JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:- “i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to treat the land situated in Khasra Nos.1, 10, 12, 18, 16, 2, 20 to 31, 3, 31/104, 32 to 44, 4, 44/103, 45, 45/102, 46, 46/105, 47 to 49, 49/106, 5, 50, 59, 6, 69, 7, 78 to 87, 8 and 9 measuring 26.2100 Hectres, Village: Dhol Ka Badh, Tehsil: Sanganer, Jaipur Khasra Nos.352, 353, 357, 356, 355, 370, 371, 369, 368, 373, 351, 350, 349, 346, 344, 343, 365, 360, 366 measuring 10.69 Hectres, Village: Jhalana Chod, Tehsil: Sanganer, Jaipur as residential zone as declared in Master Plan 2025 and to use and develop the aforesaid land as Biodiversity Park; ii. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent-RIICO be directed to transfer the land situated in Khasra Nos Khara Nos.1, 10,12, 18, 16, 2, 20 to 31, 3, 31/104, 32 to 44, 4, 44/103, 45, 45/102, 46, 46/105, 47 to 49, 49/106, 5, 50, 59, 6, 69, 7, 78 to 87, 8 and 9 measuring 26.2100 Hectres, Village: Dhol Ka Badh, Tehsil: Sanganer, Jaipur Khasra Nos. 352, 353, 357, 356, 355, 370, 371, 369, 368, 373, 351, 350, 349, 346, 344, 343, 365, 360, 366 measuring 10.69 Hectres, Village: Jhalana Chod, Tehsil: Sanganer, Jaipur to respondent-JDA only for the purpose of development of Bio-diversity Park in pursuance to minutes of meeting dated 9.12.1983 under the chairmanship of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister; iii. Any other appropriate order or directions which are deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the humble Petitioner and in the interest of justice. iv. Cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be a society constituted with an aim and object to preserve the public properties and other ancillary issues related to public interest. Petitioner No.2 claims to be a public spirited person engaged in matters of public interest. 3. Through this petition, the petitioners have sought issuance of writ of mandamus/directions/orders for development of biodiversity park over 26.21 hectares of land situated in village Dhol-ka-Badh and 10.69 hectares of land situated in village Jhalana Chod, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. Petitioner No.2 claims to be a public spirited person engaged in matters of public interest. 3. Through this petition, the petitioners have sought issuance of writ of mandamus/directions/orders for development of biodiversity park over 26.21 hectares of land situated in village Dhol-ka-Badh and 10.69 hectares of land situated in village Jhalana Chod, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. The averments made by the petitioners are that the aforesaid lands were acquired in the year 1979-1982, involving 591 bighas and 9 biswas for the purposes of industrial development, followed by handing over of possession to Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited (for short ‘RIICO’) on 18.10.1982 and 17.11.1983, further followed by an award passed on 14.05.1984 in favour of those whose lands were acquired. However, the lands, for one reason or the other, were not developed as industrial area, though 105 acres of aforesaid land was earmarked for establishing gem industrial estate followed by allotment to Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Limited. It was later on cancelled, which led to various disputes and legal battle, which were finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.02.2013, settling in favour of RIICO. 3.1 It is contended that in the meantime, the lands remained unused and there developed a forest area containing large number of trees and bushes, resulting in natural growth of rich flora and fauna. A large number of indigenous species have made the land their homes and also the destination of migrant birds of about 75 species. There are 2421 trees of 30 different varieties with 54 different varieties of shrubs and herbs/medicinal properties. Out of 591 bighas of land, 166 bighas has rich flora and fauna, whereas 24 bighas of land has virtually been converted into residential colonies, which have already been developed and regularized by various local authorities/development authorities. In this manner, over the years, an area of 166 bighas has developed into a very rich and diverse biological preserve. 4. It is further submitted that all of a sudden, when the respondent authorities started with their project of developing a Fin-Tech Park over the large area of 166 bighas, which is covered with trees and rich flora and fauna and bio-diversity, representations were made before various authorities for establishing the Fin-Tech Park and developing the area as bio-diversity park. Further, as bids were invited for development of Fin-Tech Park, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Further, as bids were invited for development of Fin-Tech Park, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that way back in the year 1983, in the meeting of highest officials of the State, it was resolved not to use the land for industrial purposes but for residential purposes. After such residential use is permitted, in the changed circumstances, it will lead to proper development of bio-diversity park as part of large residential area. Further submission is that as per Master Plan-2025, it is classified as residential area and in proceedings before the National Green Tribunal, Bhopal, the Jaipur Development Authority described 166 bighas of land, sought to be developed as Fin-Tech Park, as part of green coverage with number of trees. It is also submitted that, later on, vide Memorandum of Understanding dated 08.04.2003 and 15.02.2005, subject lands have been transferred to JDA. 5.1 Further submission is that vide order dated 12.01.