Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—While considering the writ petition, the question made in the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case reported in Shri Sachidanand Pandey and another vs. The State of West Bengal and others (1987 SC 1109) comes to mind and we cannot restrain ourselves from quoting para No. 2 of the same:- "A hundred and thirty-two years ago, in 1854, `the wise Indian Chief of Seattle' replied to the offer of `the great White Chief in Washington' to buy their land. The reply is profound. It is beautiful. It is timeless. It contains the wisdom of the ages. It is the first ever and the most understanding statement on environment. It is worth quoting. To abridge it or to quote extracts from it is to destroy its beauty. You cannot scratch a painting and not diminish its beauty. We will quote the whole of it: "How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. "If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them? "Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The Sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man. "The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rockly crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man-all belong to the same family. "So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us. "This shining water moves in the streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father. "The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes, and food our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours and you must henceforth give the kindness you would give any brother. "We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of, land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father's graves behind, and he does not care. "He kidnaps the earth from his children. His father's grave and his children's birth right are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold lie sheep or bright beads. His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert. "I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man. But perhaps it is because the red man is a savage and does not understand. "There is no quite place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring or the rustle of an insect's wings. But perhaps it is because I am a savage and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult the ears. "There is no quite place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring or the rustle of an insect's wings. But perhaps it is because I am a savage and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there in life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? I am a red man and do not understand. The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond, and the small of the wind itself, cleansed by a mid-day rain, or scented with the pinon pine. The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath-the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives the last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred as a place where even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadows flowers. "So we will consider your offer to buy our land. If we decide to accept, I will make one condition. The White man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers. "I am a savage and I do not understand any other way. I have seen a thousand rotting buffalores on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing train. I am a savage and I do not understand how the smoking iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive. "What is man without the beasts? If all the beats were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts soon happens to man. All things are connected. "You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. "What is man without the beasts? If all the beats were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts soon happens to man. All things are connected. "You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. So that they will respect the land. Tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children, that the earth if sun mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves. "This we know: The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we know: All things are connected-like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. "Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life: he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web he does to himself. "Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see. One thing we know, which the white man may one day discover- our God is the same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creater. The white too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. "But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the wild buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of many man and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the wild buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of many man and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. The end of living and the beginning of survival." 2. The writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the residents of Kanotabag locality of Jaipur facing the same predicament like the "wise Indian Chief of Seattle" and have invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as being interested in the preservation of open space/spaces meant for park/children park/children play ground in a duly sanctioned scheme. The petitioners have submitted that they being the residents of the locality are the persons who are intimately, vitally and developmentally affected by the action of the State which is bent upon to destroy the environment and deprive the residents of the area of the facilities reserved for the enjoyment and protection of health of public at large. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that in the city of Jaipur, there is a Kanotabag residential colony located on the Devi Path. In the approved plan of the said colony, in front of plot No. B-72 and to the east side of plot Nos. 74 and 75, facility area in the name of Children Park was reserved. This approved plan was sanctioned by the Urban Improvement Board in 1960. The Government in order to give undue advantage to respondent No. 4, by its order dated 6.8.2009 (Annx. 1) proceeded to release the plot from the nomenclature of convenience area and directed regularization thereof in favour of respondent No. 4. When the petitioners came to know about the said action of the Government, which as per the petitioners, is a JDA land meant for children park, the petitioners gave a notices to the Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Secretary, JDA, Jaipur as well as to the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. The notice for demand of justice went unheard. 