JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J(Oral) The petitioner is a Society formed by the residents of New Shimla, who purchased plots on allotment by the first respondent pursuant to a Scheme published by them. The main grievance of the petitioner is that under the scheme specific spaces were reserved for parks and subsequently some of the spaces have been, utilised for construction purposes thereby depriving the residents of the locality is concerned, the reply of the first respondent is that at the time when the original scheme was published the acquisition of the land had not been completed and the first respondent was not in possession of the entire land, which was proposed to be governed by the Scheme. It is further stated that after the acquisition was completed and by the time the entire land was taken in possession by die first respondent, it was found certain adjustments had to be made with regard to park spaces and the spaces for residential houses. Our attention is drawn to two plans. The plan which was originally published along with the original scheme and the plan which was later approved by the authorities after the adjustments were made. On a perusal of the two plans, which are filed by the petitioner himself as Annexure P-F and P-G and the first respondent as Annexures R-1 and R-2, it is seen that there is not much of devation from the original plan. It is not as if a gross violation of original plan. It is not as if the gross violation of original plan has been made by the First respondent. It is also seen on the other hand that the park spaces have been increased in the area after the revised plan, Annexure R-3 produced by the first respondent by giving the relevant details. In the original plan (Pocket-I) 542 sq.mts. was provided for park space whereas in the revised plan, they could provide only 156 sq.mts. area. Thus there was reduction of 386 sq.mts. In Pocket- 5, the original plan shows the park space as 948 sq.mts whereas in the revised place the space given was 353 sq.mts. Thus there was reduction of 595 sq.mts, but in Pocket Nos.3,4,6,7 and 8, there has been considerable increase in the area of the park spaces and the total increase is 1586 sq.mts as per Annexure R- 3. Thus there was reduction of 595 sq.mts, but in Pocket Nos.3,4,6,7 and 8, there has been considerable increase in the area of the park spaces and the total increase is 1586 sq.mts as per Annexure R- 3. Thus under the revised plan the total area reserved for park spaces is in excess than the area reserved m the original plan by an extent of 605 sq.mts. 2. It is also pointed out by the first respondent that the original scheme as well as plan were only tentative and not Final and that was clearly indicated in the Scheme itself. Clause 11 of the original scheme reads as follows, in so far as it is relevant; "11. General. ,(i) Above terms and conditions will be followed generally, but S.D.A. reserves right to alter any of them in its absolute discretion, if and when considered necessary. (ii) S.D.A. reserves right to withdraw the scheme at any time." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause 11 should be read along with the note in clause 4, which deals with the scope of scheme. According to said note, cost of flats, independent houses and plots are tentative and S.D.A. reserves rights to increase the same depending upon actual cost of construction, escalation in cost of land, material, labour or any other reasons. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this note specifically refers only to actual cost of construction, escalation of land cost etc, and, therefore, clause 11 should be understood to mean that only with respect to said matters the scheme was tentative and with regard to other matters, the scheme was Final. We are unable to accept this contention. While the note in clause 4, relates to a particular aspect of the matter, clause 11 is general and it applies to the entire scheme. Consequently, conditions in clause 11 enable the First respondent to alter the scheme if and -when necessary and that has been done in this case. It is not in dispute that the revised plan has been sanctioned and, therefore, no illegality can be attached there to. No grievance can be made by the petitioner in altering the park spaces, though as pointed out above, there is a real increase in the area and is not decreased. 4. It is then. It is not in dispute that the revised plan has been sanctioned and, therefore, no illegality can be attached there to. No grievance can be made by the petitioner in altering the park spaces, though as pointed out above, there is a real increase in the area and is not decreased. 4. It is then. contended that some of the park spaces have been carved out and given for construction of buildings. With regard to this complaint, it is said that in favour of three allottees, namely, Ranjana Rao Sheela Janartha and S.J. Manchanda, the first respondent has carved out certain spaces from the park area and permitted them to construct buildings. That is also set out specifically in C.M.P. No. 1739/96 Filed by the petitioner in which a complaint is made by the petitioner that even after an interim order was passed by this Court the first respondent has violated the same by permitting such construction. In the reply filed by the first respondent in the said C.M. J. it is stated that even before the passing of the orders by this Court, an allotment was made to Ranjana Rao in BCS Complex, 1st Phase, and after the order was passed by this Court, the allotment was cancelled by the first respondent. A copy of the cancellation order is filed as Annexure R-l to the said reply. As regards Sheela Janartha and S.J.Manchanda, it is pointed out in the reply mat allotment of excess spaces has been made to them in order that open set back spaces of the respective houses could be made available with regard to the scheme. It is pointed out mat if such excess spaces had not been allotted to them, it would not have benefited the general public and the residents bat it would have benefited those