenity and to allot it for private nursing home to Bangalore Medical Trust and the resolution of the Bangalore Development Authority in compliance of it were null, void and without jurisdiction." The Apex Court consequently held that such action of the Authority would be invalid and ultra vires being contrary to the object and purpose of the Act. 38. In the matter of Ram Chandra Kasliwal, Advocate v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. 38. In the matter of Ram Chandra Kasliwal, Advocate v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), the writ petition was filed by eminent lawyer of this Court in public interest before this Court raising an important issue concerning the environmental protection under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with Rajasthan Public Parks Act, 1956 regarding Ram Niwas Garden at Jaipur. The grievance of the petitioner was that the grandeur of the garden was totally lost because of sheer mis-management. It had no more remained a public park, but had became a market place, a public thorough-fare where all kinds of vehicles, automobiles, rickshaws etc. moved from early morning till late night hours with number of hawkers and beggars chasing the tourists apart from several Khomchas and Thelas moving about freely selling eatables and goods in the garden. The further grievance of the petitioner was that Ram Niwas Garden has been declared as a public park and included in the Schedule to the Rajasthan Public Parks Act, 1959 yet its character was not being maintained. The further grievance of the petitioner was that neither the State Government nor the local authorities have realised that they are the participants of the public interest and have to safeguard public rights; whereas on the contrary they are betraying the trust by shirking their responsibilities in every possible manner. It was submitted in this regard that this garden is being used for circus shows, exhibitions, etc., which have not only spoiled the serenity of the garden but destroyed the green plantation and hence the grievance of the petitioner was that since the nuisance in the garden had not abated, it had became difficult for morning walkers even to have their morning walks in this garden, since rights of various parties were affected. On the question of protection of environment, it was held by this Court that the environment is a governmental function and the State Govt. cannot ignore the mandate of Article 48-A of the Constitution of India which declares that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. The object of Environment (Protection) - Act, 1986 is also to provide protection and improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith. cannot ignore the mandate of Article 48-A of the Constitution of India which declares that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. The object of Environment (Protection) - Act, 1986 is also to provide protection and improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith. The preamble of the aforesaid Act reads as under : "Whereas decisions were taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in June, 1972, in which India participated, to take appropriate steps for the protection and improvement of human environment; And whereas it is considered necessary further to implement the decisions aforesaid in so far as they relate to the protection and improvement of environment and the prevention of hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property." Environment has been defined in Section 2 as under:- "Environment includes water, air and land and the inter relationship which exists among and between water, air and human beings, other living creatures, plants micro organisms and property." While allowing the writ petition, this Court issued suitable directions to the JDA regarding protection of Ram Niwas Garden and this court directed the concerned authorities to remove the nuisance and obstruction immediately by deputing their watch and ward staff and take all possible measures for protection of the said garden as per the scheme formulated by this Court. 39. In the matter of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam v. Vardhi Chand and Ors. (supra), the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court on a Special Leave Petition was as to whether the creation of nuisance in a residential locality due to existence of open drains pits and public excretion by humans for want of lavatories requires immediate stopage by an affirmative action of the time bound basis on the pain of punishment under Section 133 of the IPC ? It was held by the Apex Court as under:- "Where there existed a public nuisance in a locality due to open drains, heaps of dirt, pits and public excretion by humans for want of lavatories and consequential breeding of mosquitoes, the Court could require the Municipality under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. and in view of S. 123 of the Municipalities Act to abate the nuisance by taking affirmative action on a time-bound basis. When such order was given, the Municipality could not take the plea that notwithstanding the public nuisance financial in-ability validly exonerated it from statutory liability." 40. In the matter of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (supra), on a writ petition filed in public interest before the Apex Court, the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether notwithstanding the comprehensive provisions contained in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and whether suitable action could be initiated against the public authorities on account of their failure in not having taken effective steps for protection of the river Ganges and the considerable damage which had resulted to the people who use the water of the Ganges ? Since the pollution of the river Ganges was affecting the life, health and ecology of the Gangetic Plain, the Apex Court gave suitable directions for the closure of tanneries who have failed to take immediate steps required for the primary protection of industrial effluents (sic). It was held by the Apex Court that notwithstanding the fact that the closure of tanneries may bring unemployment and loss of revenue, public health, life and ecology was of vital importance to the people and the same could not be ignored. It was further held by the Apex Court that it is the sacred duty of all those who reside or carry on business around the river Ganges to ensure the purity of river. 41. In the matter of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra), with regard to the question of locus-standi of the petitioner to file public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution, it was held by the Apex Court that right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life and if anything endangers or impairs the quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has a right to have recourse of Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. 42. 42. In the matter of Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India and Others (supra), the Apex Court issued suitable direction to the authorities for protection of environment in view of the likely danger to the environment as a consequence of the mining operations. The committee headed by a retired judge of the Apex Court was constituted to ensure enforcement of the State notifications and with a view to prevent devastation of environment and wild life within the prescribed area and directions were issued restraining the authorities from carrying out any mining operation within the said area. 43. In the matter of M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I. and Ors. (supra) in a public interest litigation, the Apex Court issued directions that environment should be made a compulsory subject in the educational institutions including Schools and Colleges. 44. In the matter of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (supra), the question was as to whether the compliance with the technical requirements in the procedural law should be adhered to before filing a petition in public interest in the Court ? It was held by the Apex Court that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when matter of grave public importance is involved for consideration before the Court. 45. In the matter of D.D. Vyas and Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra), the Allahabad High Court while issuing suitable directions to G.D.A., observed that unless an open space reserved for public park is developed as such, the execution of the plan will remain incomplete. Buildings, as proposed in the plan, may have come up, amenities and civic amenities may have been provided and the people may have started living in the colony, yet, the plan cannot be said to have been fully executed, if an open space meant for a park is not developed as such. The duty of the respondents was to implement the plan in entirety making the town beautiful with attractive public parks. Habitability and completion of the construction work in the entire area according to the plan is one thing and the development in entirety of the area strictly in accordance with the plan is another thing. Implementation of the plan cannot be measured by the fact that the entire locality became habitable or functional. Habitability and completion of the construction work in the entire area according to the plan is one thing and the development in entirety of the area strictly in accordance with the plan is another thing. Implementation of the plan cannot be measured by the fact that the entire locality became habitable or functional. The plan remains partially executed until the open space reserved for a public park is developed. It was further observed by the High Court that the basic characteristic of the development plan cannot be altered by the authority. Any open space forms basic feature of the plan and the same cannot be amended and the parks are lungs of human beings.45A. In the matter of People United for Better Living in Calcutta - public and another v. State of West Bengal (supra), the Calcutta High Court while dealing with a similar situation observed as under : "While it is true that in a developing country there shall have to be developments, but that development shall have to be in closest possible harmony with the environment, as otherwise there would be development but no environment, which would result in total devastation, though, however may not be felt in present but at some future point of time, but then it would be too late in the day, however, to control and improve the environment. Time has now come to check and control the degradation of the environment and since the Law Courts also have a duty towards the society for its proper growth and further development and more so by reason of definite legislations in regard thereto, it is a plain exercise of the judicial power to see that there is no such degradation of the society and there ought not to be any hesitation in regard thereto - but does that mean and imply stoppage of every developmental programme - the answer is again `no'. There shall have to be a proper balance between the development and the environment so that both can co-exist without affecting the other." 45B. In the matter of Doman Paswan and Ors. There shall have to be a proper balance between the development and the environment so that both can co-exist without affecting the other." 45B. In the matter of Doman Paswan and Ors. v. State of Bihar and others (supra), the Patna High Court while dealing with an identical situation where the land had been acquired in pursuance of a notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the area acquired was falling within the green- belt as shown in the Master Plan, held that the said green area cannot be utilised for any other purpose except the green area which has been indicated in the Master Plan in view of Section 23 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1982. The notification for acquisition was consequently held invalid. Relying upon the judgment of A.P. High Court, in the matter of T. Damodar Rao v. Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (supra), it was held by the High Court that it was incumbent upon the authorities to have given a detailed finding as to whether the entire area in question which was sought to be acquired comes within the purview of green belt or not ? The High Court further directed that any construction which would be raised by the authorities should not be contrary to the Development Plan and no such construction which would be detrimental to the Master Plan, should be permitted.45C. Pursuant to the show cause notice, respondent No. 2 JDA, filed the reply to the writ petitions as well as the stay petition to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners, while respondent No. 1, State of Rajasthan filed a short reply by adopting the reply to the writ petition filed by respondent No. 2-JDA in SBCWP No. 6855/94.45D. By way of preliminary objections, respondent No. 2, JDA, challenged the locus-standi of the petitioners to file the writ petitions as a public interest litigation and has further contended that the concept of public interest litigation can be used only for espousing the cause of down-trodden and by such class which because of paucity of funds or lack of education or because of some social disadvantageous position cannot approach the court directly. Another preliminary objection has been taken by respondent No. 2 that the land around Ram Bagh Palace Hotel, measuring 32 Bighas and 8 Biswas was shown to be acquired by the then U.I.T. and the matter had come before this Court, since the acquisition proceedings were challenged and the learned Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the Special Appeal vide D.B. Special Appeal No. 318-321/82 in the matter of Gandhi Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti Ltd., and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, vide its order dated 21st February, 1986 and upheld the acquisition therefore, the matter went by way of Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court which was filed by the petitioner samiti and others which too was dismissed vide order of the Apex Court reported in 1992(2) SCC 662. Thereafter the award was also passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.10.93. In this case it was contended before the Apex Court on behalf of the respondents that the land was already being used for beneficial public purpose i.e., polo ground and golf course which was much more useful and important than the one for which the land is being acquired and the Apex Court while disposing of the S.L.P., observed as under:- "Once we are satisfied that the acquisition is for a public purpose, no fault can be found with the proceedings on the ground that the land is already being used for some beneficial purpose." 45E. Thus it is clear from the above observation of the Apex Court in the matter of Gandhi Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti (supra) that with regard to the user of the land in question for the beneficial public purpose i.e. polo and golf games, the Apex Court never intended to interfere or to allow the respondents to change the user of the land in question to any other purpose. It is pertinent to mention in this context that the issue involved for consideration of the Apex Court in the above referred case was concerning the acquisition of the land in question which was for a public purpose and the respondent-JDA had given an unequivocal assurance to the Apex Court that the user of the land in question shall not be made contrary to what is notified in the Master Plan for the city of Jaipur which admittedly is for the polo ground and golf course and the petitioner-club was neither impleaded as a party to the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court nor was heard in the matter and hence conversion of the user of the land in question by the respondent-authority to any other purpose i.e., commercial, residential, administrative and cultural complexes etc. At this stage, it is neither warranted nor permissible as it would not only tantamount to the violation of the commitment made by the respondent-authority to the residents of Jaipur in the Master-Plan of the year 1976 which is operative till date but also of assurance conveyed to the Apex Court that user of the land in question by the respondent-authority will not be for any other purpose than what is indicated in the Master Plan of 1976, which is still operative and is a binding document. 