Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners, who are an association of residents and a house building co-operative society have assailed the allotment of school and playground area in the lay out formed by National Aero Space Laboratories Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., i.e., the second petitioner herein in Sy.Nos.50, 51 and 52 of Tavarekere Village of Bangalore South Taluk (Annexure-E) and they have sought a further direction to the respondents to remove the illegal construction being put up by the second respondent by amendment of the writ petition. The petitioners have also sought for handing over the physical possession of the said (CA site) which has been allotted by the first respondent-authority and a direction is sought to the first respondent-society to maintain the Civil Amenity Site after taking possession of the same from the second respondent by demolishing the construction put up by the second respondent. 2. The petitioners have contended that the second respondent co-operative society after purchase of various parcels of land has formed the layout which is now part of BTM Extension, after obtaining necessary sanctions and approval from the first respondent authorities as well as from the other authorities After the formation of the layout, in terms of the conditions of the sanctioned plan, the second respondent relinquished certain areas to the first respondent-authority by a relinquishment deed dated 11.9.1996, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-D. It also contains the layout plan showing the CA site, which is surrendered to the first respondent-authority and which is marked in red colour borderline. The said area is demarcated as school and playground area. When the matter stood thus, the members of the first and second respondent bodies found that there was construction coming up on the said area which has been relinquished by the second petitioner. On making enquires, they realised that a portion of the area has been allotted to the second respondent. The petitioners, thereafter obtained copies of the allotment order made to the second respondent by the first respondent and have also produced photographs and other documents which are annexed to the writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the allotment made in favour of the second respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the relevant Rules. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the allotment made in favour of the second respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the relevant Rules. It is also contended that the allotment is contrary to the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985, the petitioners have also contended that, had they known about the impugned allotment, they would have also sought for allotment in their favour so that the petitioners could have utilized the said area for the object for which the said area has been earmarked. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have assailed the allotment made by the first respondent-authority in favour of the second respondent, authority and have sought various other incidental reliefs referred to above. 4. In response to the writ petition, both the respondents have filed statement of objections. 5. The first respondent has filed statement of objections contending that the relinquishment made by the second petitioner is in accordance with law. When once the relinquishment of the sites, roads and parks are made in favour of the first respondent authority, the same would stand vested with it and the petitioner has no locus standi to question the allotment made in favour of any other entity that there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in challenging the allotment in the instant case. That there has been no violation of any provision of the Act or the Rules in the allotment made in favour of the second respondent by exercising power under Section 38A of the Act. The first respondent has made allotment to the second respondent-Trust which is established for the purpose of running educational institutions for the benefit of the public in general and also to serve the Kashmiris who are resident in Bangalore and who have been displaced from their state and so also to preserve Kashmiri culture. It is also stated that the petitioner has no right over the Civic Amenity Site which stands vested with the first respondent authority and which has been allotted to the second respondent in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the Rules. Under the circumstances, the first respondent ha sought dismissal of the writ petition. 6. It is also stated that the petitioner has no right over the Civic Amenity Site which stands vested with the first respondent authority and which has been allotted to the second respondent in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the Rules. Under the circumstances, the first respondent ha sought dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The second respondent has also filed statement of objections contending that the civic amenity site has been leased by the first respondent to second respondent in July 2002. Subsequently, the sanction of plan as well as approval of licence has been obtained and construction work is in progress. That the petitioners have filed this writ petition after a delay of over two years. The activities of the second respondent are in pursuance of the objects of the trust. That the allotment has been made pursuant to the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 read with Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976 the meaning of civic amenity is given in Section 2(bb) of the Act which also includes educational institutions and also social and cultural activities being run on the said site. The object of the second respondent-trust also includes running of educational institutions and also social and cultural activities which are being run on the said site. The object of the second respondent-trust has been explained and it is stated that there is no merit in the writ petition and hence, the same has to be dismissed. 