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Writ (PIL) No. 1554/2004-Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (1) WLC (Raj) 562, it has been clearly stated that industrial areas should not be allotted to be developed in the close vicinity of the residential area and there should be a buffer zone at least one kilometer between the residential area and industrial area. The directions given by the Court are not being complied with and the respondents are proceeding to destroy the flora and fauna of 166 bighas of land, which over the years, has naturally grown as bio-diversity zone, which needs to be protected by issuance of directions for shifting and reallocating the Fin-Tech Park elsewhere and development of bio-diversity park at the present place being part of large area, which has come to be developed on the remaining 425 bighas of land. 6. Per contra, the stand of the respondent-State/RIICO/JDA is that the subject land since 1979 was identified for being developed as an industrial area and it was also acquired for the same purpose. 6. Per contra, the stand of the respondent-State/RIICO/JDA is that the subject land since 1979 was identified for being developed as an industrial area and it was also acquired for the same purpose. An award was also passed in the year 1984 and it was decided to develop the area as gem industrial estate and for that purpose, 1.50 acres of land was already allotted to Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Limited and number of industrial activities could not be developed for one reason or the other, however number of industrial operations, at least 10 in number, are going on. There were various litigations initiated at the instance of those, whose allotments were cancelled. Moreover, there were petitions filed seeking conversion of the land into residential area and both the litigations were finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two different cases. In the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation & Anr. Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited & Anr., (2013) 5 SC 470 as well as in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 427 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court ruled in favour of RIICO rejecting the prayer for alternation of the use of the land from industrial to residential and allowed the RIICO to develop the land as an industrial area. Therefore, the relief sought in the petition runs contrary to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also the case of the respondents that Fin-Tech Park is being developed as an ambitious project for overall industrial growth and is in public interest. The project has already been initiated and an agency has also been finalized. 7. It is vehemently contended that the petitioners are guilty of suppression and concealment of material facts. The petitioners have not given details of their activities and the petition lacks bonafides. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (supra), has not been disclosed. The common signatory along with petitioner No.2 in making various representations have already approached the National Green Tribunal, where the petition has been disposed off. Filing of petition before the National Green Tribunal was also not disclosed in the writ petition. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (supra), has not been disclosed. The common signatory along with petitioner No.2 in making various representations have already approached the National Green Tribunal, where the petition has been disposed off. Filing of petition before the National Green Tribunal was also not disclosed in the writ petition. A comparison of the averments made in the writ petition and the Original Application filed before the National Green Tribunal would reveal that the pleadings are verbatim the same. The same material is lifted from the Original Application filed before the National Green Tribunal, which clearly shows that the petitioners were fully knowing about the pendency of the case before the National Green Tribunal. As a matter of fact, persons, interested in obstruction of Fin-Tech Park project, approached the National Green Tribunal as well as this Court without disclosing the said fact to this Court. The petition also suffers from delay. The Master Plan-2025 was finalized long back but the petitioners did not challenge the same. In that Master Plan-2025, though it was initially proposed, but finally the subject land continues to be earmarked and reserved for industrial purposes only. The steps for development of Fin-Tech Park were initiated in the year 2022 and NIT was also issued. At a later stage of the project, the petitions have been filed to stall the industrial development and seeking directions contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, suppressing the material facts and it is a veiled attempt to regularise the illegal constructions and encroachments made on the larger part of the land in the garb of seeking prayer for development of bio-diversity park. 8. On the issues raised in the petition as also on serious objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack of bonafide, suppression and concealment of material facts, as raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the respective parties were heard at length. 9. It is not in dispute between the parties and also clearly borne out from the pleadings made that way back in the year 1979, the lands were acquired through land acquisition proceedings. 