46. Hence it is not the question of acquisition of the land which is at issue and which has been challenged by the petitioners but the question is much wider and of substantial public significance regarding the user of the land which should not be contrary to what has been indicated in the Master Plan, as referred to above, and which admittedly is for the preservation and protection of the environment and for the development of the green areas in the Ram Bagh Complex and other green areas of the city of Jaipur as indicated in the Master Plan. Hence the respondents cannot be permitted in any manner, to change the user of the land in question by taking the plea of acquisition of the land in question as it would be contrary to the public purpose for which the land was acquired, as well as the Master Plan. 47. Shri V.R. Reddi, learned Addl. Hence the respondents cannot be permitted in any manner, to change the user of the land in question by taking the plea of acquisition of the land in question as it would be contrary to the public purpose for which the land was acquired, as well as the Master Plan. 47. Shri V.R. Reddi, learned Addl. Soliciter General (ASG) with Shri R.D. Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 2-JDA, while controverting the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners contended at - the bar that once a land has been acquired by the respondent-authority, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the action of the authority, respondent No. 2 with regard to the question of the user of the land as it is for the authority to use the same in any manner or for any other purpose that it intends. It was contended in this regard that even in the notification which was published under Section 52(2) of the UIT Act, 1959, the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired was to construct administrative, commercial and residential buildings and since neither the State Government nor the JDA is deviating from the purpose which was mentioned in the notification and due care has been taken to ensure that ecological imbalance do not arise, hence it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the right of the respondent-authority to change or convert the user of the land in question to any other purpose at its discretion. 48. It was further contended that as to whether in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Gandhi Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti (supra), the issue relating to the proposed user of the land for the purpose for which it was acquired survives and whether it is open to the petitioners to agitate the same before this Court by way of the instant writ petitions ? It was further contended that the aspect relating to the challenge on the ground of proposed conceptual plan, if implemented, whether it will amount to deviation from the existing Master Plan in force and the proposed Draft Master Plan ? It was further contended that the aspect relating to the challenge on the ground of proposed conceptual plan, if implemented, whether it will amount to deviation from the existing Master Plan in force and the proposed Draft Master Plan ? It was also contended by the learned counsel that since the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Gandhi Grih Nirman Sehkari Samiti (supra) the objections raised by the petitioners at this stage before this Court are-premature. It was further contended that the procedure for acquisition of the land by inviting objections from the aggrieved parties as envisaged under Sections 52(2) and 53 of the UIT Act was duly followed and hence the petitioners should not be permitted to agitate the issue regarding the question of user of the land before this Court and the question of comparative utility of public purpose is not an aspect to be gone into by this Court, since the purpose of acquisition was public purpose for construction of administrative, commercial and residential buildings notwithstanding the fact that it may not be co-related to the environmental aspect as envisaged in the Master Plan and hence no fault can be found with the same and it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the issue by way of public interest litigation before this Court. 49. In order to adjudge the varacity of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the relevant record was summoned from the respondents for the perusal of this Court including the order dated 11.7.94 (Annex-16) which contains the official nothings signed by Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan, the Town Planner of the Town Planning Department of the State and the Revenue Minister passed in this regard on 13.2.95 when the request was made by the learned counsel for the State that the original file which was summoned by this Court in pursuance of its order, dated 17.1.95, was not available and a request was made for short adjournment. The request was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 28.2.95 when the official file was again not produced by the respondent No. 2 and request was made by the learned Government Advocate for the State, respondent No. 1, for adjournment on the ground that the concerned officer was not available in the town and the file shall positively be made available for perusal of the court by next date and the matter was adjourned for further proceedings to 21.3.95 on which date again a request was made for adjournment of the case by the learned counsel for the respondents and the file was not made available for perusal of the court by the JDA-respondent No. 2. The matter was again adjourned to 21.4.95 when too the file was not made available for the perusal of the Court. This shows grossly indifferent and callous attitude of respondent No. 2, who has been seeking adjournments repeatedly on one pretext or the other but the summoned file was not made available for perusal of this Court, hence this Court is left with no option but to draw adverse inference against respondent No. 2 in respect of document (Annex-16) which obviously stands duly proved on the record. 50. Since the noting in the State file stands unrebutted and uncontroverted by respondent No. 2, the obvious conclusion which emerges against respondent No. 2 is that as per the findings of the O.S.D., Town Planning, the land in question has been admittedly used by the petitioners for public purposes, i.e. polo and golf games which are recreational facilities of great tourist importance both at national and international level and hence the use of the land in question by respondent No. 2 being contrary to the public purpose as indicated in the Master Plan, is itself illegal since the land was ear- marked for recreational (sport) activities in the Master Plan of the year 1976 which still holds good even today as well as the Draft Master Development Plan-2011 JDA Region. 51. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the following judgments : 1. Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 662 . 2. M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC, 293 . 3. State of Bihar and Ors. Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 662 . 2. M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC, 293 . 3. State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kripalu Shankar and Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 34 . 4. State of U.P. and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal and Anr, (1985) 3 SCC, 131 . 5. M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors., (1988) 2 SCC 299 . 6. Sachidanand Pandey and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 295 . 7. Forward Construction Co. and Ors. v. Prabhat Mandal and Others, (1986) 1 SCC 100 . 8. State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai @ Kalal and Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 579 . 52. In the matter of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Raj. and Ors. (supra), the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was pertaining to the acquisition of the land in question which is Ram Bagh Complex containing polo ground and golf course which I have already discussed while dealing with the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.R. Reddi, learned A.S.G., highlighted this judgment in support of his contentions stating that once the land had been compulsorily acquired pursuant to the decision of the State Government in accordance with Section 52(1) of the UIT Act, 1959, the framing of a detailed scheme or development plan could not be made a precedent condition to the exercise of power by the State Government under the said provision of the UIT Act. It was further contended by the learned A.S.G., in this regard that the public purpose of the acquisition was not open to question on the ground that the acquisition of land including polo ground and golf course would serve more useful and important purpose than the purpose of development plan and construction of residential, commercial and administrative buildings, as stated in the notification. It was further contended in this regard that once the court is satisfied that acquisition is for a public purpose, no fault can be found with the proceedings on the ground that the land is already being used for some beneficial purpose and the comparative utility of the public purpose cannot be looked into by this Court. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents were not able to give any satisfactory explanation to the Court on the question as to whether on the basis of mere acquisition of land it was open to the respondent-authority to change or convert the user of land in question and whether such conversion or change of user was permissible to the respondent-authority once they had invited objections from the general public including the petitioner-club in accordance with Sections 52 and 53 of the UIT Act, and once decision having been taken by the State Government to use and further develop the land in question as green area, it was not open to the respondent-authority to act contrary to the commitment made by the State Government as well as the JDA to the general public and the residents of the Jaipur City as envisaged in the Master Plan. 53. In the matter of M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with ambit and scope of the powers of the Court on the question of judicial review with regard to the State action held that in assailing the action of the public authority the onus is entirely on the petitioners to establish the malafides on the part of the State authority. With regard to the question of public purpose whether the State action is sought to be challenged on the ground of collateral purpose or malafide or that it had acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, it was held by the Apex Court that the contractual privileges are made immune from the protection of the Rent Act for the respondent-authority because of the public position occupied by the said authority but its actions are amenable to judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. Where any special right or privilege is granted to any public or statutory body on the presumption that it must act in certain manner, such bodies must make good such presumption while acting by virtue of such privileges. Judicial review to oversee if such bodies are so acting is permissible. 54. The field of letting and eviction of tenants is normally governed by the Rent Act. The Port Trust is statutorily exempted from the operation of the Rent Act on the basis of its public/government character. The legislative assumption or expectation as noted in the observations of Chagla, C.J. in Rampratap Jaidayal Case cannot make such conduct a matter of contract pure and simple. These corporations must act in accordance with certain constitutional conscience and whether they have so acted, must be discernible from the conduct of such corporations. 55. It was further held in the aforesaid judgment that every action/activity of the Bombay Port Trust which constituted "State" within Article 12 of the Constitution in respect of any right conferred or privilege granted by any statute is subject to Article 14 and must be reasonable and taken only upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. Where there is arbitrariness in State action, Article 14 springs in and judicial review strikes such an action down. Every action of the executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Article 14. 56. The above observations of the Apex Court, in my humble opinion, helps in advancing the case of the petitioners rather the case of the respondents since the petitioners have challenged the impugned action of the respondents in converting the user of the land in question on the pretext of acquisition of land. 56. The above observations of the Apex Court, in my humble opinion, helps in advancing the case of the petitioners rather the case of the respondents since the petitioners have challenged the impugned action of the respondents in converting the user of the land in question on the pretext of acquisition of land. In my humble opinion the said impugned action of the respondents is amenable to judicial review since the exercise of powers by the respondent-authority is subject to judicial review on the touch stone of criteria laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India that the every State action must be reasonable and taken only upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest and since the decision of the authority to convert the use of the land on the plea of acquisition is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and would amount to arbitrariness, a balance has to be maintained between the proposed development activity and the environmental and ecological aspect of the city of Jaipur. 57. In the matter of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Kripalu Shanker and Ors. (supra) and in the matter of State of U.P. and Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal and Anr. (Supra), the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was in the context of the scheme of the U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, 1955 on the question of public interest while granting licence to a cinema house in accordance with Section 3 of the said Act, it was held by the Apex Court as under:- "While the concept of public interest statutorily recognised has to be kept in view at both the stages the relevant parameters of public interest would differ and they cannot overlap each other and have to be justified on the relevant grounds. A stricter view about the parameteres of public interest, has to be taken at the second stage because by that time the person who has been granted certificate of approval has sunk a fortune in the venture. The relevant aspects required to the kept in view as prescribed under Rule 7 while granting or refusing to grant certificate of approval for cinematograph licence. The relevant aspects required to the kept in view as prescribed under Rule 7 while granting or refusing to grant certificate of approval for cinematograph licence. Therefore, if while granting the certificate of approval the question whether a particular institution is an educational institution and is within or outside the prohibited distance, is examined and a decision was reached that the institution is not an educational institution within the contemplation of the relevant rule nor it is within the prohibited area, this aspect cannot be reviewed to refuse to grant a licence under Section 3 read with Section 5 in the name of public interest." 58. In the matter of M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the question as to whether the noting made by the State Government in the official files could be binding on the concerned department or instrumentality of the State and whether any departure was permissible from the said noting, it was held by the Apex Court as under : "Though there is no sacrosact rule about the immunity from production of documents and the privilege should not be allowed in respect of each and every document, and the claim of immunity and privilege has to be based on public interest, but the real damage with which the Court is concerned in the present case would be caused by the publication of the actual documents of the Cabinet for consideration and the minutes recorded in its discussions and its conclusions. It is well settled that the privilege cannot be waived. Therefore, the claim for production of the documents in question has to be rejected." 