7. Initially this writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 1.2.2005 and the petitioners filed W.A.No.2067/2005 which confirmed the order of the learned single judge and the said writ appeal was also dismissed on 12.7.2005 by the Division bench of this court. The said orders were assailed by the petitioners in a Special Leave Petition which was converted into Civil Appeal No.5057/2006, which was disposed of on 27/28.11.2006 by the following order. “We are not satisfied with the two grounds on which the Writ Petition was dismissed. Firstly, when there is alleged violation of building law by the authority or by the allottee, the residents of the locality or the citizens who are adversely affected thereby will be definitely entitled to raise a grievance. “We are not satisfied with the two grounds on which the Writ Petition was dismissed. Firstly, when there is alleged violation of building law by the authority or by the allottee, the residents of the locality or the citizens who are adversely affected thereby will be definitely entitled to raise a grievance. Secondly, the delay as explained by the counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was not aware of any allotment order dated 18.5.2001 passed by the authority and when they came to know that there was some activity of construction on the plot earmarked for football ground in the plan map they immediately preferred Writ Petition before the High Court. The contention of the appellant in our view is reasonably sufficient to condone the delay and examine the Writ Petition on merit. In the result, both orders of the learned single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court are hereby set aside. The Writ Petition No.28015/2004 and 41554/2004 are now restored to file. Learned Single Judge shall hear the parties and decide the Writ Petition on merit. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Stay granted by this Court will continue till the disposal of the Writ Petition.” 8. By the said order, the Apex Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench of this court. The matter has been remanded back to this court for the purpose of deciding the same on merits. It is under those circumstances, this writ petition has been heard by this bench. At this stage itself, it would be relevant to mention that all contentions with regard to locus standi of the petitioner to file the writ petition and also delay in filing the writ petition have been rejected by the Apex Court. Therefore, the question that really arises for consideration would be with regard to the validity of the allotment made by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent. It is in that context I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the second petitioner has relinquished the roads, parks and other areas which are reserved as civic amenity sites to the first respondent by a relinquishment deed dated 11.9.1996. It is in that context I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the second petitioner has relinquished the roads, parks and other areas which are reserved as civic amenity sites to the first respondent by a relinquishment deed dated 11.9.1996. No doubt, when once the said relinquishment deed is executed, the said areas stand vested with the first respondent. However, the first respondent-authority cannot deal with the said areas contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules which apply to such areas. He submitted that in the plan sanctioned by the first respondent with regard to the formation of the layout formed by the second petitioner, the area in question is earmarked as a civic amenity site and has been shown as school and playground. Therefore, the purpose for which the said area has to be utilized has to be maintained by the first respondent-authority while allotting the said area to any entity. The allotment made to any entity cannot be contrary to the object for which the said area has been earmarked i.e., for school and playground. He also submitted that when one the civic amenity area stands vested with the first respondent-authority, the same can be allotted only in terms of the provisions of the Act and also the relevant Rules Drawing my attention to Section 38 of the Act read with the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenities Sites) Rules (1989) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1989 Rules’), he contended that the first respondent has no authority to allot the said site to the second respondent without following the procedure prescribed under the said Rule. He also stated that the Karnataka Parks, Play-fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985 applies to the present case and any allotment of the open spaces has to be in accordance with the said provisions of law. That in the instant case, merely because the second respondent has represented the State Government, an order has been passed by the State Government on the basis of which allotment has been made by the BDA in favour of the second respondent without considering the merits of the eligibility of the second respondent to seek such an allotment. That in the instant case, merely because the second respondent has represented the State Government, an order has been passed by the State Government on the basis of which allotment has been made by the BDA in favour of the second respondent without considering the merits of the eligibility of the second respondent to seek such an allotment. He therefore, concluded his arguments by saying that the purpose of surrendering the area in question by the second petitioner in favour of the first respondent has not been achieved. He also drew my attention to Rules 3 to 10 of the 1989 Rules and contended that the procedure prescribed under the said Rules have not been followed in the instant case. Therefore the allotment in favour of the second respondent be quashed and all consequential prayers be granted. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent-authority with reference to the original records has submitted that the second respondent had made application to the Commissioner of the first respondent-authority seeking allotment of a C.A.Site and a reminder letter was also sent on 11.3.2001. In response to the said letter, the first respondent informed the State Government about the request made by the second respondent. Thereafter, the State Government granted approval for the allotment of a C.A. site in favour of the second respondent and exercising power under Section 38-A of the Act, the first respondent has allotted the C.A.Site in question to the second respondent on the basis of a lease agreement. The order to that effect is dated 7.7.2001. Subsequently, lease agreement dated 16.7.2002 has been executed whereby the C.A.Site has been leased for a period of 30 years subject to certain terms and conditions. He also submitted that the exercise of power by the first respondent pursuant to Rule 3 of the 1989 Rules read with Section 38-A of the Act is justified and legal and the petitioner cannot assail the same since the object and purpose for which the allotment is made comes well within the definition of civic amenities as stated under Section 2 (bb) of the Act. That the allotment is made for the purpose of an educational institution and for other allied activities of the second respondent-Trust. He, therefore, submitted that there is no illegality in the allotment and therefore, the order does not call for any interference. 11. That the allotment is made for the purpose of an educational institution and for other allied activities of the second respondent-Trust. He, therefore, submitted that there is no illegality in the allotment and therefore, the order does not call for any interference. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 justifying the allotment made in favour of the second respondent has stated that the second respondent-Trust has been established not only for the purpose of encouraging the Kashmiri culture, but also for the purpose of establishing educational institutions. That a request was made to the first respondent-authority for allotment of C.A.Site which is pursuant to the said site. That discretion has been exercised in favour of the second respondent and an allotment ha been made and the same is in accordance with ct and Rules. The petitioner who has relinquished the civic amenity areas to the first respondent, cannot question the allotment made in favour fo the second respondent since the said allotment is in accordance with the objects of the Trust as well as the objects stated in the Act as well as the Rules. Under the circumstances, he has stated that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same has to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision reported in the case of Colonel G.K.Burli & others V/s. B.D.A. & others (1985(2) KLJ 510) and the decision of the House of Lords in (1958) A.C.736). 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, the point that arises for my consideration is, as to whether the allotment of the C.A. site made by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent is in accordance with law or not. 13. From the material on record it is noticed that once the second petitioner formed the layout in terms of the conditions of the approval of layout plan, the second petitioner relinquished certain areas in favour of the first respondent by a relinquishment dated 11.9.2996. When once the relinquishment has been made in favour of the first respondent, the second petitioner would lose all right, title and interest in respect of the said area which is treated as a civic amenity area and the same would stand vested in the first respondent. When once the relinquishment has been made in favour of the first respondent, the second petitioner would lose all right, title and interest in respect of the said area which is treated as a civic amenity area and the same would stand vested in the first respondent. The first respondent has to allot the said civic amenity site in accordance with the Act as well as the relevant rules. In this context, it would be relevant to state that the Act and the Rules applicable would be the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and the 1989 rules. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (preservation and Regulation Act. 1985 is incorrect since the said Act is a general enactment applicable to the entire State whereas insofar as the Metropolitan City of Bangalore is concerned, it is only the Bangalore Development Authority Act of 1976 and the Rules 1989 pertaining to the allotment of Civic Amenity Sites which are specifically applicable. Therefore, the validity of the allotment has to be considered under the said provision and not under the provisions of the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation Act, 1985.) 14. It is noticed that the second respondent had requested the first respondent for allotment of a site and a copy of the reminder letter dated 11.3.2001 is found at pages 27 and 28 of the original records. Pursuant to the various request made by the second respondent on 7.3.2001, the Commissioner of the first respondent-authority Trust a letter to the Prl. Secretary, Department of Urban Development on 4.7.2000 stating about similar request made by the second respondent to the then Chief Minister and seeking permission of the State Government to allot a site exercising power under the 1989 Rules read with Section 38A of the Act. 15. In response to the said request on 11/18.5.2001, the State Government acceded to the request made by the Commissioner of the 1st respondent authority. Pursuant to the said approval on 7.7.2001, the 1st respondent exercising its authority under Section 38-A (1) of the Act made the allotment of 1253.82 sq mt at the rate of Rs.1193/- per sq.ft. These amounts as specified subject to certain terms conditions. A copy of the allotment order dated 7.7.2001 is found in page 33 of the records. Pursuant to the said approval on 7.7.2001, the 1st respondent exercising its authority under Section 38-A (1) of the Act made the allotment of 1253.82 sq mt at the rate of Rs.1193/- per sq.ft. These amounts as specified subject to certain terms conditions. A copy of the allotment order dated 7.7.2001 is found in page 33 of the records. Subsequently, the lease agreement was executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent on 16.7.2002. It is stated that possession was handed over on 30.7.2002 and the 2nd respondent had obtained khata on 23.1.2003 and sanctioned plan on 10.4.2003 and has commenced construction. 