9. It is not in dispute between the parties and also clearly borne out from the pleadings made that way back in the year 1979, the lands were acquired through land acquisition proceedings. To the extent of 607 bighas and 5 biswas of land situated in revenue village Jhalana-Chod and Dhol-ka-Badh in Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 were initiated, which culminated in passing of an award on 14.05.1984 in respect of 591 bighas and 17 biswas (land in dispute). It is also not in dispute that possession of the land was also taken by the State Government and was, later on, handed over to RIICO on 18.10.1982 and 17.11.1983. A part of the land covered under acquisition was allotted to Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Limited for the purposes of establishing gem industrial estate for manufacturing of gemstones. The said Corporation allotted certain plots of land to individual units, out of which 36 entities constructed their industrial units and started operation. In course of time, however, many of the units were closed down, but at least 10 units are still operational. Later on, allotment of land made to the said Corporation was cancelled by the RIICO and the RIICO, albeit, saving other sub-allotments already made by the Corporation to the individual entities. Legal battle started and finally vide order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7252/2003, cancellation of allotment was upheld. Obviously, because of long drawn litigation, the RIICO was not in a position to go ahead with development activities over the area, covered under the subject of dispute in the aforesaid petition. 10. The facts with regard to plan of development of Fin-Tech Park, as stated by the respondents, have not been disputed, though challenged by the petitioners. It has been averred in the reply that after budget declaration in the Assembly in February, 2021, steps were taken for development of the land in question as Fin-Tech Park and complete plan was prepared, in furtherance of which, a Notice Inviting Tender was issued on 24.11.2022 and work order has also been given to one agency, namely M/s Parul Construction Company on 31.07.2023, which has undertaken substantial work of civil construction including roads, sewerage, water supply line and electricity lines. 11. 11. A very important development, which has not been disclosed by the petitioners in this PIL is that along side battle between RIICO with Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Limited on account of cancellation of allotment, which ultimately travelled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, another petition came to be filed by one Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur seeking direction for release of part of the subject land measuring 17 bighas and 9 biswas from land acquisition in favour of the Housing Society for development of residential area. The claim was resisted by RIICO on the ground that land was acquired for the purposes of industrial development. According to the society, the society having entered into an agreement with the khatedars, the land acquisition was illegal. 11.1 Though the petition was allowed by the High Court, on appeal being preferred by the RIICO before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the land acquisition proceedings were upheld. It is not in dispute that at the time when the litigation was initiated, the land was earmarked under the Master Plan for industrial use. While upholding the validity of acquisition proceedings, it was categorically held that land had been acquired for industrial development and, therefore, the prayer made by the society for release of the land for developing residential use cannot be accepted and the same was rejected. It was also noted that the khatedars’ had joined the society in challenging the acquisition proceedings, which were repelled and the petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Hon’ble the Supreme Court found that the petition itself was filed in the manner, which lacked bonafides. The prayer for release of land based on various circulars issued by the Government, which run contrary to the development scheme of industrial use of the land, was found to be illegal and it was held that the circulars issued by the State Government, being inconsistent with the policy and the law regarding acquisition, cannot be taken note of. It was further held that issuance of such circulars amounts to committing fraud upon statutes, and further tantamounts to colourable exercise of power. It was categorically held that the land having been acquired for industrial development, thus, could not be permitted to be used for residential purposes. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the petition was dismissed. 12. It was categorically held that the land having been acquired for industrial development, thus, could not be permitted to be used for residential purposes. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the petition was dismissed. 12. The decision in both the cases i.e. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (supra) and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation & Anr. Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited & Anr. (supra), was delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2013. This clearly shows that because of the dispute raised by the khatedars’, Society as also by the Corporation and because of long and continued legal battle against RIICO until 2013, for one reason or the other, industrial development on the subject land was stalled. It is quite surprising that the petitioners, who claim to have made thorough research and stated so in the petition, and refers to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation & Anr. Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited & Anr. (supra), have claimed that they had no knowledge about the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (supra). It be noted that in the present petition, the petitioners have not raised any issue with regard to the area being developed as residential one, rather it has been stated in the petition that the area could be developed as residential area. 13. The conduct of the petitioners in suppressing pendency of a case before the National Green Tribunal, involving identical issue for consideration, has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents. It has been urged that the petitioners in the present case and the petitioners before the National Green Tribunal were common signatories of various representations being made to various authorities objecting to industrial development over the subject land. In reply filed by the respondents, it has been very categorically averred that major contents of the petition are verbatim reproduction of the contents of the Original Application which was filed before the National Green Tribunal and its pendency on the date of the filing of the instant petition. In reply filed by the respondents, it has been very categorically averred that major contents of the petition are verbatim reproduction of the contents of the Original Application which was filed before the National Green Tribunal and its pendency on the date of the filing of the instant petition. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have filed detailed reply to stay application as also reply to main petition. It has been categorically averred therein that Original Application was filed by one Komal Srivastava and Shammi Nanda and both the applicants are signatories to the representations filed by the petitioners. These representations have been filed collectively as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.. One set of these signatories filed Original Application bearing No.1125/2023 before the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone, Bench Bhopal on 28.08.2023 with following prayers:- “In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above and applicants most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly: a. Issue the appropriate directions or the protection of Dol ka Badh and its rich biodiversity and the forest developed over there with the efflux of time; b. Issue the appropriate directions to restrain the respondents to destroy of forest and the biodiversity situated at Dol ka Badh in future, c. Issue the appropriate directions to the respondents for restoration of recently destroyed trees, herbs and shrubs in the Dol ka Badh area, d. Pass any such order/s, as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 14. In para 4(xiii), the petitioners have stated- “That the petitioners with some other persons jointly submitted the representation to the respondents and urged for the shifting of the Fin-Tech Park……..”. The present writ petition came to be filed on 13.09.2023 i.e. after filing of the Original Application before the National Green Tribunal. We have gone through the contents of the Original Application filed as Annexure-R/6 to the reply before the National Green Tribunal. Moreover, it has been highlighted and which we have also compared, that the contents of para 4(x) and 4(xi) of the petition are almost verbatim reproduction of contents of para 13 and 14 of the Original Application filed before the National Green Tribunal. In para 4(viii) of the petition, the expression used is “Meaning thereby this original application is also based upon the ground level research…...”. In para 4(viii) of the petition, the expression used is “Meaning thereby this original application is also based upon the ground level research…...”. If the contents of para 4(viii) of the writ petition are compared with contents of para 11 of the Original Application, it can be easily found that the contents of Original Application are reproduced in the writ petition. Similarly, the contents of paras 4(ix), 4(xii), 4(xiii), 4(xiv) and 4(xv) of the writ petition also reflects that the same are more or less reproduction of paras 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19 respectively of the Original Application. 15. It is, thus, clearly discernible that the Original Application was very much available and in the hands of the petitioners when the present writ petition was being filed, yet the petitioners conveniently suppressed this fact that an Original Application is already filed by some of their colleagues and signatories of the representation. This was intended only to mislead this Court as the petitioners did not went to disclose that Original Application before the National Green Tribunal had already been filed, which would have eventually led to dismissal of the petition only on the ground that the matter is already pending before the National Green Tribunal. 