59. On the question of privilege with regard to the disclosure of the above document (Annex 16), the learned A.S.G., was specifically told (sic) by this court as to whether the State Government had claimed any privilege for non-production of the said document which contains the noting of the State Government or to prevent its disclosure in accordance with Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India ? The learned counsel for the respondents were not able to give any satisfactory answer to this query and rather stated at the bar that no such privilege was claimed by the respondents with regard to the production of the above state-file containing the above noting. The learned counsel for the respondents were not able to give any satisfactory answer to this query and rather stated at the bar that no such privilege was claimed by the respondents with regard to the production of the above state-file containing the above noting. In absence of the production of the said file for which matter was adjourned on several occasions by this Court, as referred to above in the foregoing paras of this judgment and in absence of the privilege claimed by the respondents to prevent its disclosure, the obvious conclusion which emerges is that the respondents are bound by the commitment made to the general public on the basis of the said documents. In this regard, I am of the opinion that no rights can possibly flow to the respondents from the above notings and the notings made in the official file are not meant for administrative convenience of the officials concerned but are binding in nature since the question of public interest at large is involved and hence no escape or deviation should be permitted in absence of the privilege claimed by the department concerned, which admittedly has not been claimed by the respondent for non-production of the said documents. 60. In the matter of Sachidanand Pandey and Anr v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (supra), a decision was taken at the Cabinet level by the State Government of West Bengal to lease out a part of the Zoo land which was used for fodder cultivation, burial ground, hospital and for animals etc. to a leading hotel company. It was held by the Apex Court that the propriety of the decision taken by the State Government after due application of mind to all relevant considerations including ecology and providing alternative facilities to the Zoo was not open to Courts' interference. to a leading hotel company. It was held by the Apex Court that the propriety of the decision taken by the State Government after due application of mind to all relevant considerations including ecology and providing alternative facilities to the Zoo was not open to Courts' interference. In my opinion, the ratio of this decision is not attracted to the present writ petitions since admittedly the decision was taken by petitioners since admittedly the decision was taken to further develop the land in question by the respondents in accordance with the mandate of the authorities in the Master Development Plan and since the user of the land was sought to be changed for the construction of residential, commercial and administrative complexes contrary to not only to the Master Development Plan but also to the directive principles of State Policy as contained under Articles 48- A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution of India, this Court should interfere to give relief to the petitioners in public interest since the questions of environment and ecology has been brought to the notice of this Court which have vide ramifications and the respondents should strictly adhere to the guidelines as contained in the Master Development Plan and the decision of the State Government as referred to above. 61. In the matter of Forward Construction Co. and Ors. v. Prabhat Mandal and Ors. (supra), the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to what factors should be relevant for consideration in a writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court or under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Apex Court. In this case, the user of the land by Municipal Corporation was sought to be challenged by the petitioners on the ground of change of user for commercial purpose different from the purpose for which the land was reserved and designed under the development plan as well as the town planning schemes. It was held by the Apex Court that the writ petition was maintainable and the petitioners were entitled to the relief. In my humble opinion this decision of the Apex Court also helps in advancing the case of the petitioners rather than of respondents. 62. In matter of State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai @ Kalal and Ors. It was held by the Apex Court that the writ petition was maintainable and the petitioners were entitled to the relief. In my humble opinion this decision of the Apex Court also helps in advancing the case of the petitioners rather than of respondents. 62. In matter of State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai @ Kalal and Ors. (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that notwithstanding the acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, requirement for public purpose may change from time to time but the change will not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. It was further held that the concerned authority should review the requirement aspect periodically in the prevalent social context. It was further held by the Apex Court as under : "A particular scheme may serve the public purpose at a given point of time but due to change of circumstances it may become essential to modify or substitute it by another scheme. The requirements of the community do not remain static; they indeed, go on varying with the evolving process of social life. Accordingly, there must be creative response from the public authority, and the public scheme must be varied to meet the changing needs of the public." This decision of the Apex Court also helps in advancing the case of the petitioners rather the respondents. I am of the opinion in this regard that since in accordance with Sections 52(2) and 52(3) of the UIT Act, which were in force as on the date of acquisition of land in question, objections were invited from the concerned parties including Lt.Col. I am of the opinion in this regard that since in accordance with Sections 52(2) and 52(3) of the UIT Act, which were in force as on the date of acquisition of land in question, objections were invited from the concerned parties including Lt.Col. Bhawani Singh, Jaipur, Rajasthan Polo Club, Jaipur, Golf Club, Raj Mahal Palace, Jaipur and others and thereafter the O.S.D. Town Planning passed the orders and thereafter hearing the concerned parties and the U.I.T., Jaipur and the Town Planner having observed in para 42 of the said order that there is some justification in retaining the lands in question meant for polo and golf, and further observed that the land should be acquired but they may be leased out to polo and golf club according to their needs in case the authorities of these clubs are willing to pay the lease money as decied by the State Government as to how much lease money would be required from the club will be decided if the land stands acquired, it is not open to the respondents to resile from their stand and/ commitment made to the general public and the residents of Jaipur in particular or to change the user of the land in question on the mere plea of acquisition of the land in question, since acquisition alone would not serve any purpose as the user of the land in question as indicated in the Master Plan is for the development of recreational activities such as golf and polo and for maintenance and preservation of the green area in the Ram Bagh Complex. Hence, it is not open to the respondents to convert the land use or change its user for any other purpose other than the recreational activities and preservation and protection of the green areas as indicated in the Master Plan which is a binding document on the State of Rajasthan and on the public authorities such as J.D.A. and its functionaries. 63. 63. I am further of the opinion that if respondent No. 2 intends to retain the land in question on the basis of acquisition it will be open to the authority to lease out the said land to the polo and golf club if the said clubs are willing to pay the lease money or on any other terms which may be just and reasonable as may be decided by the State Government, as specifically indicated in para 42 of the order (Annex 16). 64. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners to writ petition Nos. 6826/94 and 6855/94 the petitioners have controverted the contentions of the authority on the ground that the said petitions were filed in this court in public interest in view of the impugned actions of the respondents which are defeating the public interest and also with a view to protect and preserve the environment and save the ecology from destruction at the hands of the respondents. The land in Ram Bagh Complex was first used for playing golf in the year 1943 when in 9 holes the golf course was developed in this area and the Ram Bagh Golf Course in its present state came into existence in the said year and since then golf course is being developed every year and has now been developed to the extent of 18 holes and the petitioner-club also celebrated its' Golden Jubilee. It has been further contended that the petitioner-club was registered under the provisions of the Act of 1958 in 1972 vide (Annex 9). 65. With regard to the question regarding acquisition of the land around Ram Bagh Palace which is a separate issue, it has been contended that the acquisition was made by the State Government and not by the U.I.T. The petitioners have nowhere challenged the acquisition proceedings in the aforesaid writ petitions and as a matter of fact it has been submitted that though the land has been acquired by the State Government its' user cannot be permitted to the done in a manner contrary to what has been indicated in the Master Plan of the City of Jaipur. Even today the petitioner-club is in possession of the entire area extending over all 18 holes measuring over* 72 acres. The respondents have deliberately not submitted any document showing taking over the possession from the petitioners or from any other person for that matter. Even today the petitioner-club is in possession of the entire area extending over all 18 holes measuring over* 72 acres. The respondents have deliberately not submitted any document showing taking over the possession from the petitioners or from any other person for that matter. Since 1943 the land is being used by the Ram Bagh Golf Club and it is also registered in that name. 66. During the course of hearing, Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned counsel for the petitioners alongwith Shri K.K. Sharma petitioner-in-person, have placed reliance upon a recent case study undertaken by 'S.P.A.C.E.' (Society for public awareness and conservation of environment) in relation to Jaipur City wherein it has been shown that Jaipur is grossly deficient in developing the green areas. Perusal of the said report, submitted to the Court vide Annex 11, reveals that Jaipur needs about 1500 hectares of open green areas at present considering the population requirement; whereas actually there are only 420 hectares of green areas. It is, therefore, already lacking in green areas by about 1100 hectares of green land. It may be stated that by another report which has been published by the aforesaid society in the form of 'book' titled 'Environmental Policy Parameters' a case study for the city of Jaipur vide Annexure 8, which has been placed by the petitioners on the record is also of great relevance. 67. In the above context it will be pertinent to mention that in the Draft Master Plan of Jaipur it has been stated as under : "Jaipur Region has experienced emergence of environmental crisis in terms of depletion of water, forest, soil erosion, flora and climatological changes." In the aforesaid Master Plan, it has also been stated that the impact of deforestation, erosion, salination process is creating environmental changes in eco-system. This is affecting the recharge of ground water resulting in lowering of water table every year. It has affected the microclimate of the region in terms of temperature and humidity. The Master Plan also contains various provisions which indicate that the existing green areas are not reduced and are further developed in the Jaipur City 68. This is affecting the recharge of ground water resulting in lowering of water table every year. It has affected the microclimate of the region in terms of temperature and humidity. The Master Plan also contains various provisions which indicate that the existing green areas are not reduced and are further developed in the Jaipur City 68. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended at the bar that the respondent-authority should not be permitted to take any action which would be contrary to the commitment made to the public by the State Government and the Authority is bound to honour the same. It has been further contended that the activities as envisaged by the respondents cannot be at the expense of development so as to defeat the very purpose of the development which has been indicated in the Master Plan of Jaipur. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Authority has absolutely no power whatsoever to act contrary to the Master Plan which has a statutory force, once the authority has itself admitted that the Master Plan is still in force and not amended or changed till date and the same is binding on the respondents. 69. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the draft Master Plan upto year 2011 is under preparation and is likely to be introduced shortly. Hence no land use contrary to what has been indicated in the Master Plan, which is a binding document, can be permitted to be done by the respondents. In the existing Master Plan prepared in 1971, which has now been extended upto 1997, it had specifically been mentioned at page 43 as under:- "There are two stadiums in Jaipur, namely, the Chaugan Stadium in the walled city of Jaipur and Sawai Man Singh Stadium near Rambagh. Both the stadiums are grossly under-developed. It is intended to provide all recreational facilities in these two stadiums. The existing Polo Ground and Golf Club in Rambagh Complex shall also be retained." 69A. The State Government in it's communication dated 3.3.92 (Annex-1) to the Central Government had also made a commitment that not only the Golf Club was intended to be retained but was also intended to be further developed at its' existing site.69B. The existing Polo Ground and Golf Club in Rambagh Complex shall also be retained." 69A. The State Government in it's communication dated 3.3.92 (Annex-1) to the Central Government had also made a commitment that not only the Golf Club was intended to be retained but was also intended to be further developed at its' existing site.69B. Even in the draft Master Plan, it has been mentioned that areas of ecological importance would be safeguarded against any unsympathetic land use and be developed only as tourists' destination and major recreational facilities. The proposed Master Plan also makes a mention that the existing green areas would be further developed. The Master Plan has statutory force and is prepared with the sole object of seeing that the development is made properly and systematically and, therefore, the Authority cannot be permitted to use the land according to its whims and fancies and, in my opinion, is bound to act in accordance with the Master Plan. 70. A perusal of the conceptual plan which has been prepared by the Authority clearly shows at to how the said area is sought to be destroyed by the construction of market and cultural complexes as envisaged therein notwithstanding the fact that sufficient alternative sites in open areas are still available for development by the respondent-authority and which can be utilised for such development. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the said conceptual plan which has been prepared by the respondents reveals that the respondent- Authority has sought to construct a road in between the wall of the Rambagh Palace Hotel and the area shown in the said plan as Polo Ground. The place where the road has been shown in densely populated by trees and if such a move is permitted, as many as atleast 10,000 trees including lot of existing green area would be destroyed. Morever, the said conceptual plan clearly shows as to how the affluent people are sought to be benefited by the construction of Gem Stone, Jewellery, handicraft and other such markets. The said conceptual plan is contrary to the existing Master Plan. Moreover, as has already been mentioned above, the land in question contains 18 holes Golf Course covering at present, about 72 acres of land. The said conceptual plan is contrary to the existing Master Plan. Moreover, as has already been mentioned above, the land in question contains 18 holes Golf Course covering at present, about 72 acres of land. The impugned action of the respondents, therefore, in constructing market or setting up of cultural centres or any other complexes would result in destroying the green area in Rambagh Complex, and environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur which, in my considered opinion, should not be permitted to be done at any cost. 71. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further contended at the bar that while it is true that Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India had considered the argument with regard to the Polo Club and had held that acquisition proceedings could not be set aside on comparative utility of public purpose but the Apex Court never said that Polo Ground was not serving public purpose. The order passed by the Apex Court was in the matter of Gandhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti on the validity of the acquisition for a public purpose and not regarding the user of land in question and that is not the subject-matter of the present writ petition. Suffice to say that the Apex court had also directed that though no scheme had been framed by the State Government till then, it would be for the State Government to frame a scheme for the use of this land after the acquisition and the said scheme cannot be contrary to the Master Plan. Considering the fact that the land had been acquired with the purpose of allotting it to the Golf Club, the respondents cannot now turn back to say that they would not do so and would act contrary to the said decision which was earlier taken for public benefit and use it for establishment of markets and other construction activity contrary to public interest. 72. 72. During the course of hearing direction was given by this Court to the respondents to call the Chief Town Planner to show the conceptual plan which has been prepared by the J.D.A. and the Chief Town Planner who was present in the Court had shown the conceptual plan to the Court, perusal of which reveals that the land in question is being sought to be used for the establishment of Gem Stone and Jewellery Market and other administrative and residential complaxes contrary to the Master Plan, hence the intentions of the respondents are very obvious to change the land use contrary to what has been indicated in the Master Plan. It is further pertinent to mention that in the draft Master Development Plan, the land in question has been indicated as under:- "Secretariat Sector No. 32." The land use of the said sector has been mentioned as "Government and semi-government offices, informal sector, bus terminal and recreational." The said draft Master Development Plan also does not contain the commercial use of this land. I am of the opinion that it is open to the petitioners to raise the genuine grievance regarding conversion of the land-use which is sought to be done by the respondent-Authority as the same is contrary to the existing Master Plan and even in the draft Master Development Plan, on the basis of which the respondents are likely to introduce final Master Plan in the year 1997, no change in the said land use has been envisaged. 73. The learned counsel for the petitioners have further contended that the Rambagh Golf Club has already incurred the expenditure of over Rs.10,000/- for the maintenance and development of green areas and for Golf Course in Ram Bagh Golf Complex on the basis of the assurance conveyed to the general public in the existing Master Plan that the polo ground and golf course in the area shall be retained and further developed. Hence it is not open to the State Government or to the J.D.A. now to take somersault and to take any contrary decision on the principle of promissory and equitable estoppel and the same is binding on them. The petitioner-club has already undertaken development programme to further develop the golf course and polo ground to the international standards. Hence it is not open to the State Government or to the J.D.A. now to take somersault and to take any contrary decision on the principle of promissory and equitable estoppel and the same is binding on them. The petitioner-club has already undertaken development programme to further develop the golf course and polo ground to the international standards. On 24th March, 1973 a notification was issued by the respondents under Section 52(2) of the UIT Act, 1959 to acquire the land in question. This was followed by a declaration under Section 52(1) of the said Acts dated 12-9-74, the validity of which was upheld by the Apex Court. 74. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is very essential to examine the scheme of the U.I.T. Act, 1959 as well as of the J.D.A. Act, 1982. Section 52 of the Act of 1959 envisages a procedure to be adopted by the then U.I.T. on compulsory acquisition of the lands. Under Section 52(1) of the Act of 1959, it is open to the State Government to acquire the land by publishing in the official gazette a notice specifying the purpose for which such land is required and/or it has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this provision for the purpose of improvement or for any other purpose under the Act. Prior to the publication of the notice under sub-section(1) of Section 52, it is mandatory on the State Government to call upon the owner of the land and any other person who, in the opinion of the State Government, may be interested therein to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. Such notice has to be served individually upon the owner of the land and any other person who, in the opinion of the State Government, may be interested therein and such notice has to be published in the official gazette at least 30 days in advance and also to be pasted on some conspicuous place in the locality where the land is situated which shall be deemed to be sufficient and proper service upon the owner of the land and all other persons who may be interested therein. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 stipulates as under:- "Within the time specified in the notice, the owner of the land or any other person interested therein may show cause and make objections, why the land should not be acquired. Every such objection to the notice given under sub-section(2) shall be made in writing to the officer- on-special duty, or any other officer appointed by the State Government for the purpose. Such officer shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by pleader, and after hearing all such objections and after making such enquiry, as it seems necessary, shall submit the case for the decision of the State Government together with the record of the proceedings held by him and a report containing his recommendations on the objections. Thereafter, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit. The decision of the State Government thereon shall be final." 75. From the plain reading of sub-section(2) of Section 52 of the Act of 1959, it is clearly apparent that before publication of the notice regarding the acquisition of a particular land, it is mandatory on the State Government to call upon the owner of the land and any other person who, in the opinion of the State Government, may be interested therein to show cause as to why the said land should not be acquired. This obviously means that it is mandatory on the authorities to invite objections from the persons interested who admittedly is in possession of the land and after considering the objections of the person so aggrieved and interested, decide the same under Section 52(3) of the Act of 1959 after giving full opportunity to the objectors of being heard and recommend the case to the State Government for its final decision together with the record of the proceedings held by the officer concerned and a report containing his recommendations on the objections and it is only thereafter that the decision-of the State Government thereon shall be treated as final. In this case the Golf Club was admittedly a party interested which continues to be in uninterrupted possession of the land in question, for considerable long spell of time. In this case the Golf Club was admittedly a party interested which continues to be in uninterrupted possession of the land in question, for considerable long spell of time. The petitioner-club had submitted its objections in reply to the notice received from the respondents and submitted its reply to the impugned notice prior to the acquisition of the land in question measuring approx. 327 Bighas. It is only after hearing the petitioner-club alongwith the objectors that the State Government passed the order vide Annex-16 to the additional affidavit of the petitioner in SBCWP No.6855/94. The O.S.D. Town Planning, after issuing the notices under Sections 52(2) and 52(3) of the Act of 1959 had heard the objections from the concerned parties which included Rajasthan Polo Club, Jaipur and Golf Club, Raj Mahal Palace, Jaipur who were parties to the said objections including Gandhi Grah Nirman Samiti. It is only thereafter that the final decision was taken by the State Government to retain the lands meant for polo and golf. I am of the opinion that the aforesaid decision of the State Government which was taken in accordance with the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1959 is not only binding on the respondents but no deviation or departure should be permitted from the same. Moreover the said decision was taken by the State Government after consulting high functionaries. 76. Section 72 of the Act of 1959 provides as under:- "72. Restriction on improvement in urban area.- (1) In an urban area, no improvement shall be undertaken or carried our by any person or department of the Government unless- (i) it is in accordance with the master plan where it is in operation; or (ii) it is in accordance with the scheme sanctioned and notified under Section 38; or (iii) where neither any master plan nor any scheme is in force, it is according to the general approval of the Trust, and unless permission for undertaking or carrying out such improvement has been obtained in writing under the provisions of Section 73. (2) No person or department of Government shall use or permit to be used any land or building in any urban area otherwise than in conformity with the master plan where it is in operation or with the scheme sanctioned and notified under section 38 or with the general approval of the Trust, and unless the permission of the Trust for such use has been obtained under Section 73 ; Provided that subject to the provisions of section 73B, it shall be lawful for any person or department to continue to use, upon such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf, any land or building for the purpose and to the extent for and to which it is being used upon the date on which such plan or scheme comes into force or as the case may be, the area is declared as an urban area under this Act." Sub-section(2) of Section 72, as referred to above, explicitly mandates that no deviation is permissible for carrying out any construction activity in the urban areas which is contrary to the Master Plan already in existence which evidently means that before any decision is taken by the respondents to carry out any construction activity over the land in-question it has to be strictly in conformity with the Master Plan already in force. 77. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard that the State Government having once invited objections and heard the concerned parties prior to acquisition of the land in question, the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired, i.e. for development of the golf club and the polo ground and to retain the same in Ram Bagh Complex at the present existing site having been taken the decision by the State Government vide Annex-16, is binding on them and no deviation or departure from the same should be permitted. It was further contended that even the acquisition of the land in question for the purpose of construction of the residential, commercial, administrative and cultural complexes etc., for making planned improvement of the area in question is not permissible as the same would be contrary to the Master Plan of the city of Jaipur as referred to above. It was further contended that even the acquisition of the land in question for the purpose of construction of the residential, commercial, administrative and cultural complexes etc., for making planned improvement of the area in question is not permissible as the same would be contrary to the Master Plan of the city of Jaipur as referred to above. Hence the decision of the State Government being final as stipulated under sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act of 1959 and having already achieved finality cannot be varied or rescinded to the disadvantage or detriment of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that in the proposed Master Plan of Jaipur city for the year 1997 onwards which has been shown to the Court for its perusal, reveals that no change in respect of green areas in question is proposed by the J.D.A. This fact is borne out from the proposed Master Plan which was shown to this Court by the Chief Town Planner who was present in the court and who stated that the J.D.A. does not propose any change or to alter the green areas in question. This clarification was also given by Shri V.R. Reddy, learned A.S.G., who appeared on behalf of J.D.A., and stated that the earlier project which was envisaged by the respondent regarding construction of Gern and Jewellery Market and commercial complexes over the land in question have already been shelved, given up. Thus in view of the statement made by the A.S.G. and Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned counsel for the J.D.A. at the bar, the only obvious conclusion which emerges is that it is not permissible or open to the respondents to envisage any change in respect of green areas in question which is in possession of the petitioner Ram Bagh Golf Club and the said statement is binding on the respondent-authority. At the same time learned counsel for the JDA also stated at the bar that there is clear distinction between the ownership and possessory rights and that the owner cannot be restrained from exercising its rights. At the same time learned counsel for the JDA also stated at the bar that there is clear distinction between the ownership and possessory rights and that the owner cannot be restrained from exercising its rights. They further stated that there cannot be any embargo on the authority to keep open areas open in view of the fact that acquisition had already taken place and the purpose of acquisition is also a public purpose for construction of commercial, residential and administrative complexes and even under the so-called conceptual plan, the green areas are proposed to be retained. I am of the opinion that the statements made by the learned counsel for J.D.A. are contrary not only to what was envisaged in the proposed Master Plan of the City of Jaipur prior to the final Master Plan which was introduced in the year 1976 and has subsequently been extended by the notifications upto the year 1997 but are also contrary to the proposed Master Plan for the city of Jaipur which is likely to be introduced in near future. 78. I am of the considered opinion that since the JDA itself has not envisaged any change in the green areas in question, it is not open to the respondents to act contrary to the commitment made to the residents of Jaipur in the Master Plan which is binding on the authority and hence there is clear embargo on the authority not to touch (sic) or modify the green areas in question to the disadvantage of the petitioners as well as the general public of Jaipur. 79. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the relevant provisions of the J.D.A. Act, 1982 (for short the Act of 1982'). At the outset I may refer to the preamble of the said Act which reads as under:- "An Act, for forming Jaipur City and certain contiguous areas into Jaipur Region to provide for the establishment of an Authority for the purposes of planning, co- ordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of the said Region and of executing plans, projects and schemes for such development and to provide for matters connected therewith". 80. 80. In view of the rapid growth of population expansion and development in all walks of life which has given rise to the housing and development problems and also keeping in view of fact that the plans, projects and schemes of development should be controlled by the organs of the State, it was felt by the framers of the Act that the housing, community facilities, civic amenities and other infrastructure should be properly created. The aims and objects of the said Act in relation to the Jaipur Region envisaged in the preamble are as under:- (1) Planning, co-ordinating and supervising, the orderly and rapid development of Jaipur Region. (2) To enable the Jaipur Development Authority to formulate and execute plans, projects and schemes for the development of Jaipur Region. (3) To create proper housing, community facilities and civil amenities for the population of Jaipur Region, in perspective of 2001 A.D. or thereafter including the intermediate stages. 