(1) LEAVE granted. (2) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The appellants claim to be one Federation of East of Kailash and Kailash Hills Welfare Association, the Residents Welfare Association Block B, East of Kailash and the Residents of Welfare Association Block A, East of Kailash. They approached the Delhi High Court making a grievance that there is no community centre in the locality and therefore some land should be allotted for having a community centre. In those proceedings counter-affidavit was filed indicating that Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has allotted lands measuring 1500 sq m in favour of National Heart Institute, 49, Community Shopping Centre, East of Kailash, and Uday Shankar Academy of Creative Dance. The petitioners amended their writ petitions challenging the said allotment, inter alia, on the ground that the land allotted in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 is not sustainable as the same does not come within the purview of the notification dated 20-9-1995. The High Court however considering the objections raised by the petitioners and the stand taken by DDA as well as Respondents 4 and 5, came to the conclusion that the allotment in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 is valid. The High Court further directed DDA that the prayer of the appellants be considered for allotment of an alternative site so that a community centre can be built up. It is against this direction and judgment of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred. (3) MR Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the nursery school site could be allotted for providing facilities contained in clauses (i) to (xi) if such facilities are not available in the vicinity. According to the learned counsel, since there are a large number of health centres in the locality and further there are also fine arts schools in the locality, the allotment in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 must be held to be contrary to the notification in question. (4) THE learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for DDA contended that this positive stand of the appellants was not there before the High Court and, therefore, there has been no investigation into these facts and consequently it would not be appropriate for this Court to enter into these facts and come to a conclusion one way or the other. (4) THE learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for DDA contended that this positive stand of the appellants was not there before the High Court and, therefore, there has been no investigation into these facts and consequently it would not be appropriate for this Court to enter into these facts and come to a conclusion one way or the other. (5) MR Kailash Vasdev, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 2 contends that Respondent 2 had already been allotted some other land, but as there was litigation in respect of the said land with DDA, DDA itself offered to get this plot as an alternative site and the project is in collaboration with World Health Organisation (WHO) to provide a heart centre and all steps have been taken by Respondent 2 and, therefore, at this length of time, it would not be in the interest of justice to cancel the allotment already made. (6) SO far as Respondent 3 is concerned, however, there has been no appearance and as such no objections have been filed on behalf of the said Respondent 3 in this Court. (7) IN view of the rival stands of the parties, the sole question that arises for consideration is whether the allotment in favour of Respondent 2 can be said to be covered by any of the clauses in the notification dated 20-9-1995. Though there is considerable force in the submission of Mr Jain appearing for the appellants, but taking into account that allotment of land is permissible for the health centre and the expression "health centre" would include more than one and therefore allotment made in favour of a specialised health centre, notwithstanding the fact that there exists a general health centre in the locality cannot be held to be outside the purview of the notification dated 20-9-1995. That apart, taking into consideration the fact that the project is one in collaboration with WHO and is intended for providing all modem techniques for treating heart patients, we think in the interest of justice, it would not be justified to cancel the allotment made in favour of the said Respondent 2. So far as Respondent 3 is concerned however, apart from the fact that there has been no appearance on behalf of the said respondent, the fact remains that already there exists a dance institute in the locality. So far as Respondent 3 is concerned however, apart from the fact that there has been no appearance on behalf of the said respondent, the fact remains that already there exists a dance institute in the locality. We are of the considered opinion that the allotment in favour of Respondent 3 was contrary to the notification dated 20-9-1995 and we accordingly cancel the said allotment made in favour of Respondent 3. (8) MR Jain, in course of his submission had raised a contention that the land which has been allotted to Respondent 3, roughly 600 sq. m. would be inadequate for the purpose of having a community centre and the community centre should be allotted a land of 1500 sq m. Learned Additional Solicitor General states that in the locality, DDA does not have 1500 sq m vacant land. Mr Jain also agrees with the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General. (9) IN the circumstances, taking into consideration the need of the residents of the locality to provide for a community centre and the need of the residents of Delhi to have a specialised heart centre, we think it equitable to direct that the entire land of 1500 sq m should be divided half and half. One half would be allotted in favour of the appropriate registered body for having a community centre in the area of East of Kailash. Necessarily therefore the allotment already made in favour of Respondent 2 has been slashed down. The sum of money, if any, already received from Respondent 3 should be paid back to him immediately by DDA and if DDA has already received the entire money from Respondent 2, then depending upon the slashing down, the proportionate amount be refunded to them. (10) THE registered body in whose favour ultimately the allotment is going to be made should comply with all formalities of DDA as per the relevant rules, to have the land in its favour. We make it clear that the allotment in question for having a community centre is to be given to the appropriate registered body. We also make it clear that the allotment of land for the purpose of a community centre cannot be utilised for any other purpose and cannot be alienated and no other encumbrances could be created. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly.