Judgment 1. By this writ, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed that the land which has been allotted to respondents No. 3 by respondents No. 1 and 2, that allotment be declared illegal. 2. The Sahkari Mitra Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (A Housing Co-operative Society) was registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Society Act, 1965. That society has purchased 27 bighas, 7 biswas of land pertaining to Khasra Nos. 92, 93, 58, 59 and 60 of village Jhalana Chod. The society has prepared a plan for development of that land for residential colony named Prithviraj Nagar. The plan submitted has been approved by JDA in 1984 which includes facility areas. The facility areas have been shown as A, "B, C, & D. Facility area marked A has been allotted by respondents No. 1 and 2 to respondent No. 3 for construction of school / college building. 3. The members of the society raised objection against this allotment. The case of the members of the society is that the facility area cannot be allotted for the purpose of construction of school building. Representations were made and thereafter this writ has been filed on behalf of the residents of the colony. The case of the petitioner is that no land should be allotted from the land reserved for facility area for educational institution, therefore, the allotment is contrary to rules and that should be cancelled. 4. In reply to this writ petition, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 brought on record the facts that in the name of facility area, 4 places are left open marked as A, B, C, & D. In portion D, temple has been constructed, open space C is meant for commercial purpose and A has been allotted to respondent No. 3, open space marked B still lying vacant. 5. Now building has already been raised on the land marked A, facility area to provide education facility. The allotment has been made in accordance with rules. By using that land for the purpose of education to the children of the locality, it cannot be said that land has not been used for the purpose of public facility. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the land in question has been earmarked as facility area that should not be allotted to the society which runs the school. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the land in question has been earmarked as facility area that should not be allotted to the society which runs the school. He further submits that that facility area should be left open for the use of the residents of the colony. In alternate, leaned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the other land marked B facility area which is still available as facility area, that should be kept open in future. 7. The limited controversy before us is whether allotment of plot of land to respondent No. 3, which is marked as facility area A in the plan is illegal. 8. For the purposes of planning, co-ordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of the Jaipur Region and of executing plans, projects and schemes for development of Jaipur, the Legislature has enacted Act known as Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereafter, referred as Act, 1982) and the Authority has been constituted to implement the provisions of the Act. Public facility area has not been defined in the Act. Though public purpose has been defined under Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Act, 1982. Public purpose includes any purpose which is useful to the public or any class or section of the public and the requirement of land reserved or designated in a plan, project or scheme or for any other purpose under this Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, 1982 provides that no other authority or person shall undertake any development of the land without permission of the authority. Under Section 21, the JDA will prepare Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans which provide the facility referred in Sub-section (2) of Section 21 which includes the educational and medical facilities. The provision of Section 38 of the Act, 1982 further provides that when a project or scheme is submitted for approval inter alia in the scheme there should be a provision of educational institutions. 9. The Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division Reconstitution and Improvements of Plots) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1975) further provides the terms and conditions how the land for the purpose of residential colony to be developed. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1975 provides the provision for educational facilities. 9. The Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub-Division Reconstitution and Improvements of Plots) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1975) further provides the terms and conditions how the land for the purpose of residential colony to be developed. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1975 provides the provision for educational facilities. Clause (ii) of Rule 14 specifically states that land for educational facilities shall be provided in any scheme of sub-division, reconstitution or improvement of plots as shown therein. Rules 13, 15 & 16 of Rules, 1975 further referred some type of facilities which should be available in the residential colony. 10. The admitted facts are that allotment of land in question has been made after inviting the applications from the public in general in 1997 and land in question has been allotted to respondent No. 3 after considering all the applications received in response of advertisement for allotment of this land. In plan, 4 spaces are left open marked as A, B, C and D for the purpose of facility for residents and called facility area. The land earmarked as A facility area has been allotted to respondent No. 3 for the purpose of educational institution / school. Open space B still left open. C is meant for commercial use and in D temple has been constructed. No irregularity or illegality has been shown in the allotment except that the plot of land marked as facility area has been allotted to respondent No. 3, for running the school. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show us that educational institution in the colony is not a facility for the children of the colony. When the facility area has not been defined anywhere in the Act or the Rules but the Act and Rules provide that there should be a facility of education in the plan which has been submitted for development of the residential colony. If out of 4 facility areas, one has been allotted for the education facility for the residents, we see no wrong in the allotment when the land has been allotted for the purpose of educational facility. 12. Now building has already been constructed and school / college is running in that building, no public purpose will be served by demolishing such building or cancellation of the allotment which has been made in accordance with the rules. 13. 12. Now building has already been constructed and school / college is running in that building, no public purpose will be served by demolishing such building or cancellation of the allotment which has been made in accordance with the rules. 13. Even the alternate prayer of the Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing was that if this writ is dismissed, at least direction should be given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to keep open the facility area marked B for the use of residents of the colony. When the facility area marked A has been allotted for the purpose of education, C has been left open for commercial use and in facility area marked D temple has been constructed, in our considered opinion, the facility area marked B should be kept open or can be developed as a park for the residents of the colony. 14. With the above directions, we see no merit in this writ petition. The petition stands dismissed.