81. It is apparent from the aforesaid aims and objects, that the intention of the Legislature was not to disturb the projects and schemes which were already in existence as on the date when the Act was introduced but to further develop them for the benefit of populance of Jaipur City and it is in this context that the State Government made a commitment to the citizens of Rajasthan that the green areas in the Ram Bagh Complex shall be further developed which obviously means that the assurance was conveyed with a view to restrain the respondent-authority from acting contrary to pre-empt by introducing any scheme for construction of residential, commercial and administrative complexes or any other activity which would be contrary to the commitment made by the State Government vide Annex-16. Section 2(15) of the said Act stipulates that "`plan' means a master development plan or a zonal development plan prepared or deemed to be prepared under this Act, and the expression 'any plan' shall be construed accordingly". 82. Chapter 5 of the Act of 1982 envisages the procedure with regard to the preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans, as referred to above. Section 21 of the Act of 1982 provides as under:- "21. 82. Chapter 5 of the Act of 1982 envisages the procedure with regard to the preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans, as referred to above. Section 21 of the Act of 1982 provides as under:- "21. Civil Survey and preparation of Master Development Plan:- (1) The authority with a view to securing planned integrated development and use of land, shall carry out a civic survey of land and prepare a Master Development Plan for Jaipur Region. (2) The Master Development Plan shall precisely define the quality of life that a citizen of Jaipur Region could desirably be expected to lead in (i) medium range perspective of the year 1991 A.D, (ii) long term perspective of the year 2001 AD and thereafter, and (iii) such other intermediate stages, as the State Government may direct, balanced and time targeted development to sub- serve the needs of the growing city of Jaipur and other areas of Jaipur Region, the network of public utilities, civic amenities, community facilities, housing, communications and transport, the projects or schemes for conservation and development of natural resources and such other matters as are likely to have a bearing on the integrated development of the Jaipur Region and in particular may provide for:- (i) ............. (ii) ............. (iii) preservation, conservation and development, of areas of natural scenery, city forests, wild life, natural resources and landscaping; (iv) ............. (v) prevention of erosion, provision for afforestation or res-forestation, improvement of water front areas, rivers nallahs, lakes and tanks; (vi) to (viii) ................. (ix) games and sports complexes worthy of holding international events; (x) amusement parks including Disneyland style complexes, safari parks and other gardens and parks, picnic centres and day amusement including artificial lakes and water reservoirs; (xi) to (xiii) .................... (xiv) allocation of land for different uses, general distribution and general location of Land, and the extent to which the land may be used as residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or as forests, or for mineral exploitation or for other purposes; (xv) reservation of areas for open spaces, gardens, recreation centres, zoological gardens, nature-reserves, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts and other purposes; (xvi) to (xxi) ................. (3) The Master Development Plan may also define the various zones into which the Jaipur Region shall be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in which the development is to be carried out and the land in each zone is proposed to be used (whether by the carrying out therein development or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development shall be carried out and shall serve as a basic pattern of framework within which Zonal Development Plans of the various zones may be prepared : Provided that the Authority may, if it so considers necessary in the public interest alter the area of any zone." Section 22 of the Act of 1982 provides as under:- "Zonal Development Plan : (1) Simultaneously with the preparation of the Master Development Plan or as soon as may be thereafter, the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of a Zonal Development Plan for each of the zones into which the Jaipur Region may be divided. (2) A Zonal Development Plan may; (a) contain the provision for the developmental activities to be carried out as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 21: (b) contain a site-plan for the development of the zone and show the approximate locations and extents of land uses proposed in the zone for such thing as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, industry, business, markets, schools, hospitals, public and private open spaces and other categories of public and private uses: (c) to (e)........... (i) to (viii)........ (ix) the prohibitions or restrictions regarding erection of shop, workshops, warehouses or factories or buildings of a specified architectural feature or buildings designed for particular purposes in the locality; (x)........ (xi) the restrictions regarding the use of any site for purposes other than erection of buildings." 83. From the perusal of the above provisions it reveals that any development or improvement which is to be undertaken by the authority has to be in accordance with the existing Master Plan of 1976 or in accordance with the Zonal Development Plan and no activity either contrary to the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan should be permitted to be done or carried out. 84. Section 25 of the Act of 1982 provides as under:- "25. 84. Section 25 of the Act of 1982 provides as under:- "25. Subsequent modification of Plans: (1) At any time after a Plan has come into operation according to provisions of section 24, the Authority may make any modification to the Plan as it thinks fit, the modifications, which, in its opinion, do not affect material alterations in the character of the Plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of population density. (2) The Authority with the approval of the State Government may make any other modifications into the Plan in order to promote planned development of any part of the Jaipur Region in more efficient manner." 85. Thus, it is apparent from the above provision that there is absolute bar on the powers of the JDA to carry out any modification or change in the existing development activity as envisaged in the Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan which do not affect (sic) or amount to material alteration either in the character of the plan or which do not relate to the extent of alteration of the land use which would be contrary to the user of the land as indicated in the Master Development Plan. Any subsequent modification cannot be done even with the concurrence of the State Government if it amounts to material alteration in the character of the plan, as referred to above. Hence the Act of 1982 does not give any liberty to the State Government to convert the user of the land contrary to the Master Development Plan, as referred to above, and on the basis of mere acquisition of the land it is not open to the State Government or any of its instrumentality like JDA to change the user of the land. Any subsequent modification cannot be done without issuance of the public notice and after inviting objections from the public at large which are likely to be affected by such change and the State Government has to consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Authority before effecting such change, hence no change in the user of the land is permissible suo-moto. 86. 86. Sections 38 to 43 of the Act of 1982 deal with the preparation of projects and schemes on the basis of which the authority shall implement the proposals drawn in any plan, project or scheme for the integrated development of Jaipur Region or any part thereof as may be considered necessary. Section 39 of the said Act which deals with the preparation of projects and schemes provides as under : "39. Preparation of Projects and Schemes : (1) The Authority may, by resolution, declare its intention to prepare a project or scheme as provided in Section 38 in any development area. (2) Not later than thirty days from the date of such declaration of intention to make such project or scheme, the Authority shall publish the declaration in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be determined by regulations. (3) Not later than two years from the date of publication of the declaration under sub-section (2) the Authority shall prepare a project or scheme in draft form and publish it in such form and manner as may be determined by regulations together with a notice inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the said draft project or scheme before such date as may be specified therein, such date being not earlier than thirty days from the date of publication of such notice. (4) The Authority shall consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice under sub-section (3) and shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to such persons affected thereby as are desirous of being heard, approve the draft project or scheme as published or make such modifications, as it may deem fit. (5) Immediately after a project or scheme is approved under sub-section (4) with or without modifications, the Authority shall publish in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be determined by regulations a final project or scheme and specify the date on which it shall come into operation. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections the procedure as laid down therein shall not be required to be followed in case the project or scheme is to be carried out on any land vested in the Authority and no demolition of any building or removal of persons living there at is involved in its execution." 87. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections the procedure as laid down therein shall not be required to be followed in case the project or scheme is to be carried out on any land vested in the Authority and no demolition of any building or removal of persons living there at is involved in its execution." 87. It is apparent from the language of Section 39 of the Act, as referred to above, that no conceptual plan or any project or scheme as envisaged in Section 39 of the Act for development in any area of the Authority can be permitted to be done in absence of a well defined project or scheme. In this case admittedly, the respondents have not been able to demonstrate before this Court any well defined project or scheme in respect of which any objections have been invited from the general public after due publication of the notice before envisaging any such change which evidently, if permitted to be done, would be in gross violation of the Act of 1982 or its rules. I am thus of the opinion that the very procedure which has been adopted by the respondents is hit by the vires of Section 39 of the Act and if the Authority fails to implement the project or scheme as approved by it under Section 39(4) within a period of 15 years from the date of its publication, under sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the Act, it shall automatically lapse on the expiry of the period of 15 years. In this regard, I am of the opinion that it is an admitted case of the parties that no modification of the Master Development Plan has been done as yet. Hence any project or scheme which has been envisaged by the Authority for changing of the user of land would be meaningless and would not be taken into consideration. 88. Section 90 of the Act of 1982 provides that the State Government has the power to exercise effective control over the authority (JDA) and its affairs. Hence any project or scheme which has been envisaged by the Authority for changing of the user of land would be meaningless and would not be taken into consideration. 88. Section 90 of the Act of 1982 provides that the State Government has the power to exercise effective control over the authority (JDA) and its affairs. Since the authority constituted under the Act is a public body and instrumentality of the State within the ambit of definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the policy and guidelines which have been formulated- under the Act for the proper and effective functioning of the authority, its functions, duties and exercise of powers conferred by the Act have to be under the guidelines of the State Government for the welfare and benefit of the residents of Jaipur City. This fact is borne out from Section 90 of the Act of 1982 which stipulates as under : "90. Control by State Government : (1) The Authority shall exercise its powers and perform its duties under this Act in accordance with the policy framed and the guide-lines laid down, from time to time by the State Government for development of the area in the Jaipur Region. (2) The Authority shall be bound to comply with such directions which may be issued, from time to time, by the State Government for efficient administration of this Act. (3) If, in connection with the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the Authority under this Act, any dispute, arises between the Authority and the State Government, the matter shall be decided by the State Government and its decision shall be final." 89. It is borne out from the above provisions that the over all control is of the State Government (respondent No. 1) and the Authority is subject to the direction and over all control and supervision of the State Government and hence the State Government cannot escape its responsibility on the ground that since the JDA is an independent Authority constituted under the Act it has no control over the same. The Legislature of the State while making any legislation for the establishment and creation of such instrumentalities like the JDA derives its legislative competence from entry No. 5 of List II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution. The Legislature of the State while making any legislation for the establishment and creation of such instrumentalities like the JDA derives its legislative competence from entry No. 5 of List II of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution. I am of the opinion that the State Government in the capacity of sovereign possesses supreme power of superintendence over all statutory authorities including the JDA and can super- impose it's mandate over them in general public interest. The Authority is a creation of State Legislature and has to exercise its power thereunder in a generalised manner which obviously means that a power has to be exercised in a regulated manner and cannot be ungeneralised contrary to aims and objects laid down in the Act as well as for keeping a general supervisory control in public interest. The powers vested with the State Government to frame various policies or to issue guidelines from time to time have to be exercised in general public interest by way of issuing order, and notifications and it is not an empty formality and has to be exercised by way of continuous supervision to keep the general public interest intact. Hence the Authority is bound to exercise its powers and functions and discharge its duties to the general public in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government for further development of green areas in Ram Bagh Complex and for preservation and protection of environment and ecology of other green areas in Jaipur City and any action of the State Government and the JDA which is taken in pursuance of a policy, which would be contrary to the same, shall not stand test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution and such a proposal or a policy can always be questioned by the citizens in public interest and this Court shall not hesitate in exercising its powers in striking down such arbitrary policy or decision which would be contrary to the public interest and also to what is envisaged as fundamental duties enshrined under Articles 48-A and 51-A of the Constitution. Hence, I am of the view that notwithstanding the acquisition of the land in question by the respondents, the user of the land cannot be permitted to be changed contrary to Master Plan and the respondents cannot and should not be permitted to change the land use by raising commercial, residential, cultural and administrative complexes etc., as the same would be defeating the interest of general public in view of solemn assurance and commitment made to the general public of Rajasthan in the Master Plan for the city of Jaipur which envisages that the green areas in question shall be further developed and retained over the existing site and locations and hence it is not permissible for the JDA to convert its user to any purpose contrary to public interest. By now it is a well settled juristic concept that the interpretation of the provisions of law lies within the sole domain of the judiciary and not of the executive organs like the functionaries of the State authorities such as J.D.A. or any other authority. If the Authority does anything contrary to what is envisaged under the Act or transgresses the statutory limitation, it shall be rather imperative upon the court to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the protection of fundamental rights of the citizens and also for enforcing fundamental duties cast upon the public authorities. 