16. Having regard to the objects of the Trust of the 2nd respondent, the question is as to whether the allotment is valid or not. The same has to be considered in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act as well as 1989 Rules. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines ‘Amenity’ as follows: (b) ‘Amenity’ includes road, street, lighting, drainage, public works and such other conveniences as the Government may, by notification, specify to be an amenity for the purpose of this Act. [Section 2(bb) defines “Civic amenity” to mean; (i) a market, a post office, a telephone exchange, a bank a fair price shop, a milk booth, a school, a dispensary, a hospital, a pathological laboratory, a maternity home, a child care centre, a library, a gymnasium, a bus stand or a bus depot; (ii) a recreation centre run by the Government or the Corporation; (iii) a centre for educational, social or cultural activities established by the Central Government or the State Government or by a body established by the Central Government or the State Government; (iv) a centre for educational, religious, social or cultural activities or for philanthropic service run by a Co-operative Society Registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959) or a Society Registered under the Karnataka Societies registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960) or by a Trust Created wholly for Charitable Educational or Religious purposes; (v) a Police Station, an Area Office or a Service Station of the Corporation or the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board or the Karnataka Electricity Board; and (vi) such other amenity as the Government may, by notification specify. 17. 17. Section 38-A pertains to grant of area reserved for civil amenities by the authority by way of lease, sale or otherwise transfer the same for any purpose for which it has been reserved. Section 38-A reds as follows: “[38-A. Grant of area reserved for civic amenities etc: (1) The Authority shall have the power to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any area reserved for civic amenities for the purpose for which such area is reserved. (2) The Authority shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any area reserved for public parks and playgrounds and civic amenities, for any other purpose and any disposition so made shall be null and void; Provided that where the allottee commits breach of any of the conditions of allotment, the Authority shall have the right to resume such site after affording an opportunity of being heard to such allottee.]” 1989 Rules pertains to the allotment of Civic Amenity Sites, Rule 2(b) defines civic amenity site as follows; “Civic Amenity Site” means a site earmarked for civic amenity in a layout formed by the Authority or a site earmarked for civic amenity in a private layout approved by the Authority and relinquished to it;” Rule 2(d) defines Institution as follows; “Institution” means an institution, Society or an association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960) or a Cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959) or a trust created wholly for charitable, educational or religious purpose; Rule 2(f) defines lessee as follows; “Lessee” means in institution to which a civic amenity site is allotted and which has entered into an agreement with the Authority in that behalf.” Rule-3 deals with the offer of civic amenity site for allotment which reads as follows; 3. Offer of civic amenity sites for allotment: (1) The Authority may out of the Civic amenity sites available in any area reserve such number of sites for the purpose of providing civil amenity referred to in sub-clauses (1) and (iv) of clause (bb) of Section 2 by the Central Government, the State Government, Corporation of by a body established by the Central Government or the State Government. (2) After making reservation under sub-rule (1) the Authority may subject to Section 38A and general or special orders of the Government and having regard to the particular type of civic amenity required to be provided in any locality offer such of the remaining civic amenity sites for the purpose of allotment on lease basis to any institution; Provided that the Authority shall while so offering the civic amenity sites reserve eighteen percent of such sites for being allotted to an institution established exclusively for the benefit of scheduled Castes, the majority of members of which consists of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and three percent of such sites to an institution established exclusively for the benefit of Scheduled Tribes, the majority of members of which consists of persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes, and if at the time of making allotment sufficient number of such institutions are not available the remaining sites so reserved may be allotted to other institutions. (3) Due publicity shall be given in respect of civic amenity sites so offered for leasing to the institutions, specifying their location, number, dimension, purpose and last date for submission of application and such other particulars as the Commissioner may consider necessary, by affixing a notice on the notice board of the office of Authority and also by publishing in not less than two daily newspapers in English and Kannada having vide circulation in the City of Bangalore. Rule -4 deals with the disposal of sites reserved which reads as follows; 4. Disposal of sites reserved: Notwithstanding anything in these rules, the sites reserved under sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 may be allotted to the categories specified therein on lease basis by the Authority for the purpose of providing civic amenity subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it. Rule 5 deals with Registration, Rule -6 pertaining to eligibility. Rule-7 pertains to principles of selection of institution for leasing out civic amenity sites, Rule-8 deals with the lease amount of the site allotted to the institutions to be fixed by the Authority and Rule-10 deals with the conditions of allotment of civic amenity sites. 