3. A First Information Report was also filed, being FIR No. 99/92 against the encroachment upon the said land. 4. This Court while considering the writ petition for admission, proceeded to issue notice to the respondents vide order dated 20.10.2009. The notice for demand of justice went unheard. 3. A First Information Report was also filed, being FIR No. 99/92 against the encroachment upon the said land. 4. This Court while considering the writ petition for admission, proceeded to issue notice to the respondents vide order dated 20.10.2009. Thereafter, Shri R.B. Mathur put in appearance on behalf of the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Jaipur as well as the Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. The Municipal Corporation, Jaipur has been represented by Ms. Naina Saraf, Advocate and appearance on behalf of Mahendra Kumar Modi was put in by Shri M.M. Ranjan, Senior Advocate along with Shri H.S. Khandelwal. 5. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in which, the stand taken was that the petition was motivated one and was filed to settled the personal scores. It was further pleaded that the writ petition was not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and, therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed. However, the existence of the map of the year 1960 approved by the Urban Improvement Department filed along with the rejoinder has not been disputed. The reservation of the disputed plot in question for facility area and the subsequent release thereof for the purpose of residential use was not disputed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 justified the decision taken vide Annx. 1 for releasing/exempting plots Nos. A-1 and B-1 from the facility area. The justification given as per the answering respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was that there was some miscalculation in the area available to be reserved for the facility area earlier. Despite the regularisation of the plot Nos. A-1 and B-1 in favour of respondent No. 4, the facility area of 25.94% was still available, as per the answering respondents. Certain circulars of the department have also been placed on record. Along with reply, Annex. R.1/2, a letter dated 27.11.2008 issued by the JDA, Jaipur has been placed on record in which the reference has been made to a letter 23.5.2006 seeking releasing of the plot Nos. A-1 and B-1 from the facility area. As per the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on a second survey of the residential scheme, the area of the scheme increased by some 22879 sq. A-1 and B-1 from the facility area. As per the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on a second survey of the residential scheme, the area of the scheme increased by some 22879 sq. yards and, therefore, as per the Secretary, JDA, the total available land for facility area was coming to be 25.94% even after the plot Nos. A-1 and B-1 were freed. 6. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent No. 4 Mahendra Kumar Modi, the person in whose favour order Annx. 1 has been passed and as per the said reply, respondent No. 4 denied the averments made in the writ petition and submitted that the area shown in the plan as facility area was wrongly demarcated as a children park and that the plots in question were purchased by the answering respondent No. 4 - Mahendra Kumar Modi from one Sumant Khandelwal, claiming title on the land by virtue of a sale made by the original owner of the land Mohan Singh s/o Shiv Nath Sigh. It was further submitted that a civil suit for injunction was filed by the answering respondent Mahendra Kumar Modi in the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division, Jaipur against the JDA. The order dated 12.8.1996 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 154/91 has been placed on record and in terms of the said order, it has been pleaded in the reply that the court vide its order dated 12.8.1996, in the civil suit, decreed that the land in question was of the ownership as well as in possession of the plaintiffs. 7. As regards the First Information Report No. 99/92, it has been submitted that the First Information Report in question was investigated and resulted into a negative Final Report, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annex. R 4/1. However, we find on perusal of the document Annex. R 4/1 that the complete Final Report has not been placed on record and the incomplete document has been filed by respondent No. 4. 8. The writ petition came up for consideration of this Court on 7.76.2011. We have heard the counsels for the parties. 9. R 4/1. However, we find on perusal of the document Annex. R 4/1 that the complete Final Report has not been placed on record and the incomplete document has been filed by respondent No. 4. 8. The writ petition came up for consideration of this Court on 7.76.2011. We have heard the counsels for the parties. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri J.R. Tatia has submitted that since the land in question was earmarked as a convenience area in the approved plan of 1960, the nature thereof could not be permitted to be chan-ged to a residential area. In support of his argument, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa and others ( AIR 1991 SC 1902 ) and the judgment dated 10.11.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No. 6354/04 Smt. Harsha Seth vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 10. Shri J.R. Tatia, counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that no reasons have been assigned in the order Annex. 1 dated 6.8.2009 for directing regularization of the plots in question from the category of convenience area. He has further submitted that a question regarding this very act of the State Government was raised on the assembly floor by M.L.A. Shri Madan Lal Saini and in reply to the question raised, the State Government has clearly stated that action was being proposed in relation to encroachment upon the facility area. In the last, Shri Tatia, while placing reliance upon the judgments referred to herein above, has prayed to this Court that the order Annx. 1 passed by the State Government directing regularization of the plot Nos. A-1 and B-1 of the Kanotabag residential scheme with the change of user be quashed and the State Government and the JDA be directed to develop the Children Park for which the land was reserved in the year 1960. 11. In reply to the argument of the Shri Tatia, Shri R.B. Mathur counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has argued that order Annx. 1 was passed after valid consideration in the meeting of the Building Plan Committee (for short "BPC") wherein all the aspects of the case were taken into account, including the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 12.8.1996. 