90. During the course of hearing it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no vesting of land in question by issuance of a formal declaration of the State Government and in absence of which no presumption can be drawn by this Court that the land having already been vested with the authority; it is open to it to change its user contrary to Master Plan. In this context reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Section 46 of the said Act which envisages as under:- "46. Power of State Government to require person in possession of land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to State Government etc.: (1) Where any and is vested in the State Government under sub-sec. Power of State Government to require person in possession of land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to State Government etc.: (1) Where any and is vested in the State Government under sub-sec. (5) of Section 45, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf may, by notice in writing order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. (2) If any person fails or refuses to comply with an order under sub-section (1), the State Government or any officer as aforesaid may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be reasonably necessary. (3) Where any land is taken possession of as aforesaid, the State Government shall make that land available to the Authority for the purpose of performing its functions, discharging its duties and exercising its powers." It is clear from the above that sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the said Act dearly stipulates that the land has to be made available to the Authority for the purpose of performing its functions, discharging its duties and exercising its powers at the first instance before the said Authority can act. What is contemplated by the aforesaid provision is of actual physical possession by the Authority and this fact has to be proved by issuance of formal notification on the basis of which the vesting of the land can be arrived at, that the land is actually vested in the Authority. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such document has been shown or placed on the record of this Court on the basis of which a conclusion may be arrived at that the land having actually been vested with the J.D.A., its user can be done by the Authority in any manner whatsoever. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that from the perusal of Annex-R-2/3 which has been filed by the respondents along with the reply of the JDA does not reveal any decision taken by the State Government prior to vesting of land in question with the said Authority. 91. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that from the perusal of Annex-R-2/3 which has been filed by the respondents along with the reply of the JDA does not reveal any decision taken by the State Government prior to vesting of land in question with the said Authority. 91. In the above context it was contended by Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kamlakar Sharma that admittedly even on the saying of JDA no such project or scheme has been prepared in respect of the area in question and a long with unless such scheme is prepared in advance as envisaged in the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is not permissible for the JDA to convert the user of the area in question into any other use except the user of the area as golf course and polo ground, more so since that was so specifically mentioned in the Master Plan. Reference may be made to the documents filed by respondent No. 2, JDA, along with additional affidavit of Shri J.K. Mittal, Sr. Town Planner, JDA. In para 2 of the additional affidavit it has been averred that the matter relating to the land involved in the present case was finalised by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and ors. v. State of Rajasthan (supra). After the aforesaid judgment the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur on 8.2.1992 and thereafter the State Government vide its letter dated 1.11.93 also approved the aforesaid award and the award was finally declared, thereafter possession of the aforesaid land was also taken by the JDA. In para 3 of the said affidavit it has been averred that the conceptual plan of the aforesaid area was also prepared for the purpose of utilisation of the land which is in the form of project report vide Annex-R/2/2 to R- 2/4. 92. Along with the additional affidavit in reply to the writ petition the respondent-Authority has also filed a very startling document i.e., the project report for utilisation of the land of Ram Bagh Complex vide Annex-R- 2/4 wherein respondent No. 2-Authority has proposed future land use for utilisation of the land in question. 92. Along with the additional affidavit in reply to the writ petition the respondent-Authority has also filed a very startling document i.e., the project report for utilisation of the land of Ram Bagh Complex vide Annex-R- 2/4 wherein respondent No. 2-Authority has proposed future land use for utilisation of the land in question. It has been indicated in the said report that at present the Golf Course covers a sizeable area extending from polo ground upto North of Ashok Club and the existing land use has been indicated on Drg. No. 1. This area was notified for acquisition in the year 1974 and possession of 322 Bighas 8 Biswas of land was taken by the J.D.A. which includes the land in question. It has been further indicated in the said report that as per the Master Plan, 1996, the area in question has been proposed as follows:- (a) Rambagh Palace Hotel has been indicated as under hotel use having an area of about 42 acres. (b) About 22 acres of land in the north-western corner has been proposed as Reserved Area. (c) Area along Ashok Club and Polo Ground has been proposed as open space. Area proposed is about 66 acres. (d) Remaining area has been proposed under residential use. It is pertinent to mention here that once a commitment has been made by the Authority on the basis of project report referred to above, regarding the proposed use of the land in question has to be for the polo ground and golf course while the rest of the area has been proposed as open space in the report itself, the user of the land in question should not be permitted to be altered to the disadvantage of the petitioners. In my considered opinion no activity like setting up of administrative, commercial and cultural, hotels, tanks and restaurants and other community facilities, community halls, exhibition centres, amusement parks etc., should be permitted in the area in question as it would not be a compatible with the existing green areas in Secretarial Node No. 32 vide Annexure-17 to JDA's reply which are compatible activities over the land in question. Hence, prima facie, I am of the view that the respondent-Authority is bound by the commitment made to the residents of Jaipur not only in the Master Plan itself but also in the aforesaid project report and no change of user of the land in question is permissible in the said area. 93. It is further pertinent to mention here in this context that the conceptual plan for the area in question which has been prepared by the J.D.A. in consultation with the Chief Town Planner, Rajasthan, Jaipur, broadly speaking the proposals which have been envisaged are based on the following propositions as indicated in the project report : (A) The land would be developed basically as cultural centre of the city. (B) In view of the existing well developed Polo Ground, it is proposed to retain the same alongwith adequate open space nearby. The Golf Course will, however, have to be shifted elsewhere at some appropriate location because it requires extensive land and it will not be possible to reserve such huge area at such prime location in the heart of the city. (C) In view of the future Traffic and Transportation needs of the city, the peripheral roads will be suitably widened and scope for future widening/L.R.T. proposals would be made. (D) The thorough traffic in this area would be discouraged to maintain the sanctity of the area. (E) While developing this area efforts will be made to maintain the traditional architectural style of Jaipur city. 94. From a perusal of the aforesaid proposal (B), as indicated in the conceptual plan of the JDA, it is abundantly clear that the Authority itself has taken into consideration while preparing the project report that the area in question in view of the existing well-developed Polo Ground shall be retained alongwith adequate `open space' nearby. 94. From a perusal of the aforesaid proposal (B), as indicated in the conceptual plan of the JDA, it is abundantly clear that the Authority itself has taken into consideration while preparing the project report that the area in question in view of the existing well-developed Polo Ground shall be retained alongwith adequate `open space' nearby. The adequate `open space' evidently means the place which is currently being used by the golf players for playing golf game throughout the year and in the adjoining land there is a regular and well developed golf course of international standards having 18 holes where both national and international matches are held with large number of participants from all over the world and this land has been used for the benefit of golf players for the past several years and the land having been further developed for the benefit of golf players involving considerable expenditure on the basis of grant by the Central Government, and its development having been done by the Golf Club involving further experditure by the petitioner-club itself, I find no justification in shifting the golf course from its present site to some other place far from the Polo Ground as it will not only cause great inconvenience to the members of the petitioner-Club and to the tourists who frequently come to Jaipur to play the said game but would also create great difficulties for the petitioner club if the same is shifted elsewhere. The J.D.A. has altogether lost sight of an important fact that as a result of the proposed construction activities of the buildings, cultural and convention Halls, Handicrafts, Gem and Jewellery markets etc., will result in creation of traffic bottle necks facing the High Court during the peak working hours and the Secretariat building since the golf course and the polo ground are located at the site just across the road in front of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench building as well as the Secretariat building. Besides it will also result in visit of unauthorised elements and will create law and order problem which will adversely affect the safety and security of the Judges of the High Court, members of the High Court Bar as well as the Ministers and Secretaries who are functioning in the administrative block of the Secretariat Complex which is just adjacent to the High Court. In the project report itself at page 8 it is mentioned as follows : "It is obvious that with all these activities huge traffic will be generated within this complex also adding pressure on peripheral roads. Adequate parking areas will also be necessary." Once the Authority has conceded this fact, then obvious conclusion which emerges is that the activities which have been referred to in the project report are non-compatible with the existing compatible activities already at the site and hence no other user contrary to the existing user as mentioned in the Master Plan as well as in the project report, referred to above, should be permitted as the same will not be conducive to the peace and public tranquility of the residents of the area in question and would also be contrary to the environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur. 95. In the above context, I would like to mention that in the pace of development and urbanisation the respondents should not lose sight of a salient fact that a balance must be struck and maintained between the development and environment coupled with the ecological aspect which is the immediate and present need of the hour since otherwise it will result in ecological imbalance and degradation and, therefore it is very essential to have proper checks and balances with regard to the development activity which should be regulated by well defined norms. The planning should be in accordance with the user of the land in question indicated in the Master Plan and if the user is urbanisation then the maintenance of the green areas with a view to protect the environment and ecology is very essential since otherwise in the name of urbanisation the environment and ecology would be adversely affected which should not be permitted to be done. In this regard, I am fortified in my opinion by the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Council for Environment Legal Action v. Union of India and Ors., JT 1996(4) S.C. 263 , which was a case of public interest litigation filed in the Apex Court with regard to the environmental protection of coastal areas. The question at issue was regarding non-implementation of the notification dated 19.2.91 which declared coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones. The question at issue was regarding non-implementation of the notification dated 19.2.91 which declared coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones. In this case the Coastal States and Union Territory Administrations were required to prepare Management Plans within a period of one year from the date of notification but this was not done. The Central Government was directed to approve the plans which were prepared but it did not appear to have reminded any of the coastal States or the Union Territory Administrations that the plans had not been received by it. Notwithstanding Clause 4 of the main notification which required the Central Government and the State Government as well as the Union Territory Administrations to monitor and enforce the provisions of the main notification, no effective steps appear to have been taken and this is what led to the filing of the present Writ Petition before the Apex Court which was as a result of the failure of the enforcement of the notification in question. It was observed by the Apex Court as under : "The effort of this Court while dealing with public interest litigation relating to environmental issues, is to see that the executive authorities take steps for implementation and enforcement of law. As such the Court has to pass orders and give directions for the protection of the fundamental rights of the people. Passing of appropriate orders requiring the implementation of the law cannot be regarded as the Court having usurped the functions of the Legislature or the Executive. The orders are passed and directions are issued by the Court in discharge of its judicial function namely; to see that if there is a complaint by a petitioner regarding the infringement of any Constitutional or other legal right, as a result of any wrong action or inaction on the part of the State, then such wrong should not be permitted to continue. It is by keeping the aforesaid principles in mind that one has to consider as to what directions should be issued to ensure, in the best possible manner, that the provision of the main Notification which has been issued for preserving the coastal areas are not infringed." It was further observed by the Apex Court as under:- "in matters relating to environment, it may not always be possible to lay down rigid or uniform standards for the entire country. While issuing the notifications like the present, the Government has to balance various interests including economic, ecological, social and cultural. While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing wide-spread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice-versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment. This is sought to be achieved by issuing notifications like the present, relating to developmental activities being carried out in such a way so that unnecessary environmental degradation does not take place. In other words, it is in order to prevent ecological imbalance and degradation that developmental activity is sought to be regulated." 