18. Rule 5 deals with Registration, Rule -6 pertaining to eligibility. Rule-7 pertains to principles of selection of institution for leasing out civic amenity sites, Rule-8 deals with the lease amount of the site allotted to the institutions to be fixed by the Authority and Rule-10 deals with the conditions of allotment of civic amenity sites. 18. On a reading of the definition of ‘Civic Amenity’, it is noticed that the said definition is not an exhaustive definition, it mentions various civic amenities which also includes educational, religious, social or cultural activities pursued by the entities of various nature including a Trust such as a Religious and Charitable Trust, but also such other amenities which the Government may, by notification specify. 19. Under Section 38-A of the Act, discretion is given to the respondent-authority to lease, sell or transfer in any other manner any area reserved for civic Amenities for the purpose for which said area is reserved, if the authority disposes of the area reserved for public parks and playgrounds, civic amenities or for any other purpose, then such an action would be null and void. Reference is made to Section 38-A of the Act in Rule 3 of 1989 Rules, which pertains to civic amenities sites for allotment. The definition of civic amenity site is in Rule 2(b) which is extracted above. Under sub rule (1) of Rule 3, the authority ha power to reserve such number of civic amenity sites which are available in any area for the purpose mentioned in sub clauses (i) and (iv) of Clause (bb) of Section 2 of the Act for the Central Government, State Government, Corporation or for a body established by the State Government or the Central Government. Sub rule (2) of Rule 3 states that after making reservation under sub-rule 1, the Bangalore Development Authority, subject to exercise of power under Section 38-A of the Act and general or special orders of the Government and having regard to the particular type of civic amenity sites required to be provided in any locality offer such of the remaining civic amenity sites for the purpose of allotment on lease basis to any institution ‘Institution’ is defined in Clause (d) of Rule 2. 20. A reading of sub-rule 2 would make it clear that the authority is empowered to allot a site exercising power under Section 38-A of the Act. 20. A reading of sub-rule 2 would make it clear that the authority is empowered to allot a site exercising power under Section 38-A of the Act. The authority can also allot sites on the basis of any general or special orders of the Government. However, having regard to the particular type of civic amenity required to be provided in any locality, after exercising discretion under Section 38-A of the Act or making allotment under any general or special orders of the Government, if there are any sites which are remaining in a particular locality, the same would have to be offered for allotment on lease basis to any institution as is referred to clause (d) of Section 2. Therefore, the priority of allotment to be made in respect of the civic amenity sites available in any locality is stated in Rule 3 itself. Therefore, the available civic amenity sites have to be first allotted in terms of sub rule (1) to Governmental authorities, then the BDA has discretion to allot any site under section 38-A of the Act and if there are any general or special orders of the State Government, the same would have to be complied with by the BDA. If the BDA chooses not to exercise its discretion in favour of any institution and if there are civic amenity sites available in any locality, then in that case the same would have to be offered in terms of the procedure prescribed in sub rule (2) of Rule 3 read with Rules 4 to 10 of the sub rules. Therefore, the allotment of a civic amenity site by exercising discretion by the BDA in terms of Section 38-A is distinct from the allotment of sites to be made by the BDA by following the procedure prescribed in Rule3 read with other rules referred to above. 21. From the records it is noticed that in the instant case that the allotment made by the 1st respondent BDA in favour of the 2nd respondent is on the basis of exercise of discretion under Section 38-A of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the procedure prescribed for allotment of civic amenity sites in terms of sub rule (3) of Rule 3 read with Rules 4 to 10 has not been adhered to in the instant case cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the procedure prescribed for allotment of civic amenity sites in terms of sub rule (3) of Rule 3 read with Rules 4 to 10 has not been adhered to in the instant case cannot be accepted. If the BDA had not exercised discretion under Section 38-A of the Act to allot site in favour of the 2nd respondent, then in that case the site in question would have to be offered along with the remaining civic amenity sites in the locality in terms of the procedure stated in sub rule (3) of Rule 3 of Rules 4 to 10. However, that is not the position in the instant case. The civic amenity site in question has been allotted in terms of sub rule (2) of Rule 3 read with 38-A of the Act. Therefore, the question is as to whether the allotment is made in accordance with Section 38-A of the Act. 22. A reading of the said section would clearly indicate that the authority i.e. B.D.A has power to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any area reserved for civic amenities for the purpose for which such area is reserved. If such an area is reserved for public park, playground and civic amenities or any other purpose and any allotment contrary to the said reservation would be null and void. In the instant case, civic amenity site has been reserved for the purpose of school, playground. The lease deed dated 1.7.2002 states that the lease is for construction of ‘Kashmir Bhavan’ for the specific purpose mentioned under Section 38-A of the Act under the Government Order dated 18.5.2001. Clause-5 of the lease deed also states the purpose of construction of a building for ‘Kashmir Bhavan’ and not for any other purpose and no residential and commercial building can be constructed