JUDGMENT DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This petition has been filed basi¬cally raising the grievance that the area earmarked for park/open space has been reduced substantially by the lessee, Orissa State Housing Board. This Court considering the complaint to be very serious, sent an Officer of the Court for local in¬spection and accordingly a report was submitted that area of the park has been reduced by raising construction in one part of its corner. The Court passed an interim order on 7.5.1999 restraining the State Housing Board from making any further reconstruction on that area marked for open space. Since then the construction work could not proceed. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, Kanan Vihar Develop¬ment Society-the allottee of the land, is that as per the ap¬proved lay out plan of the colony, a total area of Ac. 4.247 has been earmarked for “Open Spaces” which comes to 14.15% of the total area. The opposite party has permitted construction of new houses in the area earmarked for open spaces. It has drastically reduced the area under 'open spaces’. The open spaces were meant for ventilation, recreation, public park and other public utility including upkeep and maintenance. 3. In its counter, respondent No.1 has submitted that the area ‘open spaces’ has not been reduced at all but some part of it stood shifted to another place. However, it is not clear from their counter affidavit, as under what circumstances without revising the sanctioned plan such a course should be permissible and plan could not be revised without the consent of the peti¬tioner society. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In view of the report of the Officer of this Court, we are of the considered opinion that in case a particular area has been earmarked to be left as open space for public park in order to achieve the environmental equilibrium, it should not be altered by any means by any authority unless there were compelling circumstances and the procedure prescribed by law has to be followed for the same. Admittedly, some constructions have been raised in contravention of the sanctioned plan and the area of the open space has been reduced. Before doing so, no notice had ever been given to the present petitioner i.e. the allottee society. Admittedly, some constructions have been raised in contravention of the sanctioned plan and the area of the open space has been reduced. Before doing so, no notice had ever been given to the present petitioner i.e. the allottee society. In such a fact situation, either opposite party No.1 should dismantle the construction raised by it or it can compen¬sate by providing similar area in a contiguous zone i.e. on either side of the open space in continuity. 5. As the order requires execution, we request the Princi¬pal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Govern¬ment of Orissa to depute an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to have a spot inspection and supervise the allotment etc. of the land to make the deficiency good in the manner pre¬scribed herein above. Allotment of land in several patches at different places for different purposes would not serve the purpose. Opposite party No.1 shall make the land available after reaching its complete satisfaction that it is in continuity of the open space, though may be on any other side. In case such a course is not physically possible, opposite party No.1 shall demolish the construction raised by it and restore the reduced area of the open space to its original position. The work is to be exe¬cuted within a period of four weeks from today. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.