96. The Apex Court accordingly held that newly added proviso in the impugned notification which gave the Central Government arbitrary, uncanalised and unguided power, the exercise of which may result in serious ecological degradation and may make N.D.Z. ineffective as ultra vires and was accordingly quashed. It was further observed by the Apex Court that the implementation of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as framed has now essentially become the functions of the State Governments. In an effort to control the pollution the State Pollution Boards have also been established but the extent of its effectiveness is yet to be demonstrated. It was further observed that the Environment (Protection) Act as framed and Section 5 of the said Act in particular, gives the Government extensive power to issue directions to any person, officer or authority which they are bound to comply. The directions as issued have necessarily to be in accordance with the provisions of the law and to give protection to environment. 97. The directions as issued have necessarily to be in accordance with the provisions of the law and to give protection to environment. 97. In the present case as well, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court assumes great significance in the context of the violation by the State Authority in not following the guidelines laid down in the existing Master Plan as well as in the conceptual plan on the basis of which final Master Plan is to be drawn up and to be introduced in the year 1997 which, if not effectively implemented and acted upon in the context of the green areas within the periphery of Rambagh Complex containing the golf course and polo ground, may result in environmental degradation and ecological imbalances if no effective steps are taken in advance to check the uncanalised and unguided powers which the respondents are bent upon to exercise. In this regard, I am of the opinion that economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology which, if not checked and controlled, would result in causing wide-spread environment destruction and violation which should not be permitted to be done at the cost of economic development, hence no construction activity such as residential, commercial, administrative complexes should be permitted over the area in question which is the only green area in the heart of the city of Jaipur, popularly know as the lungs of the city and it is very essential to preserve, protect and safeguard the same. 98. During the course of hearing it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rambagh Golf Club is the only club in Jaipur which is catering to the needs of the golf players in the city and the international tourists visiting Jaipur and that there is no other golf course nor any other golf club in existence in the city of Jaipur. It was further contended by the learned counsel that what the petitioners have highlighted before this court through this public interest litigation is not the acquisition of the land in question by the respondents but a much larger issue of vast public dimensions concerning the user of the land in question which should be in conformity with the Master Plan and the project report submitted by the respondents as well as the environment policy parameters which have been placed on record of this court by the society for public awareness and conservation of environment 'S P A C E' etc. The petitioners by way of scientific analysis of the questions posed before this Court for their solution in public interest have placed Oh the record of this Court the `Environmental Policy Parameters' which is a case study for the city of Jaipur prepared by the society for public awareness and conservation of environment (for short 'SPACE') vide Annex- 11. SPACE is a voluntary society registered under the Societies Act and is serving the cause of general public in view of the encouraging unrbanisation, it has become extremely important to include environmental parameters in the developmental planning process of any city or town which is extremely necessary in order to prevent further deterioration of the existing environment and for maintaining health of the citizens and wholesome life. The need as it exists today is for quantifying the environmental policy parameters which should be taken into account for proper development. A perusal of this report reveals that some very useful recommendations have been made by the society regarding the importance of open spaces and protection and preservation of green areas and environment which are helpful for maintaining and further development of conducive environment in the interest of health of the residents of Jaipur.Under the capital 'Land Use' vide para 2.1 of the 'Environmental Policy Parameters', it has been mentioned that Jaipur City has mixed type of land use distribution without following the planning norms and standards mainly due to conventional nature and lack of administrative control. Consequently, the present scenario of physical development has invariably resulted in creating dent of hundreds of Katchi Basties and unauthorised colonies constraining the planned development of the city. The mixed land use has mainly been developed along the radial road corridors of the city. Consequently, the present scenario of physical development has invariably resulted in creating dent of hundreds of Katchi Basties and unauthorised colonies constraining the planned development of the city. The mixed land use has mainly been developed along the radial road corridors of the city. Several buildings have been commercialised in walled city so also exist some important land use like local market, bus stand, grain markets etc. 99. Para 2.2 of the said report indicates that the land use distribution of the city indicates that the total developed area has increased 3 times from 1971 to 1991 whereas the land use share in respect of recreational and tourist facilities has comparatively gone down. This indicates the fact that the land use development has proportionately been made in respect of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses of land ignoring the environmental supporting features like recreational and tourist facilities from the year 1971 to 1991. Jaipur is known to be a tourist place which has a strong economic base for the city - thus requiring important input towards recreation including development of parks, tourist facilities and keeping open spaces to the extent that it imparts cooling effect and aesthetic component to the city of Jaipur. 100. Para 3.1 of the said report indicates that metereology plays an important role in evaluating and assessing the prediction of air pollutants already released or likely to be released from the existing as well as from the proposed industrial operations or developmental activities. It also helps in designing and computing urban plan with input of environmental considerations. One can also analyse the important components of environment used in the process of urban planning such as ventilation co-efficient, albedo effect, stability classes of atmosphere, aerodynamic effects, turbelence flux, heat island effect, temperature inversion etc. 101. Para 3.3 of the said report indicates that the normal climate of Jaipur city is hot and try with experience of extremes of heat and cold in summers and winters respectively. The mean maximum temperature a of Jaipur is 410 C and the mean minimum temperature is 6.50C. As Jaipur lies between the Nahargarh and Jhalana hill ranges the metereological phenomena called inversion of temperature occurs. The mean maximum temperature a of Jaipur is 410 C and the mean minimum temperature is 6.50C. As Jaipur lies between the Nahargarh and Jhalana hill ranges the metereological phenomena called inversion of temperature occurs. In such a condition the temperature rises with height.NOISE POLLUTION :In para 4.8 of the report it is indicated that in view of such high noise levels even in sensitive areas including the area in question, it is an alarming situation for which effective environmental consideration in the development of urban planning needs to be considered. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that sufficient green belt should be provided at vulnerable points so that effective attenuation of noise can be achieved and the ambient noise levels can be brought down. In this reference, it is strongly recommended that trees should be planted all along the roads and the open spaces, parks, play grounds, clubs having sufficient open spaces etc., may be provided with extensive tree plantation so that these areas may act as buffer for the reduction of ambient noise levels which are at present exceeding much beyond the permissible limits. It may also be equally important to optimise the growth of the city to the extent that further agglomeration of transport movement may be avoided as far as possible. 102. The said study report further indicates that during the peak summer season the average temperature of the walled city of Jaipur and Jhalana quarrying area has been observed as high as 440C, whereas the minimum temperature recorded at the Rambagh Complex as indicated in the map annexed to the report is 340C. Thus, indicating the difference of 100C, in the temperature which is mainly on account of green area located in the Rambagh Complex which, in my considered opinion, helps in preservation and protection of the environment of the city of Jaipur which should not only be protected from any encroachment but should also be further developed, preserved and protected for the benefit of populace of the city of Jaipur. After going through the said report of the SPACE, I am of the opinion that preservation and protection of the green areas in Rambagh Complex are of paramount importance from the aspect of environmental protection and ecology of the city of Jaipur which is of great significance from environmental angle. After going through the said report of the SPACE, I am of the opinion that preservation and protection of the green areas in Rambagh Complex are of paramount importance from the aspect of environmental protection and ecology of the city of Jaipur which is of great significance from environmental angle. In the said area there are two important sensitive features, namely, S.M.S. Hospital and Government Offices like Secretariat, High Court, A.G. Office etc., besides 10-12 private hospitals and Nursing Homes which are also existing in the said area and have been considered as sanctative features. Hence in my opinion, construction of any type would adversely affect the environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur and the only effective relief which can be provided to the residents of Jaipur from environmental angle should be the protection of area of Rambagh Complex containing large number of green trees and grassy lawns. I am further of the opinion that all these aspects have to be taken into consideration by the respondents in the process of urbanisation and if the salient facts are not taken into consideration by the respondents, it is bound to affect the environment of the city of Jaipur and generate heat island, alwedo effect, temperature inversion, bear ventilation, inadequate recharge of green water basin etc. Hence it has become imperative for all of us to consider that all these factors are essential for the development of town planning and allocation of spaces keeping in view the important factors as referred to above and all these requirements are necessary on a long term basis.The petitioners have also placed on the record another report which has been published by the SPACE regarding Urban Land Housing Planning of Jaipur vide Annex-l1-A. Vide para 2.3 of the said report the existing Land Housing Plan of the city alongwith the proposed land use for the year 2001 as developed by the J.D.A. is indicated below in Table-1 which is as under : "2.3 - The land distribution in Jaipur city from 1971 to 1991 can be seen from table 1 and depicted in Map 2. The urban morphology of Jaipur city is shown in Map 3." "3.2 - Thus meteorology is considered to be important for fixing various environmental indices in the evaluation and assessment of urban air pollution. The urban morphology of Jaipur city is shown in Map 3." "3.2 - Thus meteorology is considered to be important for fixing various environmental indices in the evaluation and assessment of urban air pollution. It has not been considered advisable to go into the micro level aspect of complex components of metereological parameters stated above as the study under reference is beyond the present scope. Some phenomena of metereology are given below. The wind rose diagrams have a great relevance in the present study as it relates to over all study of urban air pollution and forecasting thereof." "4.3 - A study was conducted in February 1990 in different parts of Jaipur City by the State Pollution Control Board in collaboration with Central Pollution Control Board. The observations as reported are being listed hereunder:- A. Residential Area AM 8-11 AM 2-5 PM 11-2 AM (a) Bani Park 45+ - 34 + (b) Bapu Nagar - 56 + 36 + B. Sensitive Area (a) Ramniwas Park 65+ 61+ 42+ (b) SMS Hospital 66+ 68+ 42+ (c) Durlabhji Hospital - 59+ 40+ (d) University of Raj. - 55+ 43+ (e) Birla Temple Circle 69+ 72+ 44+ C. Commercial Area (a) Ajmeri Gate 68 + 70+ 76+ (b) Raja Park 67+ 75+ 50+ (c) Rambagh 76+ 74+ 62+ D. Industrial Area (a) Sudarshan Pura 55 + 59 + 48 + (b) Vishwakarma 55+ 66+ 62+ (c) Bais Godown 65+ 66+ 48+ E. Air Port Area (a) Residential 66+(90+)* 62+(87+)* 62+(78+)* (b) On the Road. 69+(98+)* 79+(104+)* 71+ *db (A) during taking off. "As per rapid assessment made at theoretical estimation, the total pollutional load in the State on account of vehicular emissions may be around 1200 tonnes per day (TPD) of which Jaipur alone accounts for 300 TPD." 103. The importance of environment and ecology has not only been felt in India but has become an issue of vital concern throughout the world. In 'Halsbury Statutes of Town and Country Planning' (Fourth Edition) of England and Wales (Vol. 46), there is a chapter regarding inter- relation of planning control with other controls. The importance of environment and ecology has not only been felt in India but has become an issue of vital concern throughout the world. In 'Halsbury Statutes of Town and Country Planning' (Fourth Edition) of England and Wales (Vol. 46), there is a chapter regarding inter- relation of planning control with other controls. In the context of development of national parks and the country- side it has been indicated as under : "There is a considerable amount of legislation specifically designed to secure the preservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the countryside and to promote the public enjoyment of the countryside, the principal statutes being the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, the Countryside Act 1969 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which are all mainly included in Vol. 32 title Open Spaces and Historic Buildings (Pt. 1)." In the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as applicable to U.K. and Wales certain areas have been specifically excluded from urbanisation and not included in simplified planning zones which are as under : "(a) land in a National Park; (b) land in a conservation area; (c) land in an area designated under section 87 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as an area of outstanding natural beauty; (d) land identified in the development plan for the district as part of a green belt; (e) land in respect of which a notification or order is in force under section 28 or 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (areas of special scientific interest)." Section 59 of the aforesaid Act mandates statutory duty on the local planning authority to ensure wherever possible that in granting planning permission for any development adequate provision is to be made by imposition of conditions for the preservation or planting of trees and for preservation, protection and development of green areas. In U.K. under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, a National Park Committee has been constituted for preservation and protection of green areas for protection of environment and ecology of the country. 