1 and 2 has argued that order Annx. 1 was passed after valid consideration in the meeting of the Building Plan Committee (for short "BPC") wherein all the aspects of the case were taken into account, including the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 12.8.1996. When the meeting of the BPC was convened for the purpose of regularization of the land in question and for the purpose of releasing it from the convenience area, the title of the property in question was also considered, it was found that the ownership of the property was with Thakur Mohan Singh, who sold the same to Rajesh Gupta and from them the property was purchased by Shri Mahendra Modi, respondent No. 4. The aspect of surplus land to the tune of 25.94% was also taken into account and thus, as per Shri R.B. Mathur the decision to regularize the land and to release the land from the nature of public utility was taken consciously in accordance with the circular dated 6.9.2007 (Annex. R1/1). 12. Another additional affidavit of Shri Onkar Mal Saini, Deputy Commissioner, Zone-1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur has been filed before this Court along with agenda note of the BPC wherein the decision to convert the land from the convenience area to residential area was taken. The said agenda note has been placed on record as Annx. R 1/5 and it has been argued on the basis of the document Annx. R. 1/5 that the decision to convert and regularize the plots in question was taken after due application of mind to the factual as well as the legal circumstances and that if at all the petitioners were aggrieved by the action of the State Government, they were free to file an appeal against the order in question. However, as regards the judgment Annx. R. 4/6 passed in Civil Suit No. 154/91, Shri R.B. Mathur, during the course of argument fairly pointed out that the said judgment has been challenged by the JDA by way of an appeal and the said appeal came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 101/07 in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No. 4 Jaipur. The learned Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur set aside that part of the order dated 12.8.1996- wherein the observations were made by the court of the learned Civil Judge regarding ownership of the land in question. District Judge No. 4 Jaipur. The learned Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur set aside that part of the order dated 12.8.1996- wherein the observations were made by the court of the learned Civil Judge regarding ownership of the land in question. We directed Shri R.B. Mathur to place the judgment of the appellate court on record and in pursuance to the said direction, the judgment dated 7.2.1998 passed in appeal has been placed on record. Both the parties were represented in the appeal. For convenience sake, para No. 16 and 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below, which reads as under:- ^^16- bl lk{kh ds c;kuksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;g U;k;ky; ls dsoy ek= ;g vuqrks"k pkgrk gS fd izfroknh dkuwuh izfØ;k viuk;s fcuk rksM+QksM+ ugha djsA bl lk{kh ds ekSf[kd lk{; o izLrqr nLrkostkr ds voyksdu ls dsoy ek= ;g lkfcr ekuk tk ldrk gS fd bl lk{kh o mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa us 1991 esa fookfnr lEifr dks [kjhnk] ftl O;fDr us ;g lEifr csph] mlus ;g lEifr fdlh Bkdqj eksguflag ls [kjhnuk crk;k x;k gS] Bkdqj eksgu flag dk bl lEifRk esa fdl izdkj dk LokfeRo Fkk] ;g oknh izR;FkhZ lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gSA dsoy ek= jftLVMZ foØ; i= ls fdlh lEifr dks [kjhnuk lkfcr gks tkus ek= ls ;g lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS fd bl lEifr ij mldk LokfeRo LFkkfir gks x;k gSA oSls Hkh bl izdj.k esa ihMCyw 1 oknh@izR;FkhZ egsUnz dqekj eksnh ds c;kuksa ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd oknh bl izdj.k esa U;k;ky; ls dsoy ek= ;g vuqrks"k pkgrk gS fd fookfnr lEifr esa dkuwuh izfØ;k ds fcuk rksMQksM+ ugha dh tkosA fo}ku~ odhy vihykFkhZ U;k;ky; }kjk oknh izR;FkhZ dks bl lhek rd vuqrks"k nsus esa fdlh izdkj dh vkifRr ugha djrs gSA 17- mijksDr foospu ds i'pkr~ esjh jk; esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vius vk{ksfir fu.kZ; o fMØh esa oknh izR;FkhZ }kjk vius okn esa pkgs x;s vuqrks"k ls vkxs c<+dj vuqrks"k ikfjr fd;k gS] tks fd dkfcys fujLruh; gSA** 13. At the conclusion, the appellate judge has expunged that part of the trial court's order wherein the observations regarding the ownership was made. At this stage, we would like to revert to the reply filed by answering respondent No. 4 Mahendra Modi and particularly para No. 6 of the reply wherein it has been pleaded as under:- "6. At the conclusion, the appellate judge has expunged that part of the trial court's order wherein the observations regarding the ownership was made. At this stage, we would like to revert to the reply filed by answering respondent No. 4 Mahendra Modi and particularly para No. 6 of the reply wherein it has been pleaded as under:- "6. That when the answering respondent was sought to be disposse-ssed forcefully then the answering respondent was forced to file a suit in the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No. 3, Jaipur bearing suit No. 154/91 and the trial court after hearing the J.D.A. had passed a restrained order. The trial Court had held the title of the plaintiff respondent and the trial court had passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the answering respondent. The copy of the judgment dated 12.8.1996 is submitted and marked as Annex.R-4/6." 14. From a bare perusal of the above reply and the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 4, Jaipur in appeal, it is apparent that respondent No. 4 has deliberately concealed the facts from this Court while answering the averment and has tried to mislead this Court by making false averments in the return. Though respondent No. 4 was represented in appeal, he has deliberately relied upon that part of the trial court's order which has already been set aside by the appellate court. We feel that the answering respondent No. 4 Mahendra Modi has deliberately given false evidence before this Court in order to procure an order in his favour. 15. We are also constrained to observe that when the question of release of the property came up to be considered by the BPC, the agenda note whereof has already been placed on record, the BPC has also referred to the order Annx R. 4/6 without mentioning about the appellate court's order though it was on the file, as has been stated by Shri R.B. Mathur. 16. During the course of argument, Shri R.B. Mathur has not disputed the existence of the approved plan of the year 1960 in which the plots in questions have been earmarked as Children Park. 17. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar. 16. During the course of argument, Shri R.B. Mathur has not disputed the existence of the approved plan of the year 1960 in which the plots in questions have been earmarked as Children Park. 17. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar. The Hon'ble Apex Court had occasion to deal with such circumstances and situation on number of occasions and the leading judgment on this aspect which comes to fore is judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors., (1997) 1 SCC 388 , wherein Hon'ble the Court approved the theory of the doctrine of Public Trust as developed by the Roman Empire. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para Nos. 16 and 17 which are quoted herein under:- 16. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the "Doctrine of the Public Trust." It was founded on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers, sea-shore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Our contemporary concern about "the environment" bear a very close conceptual relationship to this legal doctrine. Under the Roman Law these resources were either owned by no one (Res Nullious) or by every one in common (Res Communious). Under the English common law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interests in navigation of fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan proponent of the Modern Public Trust Doctrine in an erudite article "Public Trust Doctrine in natural resource law; effective judicial intervention." Michigan Law Review Vol. 68 Part I page 473 has given the historical background of the Public Trust Doctrine as under: The source of modern public trust law is found in a concept that received much attention in Roman and English law- the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature, need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasized. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature, need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasized. First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public, accordingly, property used for the those purposes was distinguished from general public property which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties-such as the seashore, highways, and running water- "perpetual use was dedicated to the public," it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although the state apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available that public rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant government. 17. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature. They should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than a permit then- use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority. Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust : first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third, the property must be maintained for particular types of uses. 18. The concept of public trust was again considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment delivered in the case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs. State of A.P. and Ors. ( AIR 2006 SC 1350 ) and in the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. ( AIR 2011 SC 1123 = 2011(2) RLW 1389 (SC)) Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and Ors. ( AIR 2006 SC 1350 ) and in the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. ( AIR 2011 SC 1123 = 2011(2) RLW 1389 (SC)) Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and Ors. (2011 (5) Scale 505), M.I. Builder Pvt. Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Ors. ( AIR 1999 SC 2468 ) and Sanjay Adlakha vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (2011 Manu SC 0690). 19. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the counsel for the respondent reported in Raju S. Jethmalni vs. State of Maharastra (2005 (II) SCC 222 does not help respondent No. 4 because the facts under consideration in the said case were entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the above cited, as in that case, the record produced on behalf of the person claiming the ownership of the land clearly disclosed that the land was a private land and the acquisition proceeding could not be completed in regards thereto. Therefore, the facts of the said case are entirely different from the case at hand. 20. In these circumstances, the order Annx. 1 passed by the State Government directing the release of the land from the utility area and regularization in favour of respondent No. 4 is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of the residents of the Kanotabag locality. The moment the land was set apart for a facility area/children's park, the same became a public trust property. The State thereafter had no jurisdiction to convert the property into a private residential plot. The order Annx. 1 thus being illegal, perverse and opposed to public police is hereby quashed. 21. Before parting, we may consider another aspect of the matter. The facility area reserved for the Children Park since the year 1960 has not been developed in a part till date. The parks and gardens located in the cities are lungs of the city. If lungs are taken out from the human being then the survival of the human being is impossible. Likewise, if the parks and gardens and the reserved forest area in the cities, town and villages are not developed/ protected, as such, then the cities and villages will be left without lungs and the very survival thereof would become impossible. 22. We, therefore, while setting aside the order Annx. Likewise, if the parks and gardens and the reserved forest area in the cities, town and villages are not developed/ protected, as such, then the cities and villages will be left without lungs and the very survival thereof would become impossible. 22. We, therefore, while setting aside the order Annx. 1 passed by the State Government, direct that the JDA shall immediately take possession of the plot in issue and shall develop the same for the purpose for which it was earmarked, i.e., Children Park. We also direct that the State Government shall take steps to se that all over the State wherever such reserved area have been earmarked, the State/local body shall take care to see that they are developed for the purpose for which they were reserved so that no unscrupulous land grabber can connive with the conniving State officials to take possession of the land meant for public use. The action shall be taken immediately and the report shall be submitted to this Court within a period of three months from the date of this order. 23. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Looking to the misstatement of facts made by respondent No. 4, as regard the civil court's judgment, we impose exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondent. Cost, if realized, shall be utilized for the development of the children park in issue.