on the allotted C.A. site. The lease is for a period of 30 years. Copy of the Trust deed of 2nd respondent has also been produced as Annexure R2. The 2nd respondent is a Public Welfare Trust established for the purpose of developing, promoting, running educational institutions for the purpose of public in general and also for promoting Kashmiri culture and cultural activities through out India and particularly the objects of the Trust has stated in paragraph-4 of the Trust deed which reads as follows: 4. The 2nd respondent is a Public Welfare Trust established for the purpose of developing, promoting, running educational institutions for the purpose of public in general and also for promoting Kashmiri culture and cultural activities through out India and particularly the objects of the Trust has stated in paragraph-4 of the Trust deed which reads as follows: 4. OBJECTS OF THE TRUST: a) The objects of the Trust is to serve the public in general and to promote the Ancient culture of Kashmir and patriotism towards our country and also to promote educational Institutions to Public in large. b) To promote ancient culture & cultural activities of India and in particular to Kashmir and its civilization, culture, religions harmony and upliftment of Kashmiri Migrants and displaced persons. c) To create peace committees to uplift the sufferers in Kashmir due to militant terrorist activities, riots etc., d) To establish, administer, run and assist Educational Institutions including nursery, primary, secondary schools, colleges, technical, medical, diploma and vocational institutions and courses like Tutorial, post graduation, research institutions and the like. e) To establish and maintain and administer tutorials and any distance education programs. f) To establish and run hostels, libraries, reading rooms for students. g) To promote Rural Education and Education among women folk in Kashmiri. h) To give loans, stipend, scholarship and such other assistance to economically backward students and in all ways to serve the Education. i) To foster and encourage education among Kashmiri folk in general and to establish institutions for women and children and to provide social welfare works for women and children. j) To publish books, literatures, all aspects and curricular, journals, pamphlets, periodicals and news papers to spread and for the advancement of education and culture 23. The beneficiaries of the Trust are public at large as stated in Clause-5 of the Trust Deed. In the instant case, it is noticed that the civic amenity site in question has been reserved for the purpose of school and playground. Having regard to the broad objects of the Trust which also includes educational and cultural activities, the lease deed states that the allotment has been made for the purpose of construction of Kashmir Bhavan. The object of such construction is to run various activities as stated in the Trust Deed, which also includes educational institutions and various other objects which are civic amenities as per Clause (bb) of Section 2. The object of such construction is to run various activities as stated in the Trust Deed, which also includes educational institutions and various other objects which are civic amenities as per Clause (bb) of Section 2. Even the lease made by the 1st respondent authority in so far as the site in question is concerned, is for school and playground. 24. On a conspectus reading of the objects of the 2nd respondent – Trust, the definition of Civic Amenity and the purpose for which the site has been reserved, in my view, the allotment made is in accordance with Section 38-A, sub rule 92) of Rule 3 of 1989 Rules. In fact, during the course of submission, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has filed a memo stating the extent of area which has been allotted to the 2nd respondent i.e. the total area leased by the BDA to the 2nd respondent which is 13,488.30 sq.ft., the built up area is 4,376.85 sq ft and the vacant space left around the built up area is 9.101.16 sq ft. Therefore, there is sufficient area which is left vacant apart from built-up area in the total area that has been leased by the BDA to the 2nd respondent. In fact, the entire site measures 41.737.50 sq ft. The remaining extent of the civic amenity site is 28.241.38 sq ft after the allotment of 13,496.12 sq ft, which has been made in favour of the 2nd respondent. Even if the school or any educational institution is run by 2nd respondent in the constructed portion, the vacant portion of the leased area can be utilized for playground purpose. If there is any violation of the conditions of the lease, then it is always open to the 1st respondent to resume the land by canceling the lease. That is not the question which can be considered at this point of time. However, having regard to the objects of the 2nd respondent-Trust, the definition of civic amenity and the exercise of power by the 1st respondent under Section 38-A of the Act read with Rule 3 of 1980 Rules, I am of the view that the allotment in the instant case is in accordance with law. The same would not call for any interference. There is no merit in the writ petition. 25. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The same would not call for any interference. There is no merit in the writ petition. 25. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of this writ petition would not come in the way of the petitioners seeking an allotment having regard to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. If such an application is made by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the 1st respondent in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs. 26. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an application seeking stay for a period of 3 months. 27. Learned counsel for the respondent has however objected to the said application. 28. It is noticed that the interim order granted on 17.11.2006 by the Apex Court has to continue only till the disposal of the writ petition. Under the circumstances, any continuation of interim order or grant of stay after the disposal of the writ petition would be contrary to the order of the Apex Court. Hence, the application is rejected.