( 1 ) THIS writ petition which is in the nature of public Interest Litigation has been filed by the resident s Welfare Association of B-l Vasant kunj praying inter alia for the following reliefs:- " (A) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ order or directions restraining the Respondents from building flats on Green Belt Area between sectors B-l and B-2 into a residential complex. (B) Issue a writ of mandamus Prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or directions restraining Respondent No. 2 or any of Its contractors from constructing any flats/residential complex on any Green belt Area in the colony of Vasant Kunj New Delhi; (C) Issue directions to the Respondents to immediately remove all constructions material from the Green Belt Area and restraining them from uprooting any more trees in the said area for the purpose of construction of flats. (D) Issue directions to the Respondents restraining Respondent No. 2 from constructing/developing colonies or residential flats till it is ascertained that the availability of water for the existing colonies and for the proposed colonies in the areas is sufficient. (E) Issue directions to Respondent No. 2 to place the development plan as envisaged under the Master Plan 2001 for the area before this Hon ble Court. ( 2 ) OUR attention has been drawn to certain photographs which are contained in Annexure p-2 to show that the area in question was demarcated as green belt area. ( 3 ) THE respondents, however, in their counter affidavit have inter alia contended:- "2. That the main grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondent Authority to built flats in the area between Sector B-l and b-2, vasant Kunj is contrary to the land use with that of the master plan and zonal plan. It is submitted that this public interest litigation is misconceived as both, as per the master plan and the zonal plan, layout plan and composite plan the land use of the area is residential. 3. that as per the layout plan of the site in question the land have been sub-divided partly for LIC Housing and partly for green area as can be seen from the layout plan. That however while preparing the plan for housing some minor adjustments were made between land components i. e. Housing and green which became necessary because of the terrain of the land. That however while preparing the plan for housing some minor adjustments were made between land components i. e. Housing and green which became necessary because of the terrain of the land. By making adjustments the total area of the green remains almost the same. That since the almost equivalent green area will be available to the residents even after construction of the houses. The public interest litigation filed by the petitioner is misconceived and liable to be outrightly rejected. It would be relevant to point out here that the respondents have not made any changes in the master and zonal plan and only modification which has been made in the layout plan is nothing but working drawings prepared by the respondents and the same have been, duly approved by the Screening committee. Moreover, the modifications do not hurt the petitioners in any way and almost equivalent portion of the green area would be available for the residents. " ( 4 ) BEFORE us the master plan as also the composite plan has been produced. It is not in dispute that in the master plan and zonal plan the area in question had been earmarked as a residential area. ( 5 ) IT is, however, not also in dispute that a part of the area was shown as green belt area in the layout plan. As noticed herein before the contention of the respondents appear to be that only certain rearrangement is being done on the periphery of the area in question and the rest thereof shall be kept green. ( 6 ) MS. Anusuya Salwan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that almost the area as obtaining in the layout plan shall be reserved as green belt area. It - has further been contended that a park would be developed in the said area. ( 7 ). Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that although layout plan can be changed wherefor no permission in terms of section 11a of the delhi Development Authority Act is required but there cannot be further any doubt whatsoever that the sufficient area should be left out as green area. ( 7 ). Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that although layout plan can be changed wherefor no permission in terms of section 11a of the delhi Development Authority Act is required but there cannot be further any doubt whatsoever that the sufficient area should be left out as green area. ( 8 ) IT has been contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the area which is sought to be used as a green belt area is in the low lying lands which are required to be filled in. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest of the justice would be sub-served if this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that while raising constructions at the site in question, the respondents also go on developing the rest of the area which has since been earmarked as a green belt area. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned directions.