JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition makes allegation that the land shown as 'park' in the plan adjoining Plot No. D-41, Shyam Nagar Extension, Jaipur has been used for developing kiosks. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that land shown for park cannot be used for any other purpose than park. Referring to the provisions of Jaipur Development Authority Act (for short 'the JDA Act') and also judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue, it is prayed that land of the park may not be allowed to be used for commercial purpose different than the park. Thus, the writ petition has been filed to seek removal of not only encroachment, but kiosks developed in the area o earmarked as 'park'. 2. Learned counsel for respondent-JDA submits that the area of park shown in the plan is measuring 343 square yards only, thus looking to the size of the plot, there was no possibility to develop a park on the aforesaid land. While an operation was undertaken to remove the encroachment by the s road side commercial activities, a decision was taken to place kiosks in the land aforesaid to settle encroachers. The aforesaid decision was taken for the obvious reason that when plan was approved, the land of park was kept only 343 square yards where there is no possibility to develop a park. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent was o asked as to whether a land earmarked for park or shown as a park in the plan can be utilised for any other purpose than the park. Learned counsel fairly conceded that it cannot be done unless plan is changed as per law, but reiterating the argument, it is submitted that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the kiosks were constructed on the land in dispute. It s was, however, admitted that due to mistake of the authorities that kiosks were developed in the land marked for park. 4. It is also urged by learned counsel for JDA that as and when areas are kept open for park, encroachments take place, thus even otherwise, it is not safe to keep the area open for park because there is a possibility of o further encroachments. 4. It is also urged by learned counsel for JDA that as and when areas are kept open for park, encroachments take place, thus even otherwise, it is not safe to keep the area open for park because there is a possibility of o further encroachments. Lastly, it is stated that if the definition of 'park' is looked into, then area in question cannot be considered to be a park and for that purpose, reference of the definition of 'park' has been made "A park must have considerable area covered by garden with trees, plants or flower beds or lawn and should (?) public for recreation, air 5 or light. Wholly underdeveloped open space can never be said to have the characteristic of a park." 5. Reference of the definition of 'park' from the World Book Encyclopedia has also been made, which is as under "Park-Most parks are pieces of land set aside from the public to o enjoy. Many parks are used for recreation or as places where visitors can relax in a natural environment. Some parks are used for cultural and educational events, sports, rallies and festivals. Parks range in size from urban (city or town) parks of less than a hectare in area, to national parks covering vast areas of wilderness and unspoiled countryside (see National parks). This article deals mainly with urban parks." 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. 7. It is not 0n dispute that area in question was earmarked as 'park' in the plan. The only argument raised by learned counsel for respondent-JDA is that looking to the size of the plot, it cannot be developed as a park and further more, taking note of the definition of the park as quoted above, the area cannot be considered to be a park at all. So far as the aforesaid argument is concerned, same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it is the JDA, which approved the plan leaving space in dispute as a park. The respondents cannot take an argument against their own action, moreso when no corrective action was taken during the intervening period. So far as the aforesaid argument is concerned, same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it is the JDA, which approved the plan leaving space in dispute as a park. The respondents cannot take an argument against their own action, moreso when no corrective action was taken during the intervening period. Even if, the definition of 'park' is taken note of, minimum size of the park has not been prescribed and if the argument of learned counsel for respondent-JDA is accepted that the park should consist of long area, all the parks earmarked in Jaipur City would not qualify within the definition of park. Size of park in urban areas like city or town can be of a small size even as per the definition of 'park' given in the World Book Encyclopedia, thus taking note of the aforesaid aspect, we are unable to accept first argument raised by learned counsel for respondent-JDA. 8. So far as the legal position regarding land kept for park is concerned, it is now settled law that land kept for park while approving the plan cannot be utilised for any other purpose. In view of the aforesaid also, the respondents were not authorised to place kiosks in a land kept for a park irrespective of the size of the plot. The JDA was under an obligation to develop the area, else the parks are required to be kept for every residential area being considered to be lungs of the city and needs for maintaining environment balance. 9. Coming to the last issue raised by learned counsel for respondent that such area generally encroached upon. We failed to understand such an argument by learned counsel for JDA. The JDA is having provisions for action against the encroachers. This is apart from the fact that the JDA is having enforcement department. Despite provisions and enforcement team in the JDA, if they take excuses regarding encroachments on the land kept open, then it is nothing but total failure of the JDA to carry out their duties. It is always obligatory on the part of the JDA to keep their land free from encroachments and in case of failure of any officer, immediate and necessary action deserves to be initiated and in any case, the JDA cannot be allowed to take excuses like the excuse raised by learned counsel appearing for JDA. It is always obligatory on the part of the JDA to keep their land free from encroachments and in case of failure of any officer, immediate and necessary action deserves to be initiated and in any case, the JDA cannot be allowed to take excuses like the excuse raised by learned counsel appearing for JDA. Thus, the argument aforesaid cannot be accepted or appreciated. 10. Even otherwise, the provisions of the JDA Act and Rules does not permit the use of area kept as a park to be utilised for commercial activities and herein the provisions of law have been flouted by none else but the JDA itself, which cannot be endorsed and accepted. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are inclined to accept this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The respondent-JDA is directed to remove all the encroachments and the commercial activities carried out in the plot in dispute. The respondent-JDA is further directed to develop the park for the benefit of people of the area concerned. The koisks which have been established in the dispute land, may be shifted at any other place as per law where such kiosks can be established so that persons who are allotted such kiosks, may carry on their commercial activities in lawful manner. The aforesaid directions be carried out at the earliest.Writ Petition Allowed. *******