JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P10, an invitation issued by the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Corporation of Kochi, in connection with the foundation stone laying ceremony for construction of a Community Hall within the limits of the 23rd Division of Kochi Corporation. The main case put up by the petitioners is on the basis of the Kerala Parks, Play-fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1969 (hereinafter called, 'the Act, 1969'). Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioners are residents of the 23rd Ward in the Corporation of Kochi. The house of the 1st petitioner is situated adjacent to the property of Pioneer Ground, South Moolamkuzhi, Kochi. According to the 1st petitioner, she is a cancer patient, evident from Ext.P1, a medical certificate issued by the General Hospital, Ernakulam. It is also submitted that, the “Pioneer Ground” is remaining there from the year 1980 and the said park is the only green area available to the residents for their recreation. From 1980, the residents started to modify the ground in order to make it suitable for elders and children to play. In 2009, Rs.15 lakhs was sanctioned by the authority under different projects for the development of the ground to a public park, and in the year 2015, a badminton court was constructed in the ground and toys and play equipments are also provided, evident from Ext.P2 series of photographs. 3. But, thereafter, the authorities removed the toys from the said ground and started to construct a roof top for the said park and also decided to construct various concrete buildings. Case of the petitioners is that, the said acts were in violation of the provisions of Act, 1969. A detailed estimate prepared on 21.08.2017 for renovation of the ground is produced as Ext.P3. The residents of the said area objected the same and filed various representations, evident from Exts.P4 and P5. It is also submitted that, there is a Mini Community Hall existing in the Ward. However, the 3rd respondent changed their decision to construct a roof on the said ground and decided to construct a community hall in the area currently used by the residents as a play ground. It is also submitted that, there is a Mini Community Hall existing in the Ward. However, the 3rd respondent changed their decision to construct a roof on the said ground and decided to construct a community hall in the area currently used by the residents as a play ground. So also, it is pointed out that, apart from the said open park, there are no other play grounds available in the area, and if any construction is put up, it will seriously prejudice the lives of the petitioners. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the action of the 3rd respondent is absolutely illegal and arbitrary, liable to be interfered with by this Court. 4. A counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit are filed by the 3rd respondent Corporation, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the attempt of the 1st petitioner is only to protect the personal interest of herself and her family, who are residing on the southern side of the Pioneer Ground. The 1st petitioner and her husband are preventing by one way or other the developmental activities on the northern side of their property in the Pioneer ground. As per the structural plan of Kochi Municipal Corporation, the Pioneer ground is not included in the category of open space and parks. Further, it is included in the residential area in accordance with the plan. 5. It is also pointed out that, since the ground was remaining open, it was being misused for anti social activities. When the southern boundary wall of the Pioneer ground separating the property of the 1st petitioner was constructed, due to the adamant attitude of the husband of the 1st petitioner, a portion of the compound wall in front of the building of the 1st petitioner had to be constructed using steel grill. 6. Earlier, a Shuttle court was constructed as per the decision of the then Corporation Council. When the Corporation tried to construct roof top, as per Ext.P3 estimate, the husband of the 1st petitioner made various objections against the proposed scheme, and finally the Corporation had to drop the above project, apparently, on the reason that, if roof is constructed, it would prohibit the view of his building. When the Corporation tried to construct roof top, as per Ext.P3 estimate, the husband of the 1st petitioner made various objections against the proposed scheme, and finally the Corporation had to drop the above project, apparently, on the reason that, if roof is constructed, it would prohibit the view of his building. It is also submitted that, the residents near the Pioneer ground were frequently requesting for a hall to be constructed in the above ground, and the Ward sabha of Division No.23 met on 02.04.2017 had demanded for the construction of a community hall with stage on the eastern side of Pioneer ground, and accordingly Ext.R3(b) minutes was passed. The above decision to construct the proposed community hall was passed by the Corporation Council and it was approved by the District Planning Committee and all other Government Agencies. Administrative and technical sanctions have also been obtained and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- is also sanctioned for the work. The construction is to be completed before 31.03.2019. 7. It is also submitted that, there is no other community hall in Ward No.23 and in the building in the photograph, two Anganwadies are functioning and the 1st floor is being used as a hall. The foundation stone was laid for the proposed community hall on 16.10.2018 by the Kochi MLA. On the same day, when the earth excavation work started, it was obstructed by force and the work had to be stopped. Since an order of 'status quo' was passed by this Court in this writ petition, the work could not be proceeded further. 8. In the additional counter affidavit, basically it is submitted that, the provisions of the Act, 1969 will not apply and the intention of the 3rd respondent is to provide more facilities to the people of the locality. Therefore, there is no malafides or illegality on the part of the respondent Corporation in constructing the community hall. 9. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioners, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and producing certain documents along with the same. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 11. The predominant contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is relying upon the provisions of Act, 1969. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 11. The predominant contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is relying upon the provisions of Act, 1969. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, “open space” is defined as per Sec.2(b) of the Act, to mean; 'any land, whether enclosed or not, belonging to the Government or any local authority, on which there are no buildings or of which not more than one-twentieth part is covered with buildings and the whole or remainder of which is used for purposes of recreation, air or light'. It is also submitted that, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, the 3rd respondent has failed to prepare a list, however, the same will not absolve the responsibility cast upon the Corporation to maintain open spaces for the enjoyment and recreation of the people residing in a particular area. 12. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has invited my attention to Sec.3 of Act, 1969, dealing with preparation and submission of list of parks, play-fields and open spaces by the executive authorities. Sub-sections (1) to (3) are relevant to the context, which read thus: “(1) The executive authority of every local authority shall, not later than six months from the date on which this Act comes into force in the area within the jurisdiction of the local authority, prepare and submit for the approval of the local authority a correct and complete list with plans and maps of all the parks, play-fields and open spaces in such area. (2) The list referred to in sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) The local authority shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the list and other documents referred to in sub-section (1), publish the list in the prescribed manner, and such publication shall state at what place and time the maps, plans and documents aforesaid will be available to the public for inspection.” 13. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, unless and until a list is prepared, approved and published by the local authority and the Government, the provisions of Act, 1969 will not apply, as is claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition. Therefore, according to the learned Standing Counsel, unless and until a list is prepared, approved and published by the local authority and the Government, the provisions of Act, 1969 will not apply, as is claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel has also invited my attention to Sec.6 dealing with prohibition of the use of parks, play-fields and open spaces in certain cases, which read thus: “No Park, play-field or open space specified in the list published under S.4 shall, except with the previous sanction of the executive authority be used for any purpose other than the purpose or purposes for which it was used prior to the date on which this Act was made applicable to the local authority concerned, if the use of such park, play-field or open space is temporary for a period of less than one month or with the permission of the local authority concerned if such use is for a period of more than one month at a time: Provided that no such sanction or permission shall be necessary in respect of any park, play- field or open spaces belonging to the Government.” 14. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that, unless and until a list is published by the local authority and the Government, no manner of claim can be raised by any persons, relying upon the provisions of the Act, 1969. It is also pointed out that, there is no case for the petitioners that any such list is published by the local authority and the Government in contemplation of the provisions of Act, 1969, including the property in question. It is also equally important to note Sec.8 dealing with prohibition of construction of buildings, which read thus : “8. Prohibition of construction of building etc.--No personal shall except with the previous sanction of the Government, construct any building or put up any structure likely to affect the utility of, or make any encroachment over, any park, play-field or open space specified in the list published under Sec.4.” 15. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. 16. The sole question to be considered is, whether the petitioners are entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition. As discussed above, Ext.P10 invitation was issued for the stone laying ceremony for the construction of the community hall. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. 16. The sole question to be considered is, whether the petitioners are entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition. As discussed above, Ext.P10 invitation was issued for the stone laying ceremony for the construction of the community hall. The provisions of law discussed above make it clear that, in order to apply the said provisions, first of all, the local authority will have to prepare a list in accordance with Sec.3 of the Act. All the provisions of the Act, 1969 are dependent on the preparation of list by the local authority. There is no case for the petitioners that any such list was prepared including the Pioneer ground as a play-field or open space or a park. The prohibitions contained under the provisions apply only after the preparation of such a list and notifying the area as one intended under the provisions of Act, 1969. It is true, recreational area and open space are required for the well-being and entertainment of the people residing in Housing areas. However, in the counter affidavits filed by the 3rd respondent, it is submitted that, the present Shuttle court is proposed to be shifted to a different area in the very same ground itself, in order to enable the people of the locality and the children to play. 17. Taking into account all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioners have not made out any case of illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent Corporation in taking a decision to construct a community hall in the open space. Moreover, petitioners could not establish any malafides on the part of the Corporation in carrying out the construction of the community hall. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get any reliefs, as is sought for in the writ petition. But, I make it clear that, every effort shall be made by the 3rd respondent to shift the present Shuttle court to a convenient place in the ground, at the earliest, and make every endeavour to provide reasonable open space for the enjoyment of the residents of the locality and the children, which will help them in many ways, and make the community living healthy and meaningful. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.