104. In U.K. under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, a National Park Committee has been constituted for preservation and protection of green areas for protection of environment and ecology of the country. 104. With regard to the question as to whether the acquisition of the land in question gives restricted right of user in accordance with the Master Plan of the year 1976, the leanred counsel for the respondents have not been able to specifically controvert the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also been shifting the stand, since earlier a plea raised by the learned counsel for the respondents was that on the basis of acquisition they get unrestricted right with regard to the user of the land, later on during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents took different stand that the JDA is bound to make the user of the land in accordance with the Master Plan which is currently in force which obviously means and implies that the authority is strictly to adhere to user of land in question as envisaged in the Master Plan that is to say that they are not bound to convert the green areas into commercial, residential or other complexes as envisaged by them. 105. During the course of hearing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 IPC, was filed before this Court on behalf of M/s. Jaipur Gem Bourse, Jaipur for its impleading as a necessary party to SBCWP No. 6855/94. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that they became aware of the filing of the aforeaid writ petitions on the basis of a news item published in the Rajasthan Patrika in respect of the policy which has been declared by the State of Rajasthan in order to give a lift to the Gems and Jewels business which has acquired its name and Jaipur is one of the important cities of India dealing with the said business. It was further contended that giving suitable facilities to NRIs, exporters, gems and jewellery industry is the need of the day which cannot be undermined on account of any barrier, and that the applicant-association having its large number of members are deeply interested in putting up their case who are likely to be affected by any judgment of this Court. 106. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and find no force in the contentions advanced by him in the aforeaid application. I am of the opinion that the applicants have no locus standi in the matter since they are neither the persons interested to the proceedings pending before this Court nor are likely to be affected by any decision and since they have not been able to demonstrate before this Court that as to how and in what manner their rights are likely to be affected particularly when they have not been able to show any document or any letter of allotment of the land in question by the respondents in their favour and in absence of which it cannot be determined as to how they are likely to be affected by any decision of this Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merit. 107. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has also examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant documents placed on the record. The following conclusions emerge as a result of the discussion made hereinto above:- (i) It is not open to the respondents to challenge the possession of the petitioner club or to raise the contention that merely because the acquisition has taken place hence it is open to the authority to change or convert the user of the land in question contrary to what has been indicated in the Master Plan, which, in my cosidered opinion, is a public document which is not only binding on the respondent-authority but also on the State Government as well as on every instrumentality of the State. (ii) Since the petitioner-club has been registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, as referred to above, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the locus-standi of the petitioners which is fully made out on the basis of the facts and the relevant documents placed on the record. (ii) Since the petitioner-club has been registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, as referred to above, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the locus-standi of the petitioners which is fully made out on the basis of the facts and the relevant documents placed on the record. (iii) Since the petitions have been filed for espousing public cause and for substantial public purpose for the preservation and protection of the green areas located in the Ram Bagh Complex which are ear-marked in the Master Plan for recreational activities and have been shown as green areas, hence the conversion of the land user is not permissible to the respondent-authority or even to the State Government on the pretext of mere acquisition of the land in question. (iv) The Golf game is of international importance and has become one of the most popular games in the world. Hence it is of utmost importance that golf course should be maintained in its present situation and should be maintained and further developed out of the funds ear-marked by the Ministry of Environment (Central Government) as well as the State Government in view of unequivocal. assurance conveyed by the respondents vide document Annex-16 since the Central Government has already advanced huge funds to the tune of Rs. 38.22 lakhs by way of financial assistance to the State Government of Rajasthan for the development of the Rambagh Golf Club out of which a sizeable amount of Rs. 10 lakhs has already been spent by the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation for development of the said club and for greening the area over the land in question, hence it is not open to the respondents to change or convert the user of land at this stage as that would not only adversely affect the environment and ecology of the city of Jaipur but would also adversely affect the interest of the petitioners as well as general public. (v) It was paramount duty not only of respondent-Authority viz., JDA but also of a large number of members of the golf club, who are using the club for playing the golf game daily in club premises and who would be adversely affected if deprived of the sporting activity, to bring to the notice of this Court as to what steps have been taken by the Authority to protect the environment and ecology as well as regarding recreational and sports activities as well as the health of the citizens of Jaipur City which it has failed to discharge. (vi) Since Jaipur is grossly lacking in the provisions for stadiam, recreational facilities and sports grounds and more so lacking in open green areas, the preservation and protection of green areas which are already in existence such as Ram Bagh Golf Club and Polo Ground and other green areas in the city of Jaipur is of paramount importance for protection of the environment and ecology of the city. (vii) Hence the preservation and protection of the land in question is also highlighted by the fact that a large number of tourists visit the State of Rajasthan from all over the world every year and the Central Government has also been extending grants for development of golf courses throughout the country. Hence the contention of the respondent-authority to the effect that it has taken adequate care for recreational and sports activities in Jaipur is falsified from its own averments that in view of the acquisition of the land in question, it is open to the authority to change its user for residential, commercial and administrative complexes which, in my considered opinion, is not permissible to the authority as the same would not be contrary (sic) to the purpose which has been indicated in the Master Plan but would be against the public interest. Hence the respondent-Authority should be permanently restrained from converting the user of the land in question comprising Ram Bagh Golf Course and Golf Club to any other purpose which would be contrary to the user indicated in the Master Plan of 1976 which is still operative and in force or even on the basis of conceptual plan or finalisation of which new Master Plan would be introduced in the near future. (viii) From the perusal of the documents filed by the respondents alongwith its' reply, it is revealed that the respondent-Authority has shown only two green areas in existence in Jaipur, i.e, Ram Niwas Garden and the Ram Bagh Complex. No other green area worth the name has been shown, hence it is not open to the respondents to blow hot and cold in the same breath by depriving the residents of Jaipur of said green areas. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri M.C. Bhandare and Shri K.K. Sharma have placed reliance upon a recent case study undertaken by `S.PA.C.E.' (society for public awareness and conversation of environment) in relation to Jaipur City wherein it has been shown that Jaipur is grossly deficient in developing the green areas. Perusal of the said report submitted to the court vide Annex-11 reveals that Jaipur needs about 1500 hectares of open green areas at present considering the population requirement; whereas actually there are only 420 hectares of green areas. It is, therefore, already lacking in green areas by about 1100 hectares of green land. It may also be stated that by another report which has been published by the aforesaid society in the form of book titled `Environmental Policy Parameters' - a case study for the city of Jaipur' vide Annex-8 which has been placed by the petitioners on the record, is also of great relevance. (ix) In the reply to the writ petitions, the respondent- JDA has contended in its reply that 125 Bighas of land is being left for games, recreational purposes, parks and greenery which is totally inadequate as far as preservation of environment and maintenance of ecology is concerned. The present situation of Jaipur shows that there should be an extension and addition in green areas. In any case, the respondents should not be permitted to reduce the already existing green areas and if the respondents are allowed to so, it would not only result in mass deforestation over the land in question in Ram Bagh Complex but would also disturb the environment and ecology of the Jaipur City. (x) The present state of population consequent upon the environmental imbalances in Jaipur has led to considerable increase in disease specially in children and this fact has been recognised by eminent doctors who have done research in this field. (x) The present state of population consequent upon the environmental imbalances in Jaipur has led to considerable increase in disease specially in children and this fact has been recognised by eminent doctors who have done research in this field. Such reports have also been published in the news papers. Copies of the same have been placed on the record of this case vide Annex-12 to 14 in Writ Petition No. 1662/95 filed by doctors. It is, therefore, absolutely wrong on the part of the respondents to say that they are taking care of the environment protection and are taking active steps to prevent destruction of ecology. As a matter of fact, the impugned action of the respondents would be contrary to the maintenance of environment and ecology of the City of Jaipur. (xi) No encroachment of any sort should be permitted to be done over the land in question which is in occupation of Ram Bagh Golf Club and the petitioner-club would be fully within its' rights to protect the land under it's occupation. (xii) In order to give effect to the directions of this Court a High Level Committee comprising of the Secretary, Tourism Department, Government of Rajasthan, Commissioner, J.D.A., Secretary, State Pollution Control Board, and the Captain/Secretary of Ram Bagh Golf Club should be constituted with a view to have an overall control and supervision of the Rambagh Complex so as to have proper check for maintenance, protection of the land in question and also for maintenance and further development of green areas and recreational facilities in the interest of general public. The direction regarding constitution of the committee has been given in larger public interest since I am of the considered opinion that the respondents and the State functionaries do not cease their responsibility by mere acquisition of the land alone but rather the responsibility for maintenance and overall control and supervision of the land in question, from the point of view of preservation and protection of environment and development of green areas, has commenced and devolved upon the State instrumentalities like JDA which is fully responsible for the maintenance and development of the green areas in the Rambagh Complex and so also the other green areas in the City of Jaipur without changing the user of the land in question and all other green areas which have been ear-marked for further development in the Master Plan as well as in the proposed Master Plan. It is further directed that the respondents should maintain and develop the entire green area of the Rambagh Complex as referred to above and to declare this area as `No Construction Zone'. 108. During the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of this Court that the green area over the land in question in use and occupation of the petitioner-club is being spoiled due to its misuse on account of concentration of large number of horses brought by polo players and, if not checked in time, this would result in damaging the green area of the Rambagh Complex besides causing irreparable damage to its grassy lawns. In view of this fact the stabling and schooling of horses shall not be permitted by the polo players in any manner whatsoever. If any obstruction has been caused by the polo players, as a result of pitching of tents for the abode of hourse care-takers, stabling of horses including wooden-planks, the same should be removed immediately. However, the polo players shall be at liberty to bring the horses only when the matches are played and they would remove the same as soon as the matches are over. This would serve as safeguard for protection of the environment and the green area from the likely damage. 109. As a result of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions deserve to succeed. This would serve as safeguard for protection of the environment and the green area from the likely damage. 109. As a result of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions deserve to succeed. The writ petitions are consequently allowed, and a mandamus is issued prohibiting the respondents from altering the status of the land in question comprising Rambagh Golf Course and Polo Ground and other green areas, parks and play-grounds of Jaipur City. The respondents are further prohibited from converting or changing the user of the land in_ question in any manner as indicated in the Master Plan of the year 1976 which is still operative and binding on the respondents. The respondents are further restrained from carrying out any construction activity including roads and buildings i.e. residential, commercial, administrative and cultural complexes etc., over the land in question. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to give effect to the directions of this Court, as referred to above, by constituting the High Level Committee comprising the Secretary, Tourism Department, Government of Rajasthan, Commissioner J.D.A., Secretary, State Pollution Control Board, and the Captain/Secretary of the Rambagh Golf Club within a period of 3 months from the date of this order with a view to have overall supervisory control of the Rambagh Complex comprising the land in question and to take effective steps for maintenance and further development of recreational facilities provided by the petitioner-club and for protection and maintenance of-the green areas over the land in question for public utility and in the interest of general public. The said committee shall maintain overall control, supervision and monitoring over the land in question with a view to give effect to the aforesaid directions and shall arrange appropriate allocation and utilisation of the funds apart from the funds already allocated by the Central Government to the Rajasthan, Tourism Department, Government of Rajasthan, for the maintenance, development and protection of green areas over the land in question and for further development of the Rambagh Complex. The respondents are further directed not to permit any sort of encroachment to be done over the land which is in use and occupation of the Rambagh Golf Club and the said club would be fully within its' rights to protect the land under its occupation. There will be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******