individuals. Such allotments had also been made prior to the filing of the writ petition and they were not made alter the passing of the orders of this Court. In such circumstances we do not find any merit in the complaint of the petitioner that park spaces have been altered and utilised for construction purposes and thereby violating the original scheme and plan. 5.It is then contended that water tank has been constructed in one of the plots reserved for park space. In such circumstances we do not find any merit in the complaint of the petitioner that park spaces have been altered and utilised for construction purposes and thereby violating the original scheme and plan. 5.It is then contended that water tank has been constructed in one of the plots reserved for park space. It is pointed out in the reply to CMP No. 1739/96 that originally tbe plan did not provide for any water tank or electric Sub Station and it was found necessary that such a water tank had to be constructed in order to benefit the residents of die area and it cannot be denied thtfcjsupply of water is a necessity for human beings and the scheme itself promises such supply of water, it is also pointed out that the construction of the water tank is only beneadi to the ground level and it has not affected the park space is any manner. As xegards the electric Sub-station in reply to CMP No.1739/96, the first respondent points oat that the work has been stopped and Actric Sub-station has been shifted to some other place. It is stated in the reply that the said area will be utilised only as park with a rain shelter. 6. we do not find any substance in the complaint that there is a violation of the plan presented to the allottees along with original scheme and that they suffered thereby. 7. The next major complaint of the petitioner is that the constructions effected by the first respondent on behalf of the allottees are of sub-standard and, therefore, the residents suffered damages. In our opinion, it is not matter, which can be brought within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, reliance is placed on a report submitted by an Architect appointed by the petitioner. The Architects namely, Rajeev Verma Associates have given a technical report on the sub-standard construction by Shimla Development Authority on 18.8.1994. The correctness of the report is not accepted by the respondents and it is also pointed out by the respondent that the report is based only on visual examination and it is not on the basis of any technically inspection. The correctness of the report is not accepted by the respondents and it is also pointed out by the respondent that the report is based only on visual examination and it is not on the basis of any technically inspection. Whatever it may be, we are not going to interfere in this question as it requires evidence to prove the contention of the petitioner and it is not a matter, which can be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the petitioner to agitate its rights, if any, before an appropriate forum with regard to that aspect of the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. G.N. Khqjuria & ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & on., AIR 1996 S.C 253. Though Sections 7 and 8 of the Delhi Development Act provided for reservation of certain places for gardens, recreation grounds, school etc., the plan prepared by the D.D.A. did not originally indicate any space for school. Later some space of the park was allotted for the purpose of opening a school. That was challenged in that case and the Court held that there was a clear violation of the provisions of the statute and the rules framed thereunder. There was no question of any revised plan or necessity to revise it. The original plan did not make any provision for a school-in that case and the space was carved out from a park. That was held by the Supreme Court to be illegal. The facts of the present case are entirely different and the ruling of the Supreme Court will have no application in this case. 9. Learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ambala Urban Estate Welfare Society v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & anr., AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 288. The Court held in that case that interference in contractual matters under Article 2 26 of the Constitution of India is permissible when statutory authority who is enjoined to provide amenities to the public fails or neglects to provide them. The Court directed the authority to provide the amenities like, drainage, sewerage, park etc. to the petitioners who were purchasers of plots so as to ensure right to life. The Court directed the authority to provide the amenities like, drainage, sewerage, park etc. to the petitioners who were purchasers of plots so as to ensure right to life. in this case, it is not the grievance of the petitioner that no amenity is provided and no park is available at all. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the original plan spaces have been reserved for parks but altered and some of them are utilised for construction purposes. On the facts of the case, the ruling has no relevance whatever. 10. In Bayer (India) Limited & on. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1995 Bombay 290, to which our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court had to deal with the question whether the residential buildings could be allowed to be constructed near certain industries situated in the industrial area. The Court held that there should be at least some reasonable distance between the residential area and the factories, which are dealing with hazardous chemicals and the authorities are justified in refusing the permission for such construction when the objections were raised by the owners of the industries to such constructions being permitted. The ruling has no relevance whatever in the permission case. 11. In such circumstances, there is no justification for granting the prayers of the petitioners. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. -