16. It is not in dispute that the National Green Tribunal vide its order dated 18.09.2023 (Annexure-R/7) declined to stop the project, but disposed of the Original Application with a limited direction not to cut or damage the trees fully grown up and developed except without permission from the competent authority/Forest Department, with a further observation that DFO concerned after considering the utility of the land may decide according to the rules and pass appropriate orders and in case of removal of any trees, the Project Proponent/Respondent must plant ten times of the trees and to maintain it minimum for five years. Thus, the National Green Tribunal declined to interfere with the development of Fit-tech Park. 16.1 Though the order was passed by the National Green Tribunal subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, but it was soon after filing of the writ petition. In all fairness, the petitioners immediately ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the Court even during pendency of this writ petition. Therefore, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are guilty of concealment of material facts. In all fairness, the petitioners immediately ought to have brought this fact to the notice of the Court even during pendency of this writ petition. Therefore, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are guilty of concealment of material facts. 17. The other misleading fact, stated by the petitioners in the present petition, is that the Master Plan, 2025, earmarks and reserves the land in dispute for residential area. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is clearly stated that though initially in the Master Plan, 2025, the use of the land in question was proposed as residential, but on the objection filed by the RIICO, the land in question was continued to be kept reserved for industrial use vide order dated 24.04.2017, filed along with reply to the stay application as Annexure-R/5. It has been emphatically stated by the respondents that land in question continues to be reserved for industrial purposes in the final Master Plan, 2025. In-fact, in the Master Plan of 1991-1998 and 2011, the land in question was classified for industrial use, which has already been placed on record as Annexure-R/4 (colly) along with reply to the stay application. To support their case that the land in dispute is a green cover area, the petitioners placed on record the map as Annexure-9 to the writ petition, stating that this map was prepared by the JDA and was filed in a matter before the National Green Tribunal, Bhopal, without disclosing details of the matter wherein that map is stated to have been filed. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have categorically denied and stated that the map (Annexure-9) does not show any green cover, more-so the map is not validated by signature and seal of JDA officers and, therefore, lacks its authenticity. It is the stand of respondent Nos.1 to 5 that such maps do not bind the respondents. While filing rejoinder and additional affidavit, the petitioners have conveniently avoided to take any specific stand and given evasive reply. 18. The case of the respondents has been that the petitioners assertion that the land is reserved for residential uses is based only on draft Master Plan, 2025, which was objected to by RIICO as the subject land was sought to be classified as residential area. 18. The case of the respondents has been that the petitioners assertion that the land is reserved for residential uses is based only on draft Master Plan, 2025, which was objected to by RIICO as the subject land was sought to be classified as residential area. To this effect, the respondents have placed on record a copy of the order dated 24.04.2017. 19. In the rejoinder, faced with the disclosure of the return, the petitioners have sought to challenge the action of the respondents in reserving the area in dispute for industrial use. Even in the additional affidavit filed after filing of the reply on merits, the petitioners have avoided to traverse specific stand taken by the respondents that the land has been reserved for industrial use in the Master Plan, 2025. It is not the case where the petitioners have come out with challenge to various orders and proceedings including the order dated 24.04.2017 and Master Plan, 2025 to the extent it reserves the disputed land for industrial use. Rather, the petitioners came out with the case that the land is already reserved for residential use based only on draft proposals. The petitioners claimed to have filed the petition after thorough research, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the petitioners knew only about draft and not the final Master Plan and the order dated 24.04.2017. Therefore, we are constrained to infer that the petitioners conveniently avoided to disclose those facts which did not support their case, though known to them and only painted a picture as if, the land in dispute was reserved for residential use only and the action of the respondents in developing the Fin-tech Park as part of the industrial development is contrary to the Master Plan. The details which have been given by the petitioners in their rejoinder and additional affidavit show that number of petitions are being filed by one of the petitioners. 20. An exaggerated version is sought to be projected in the petition with regard to flora and fauna, alleged to have developed over the land in dispute. The details which have been given by the petitioners in their rejoinder and additional affidavit show that number of petitions are being filed by one of the petitioners. 20. An exaggerated version is sought to be projected in the petition with regard to flora and fauna, alleged to have developed over the land in dispute. Through this petition it is sought to be projected that entire area is covered by forest, whereas in the reply respondent Nos.1 to 5 have categorically stated that the Corporation had already allotted certain plots of land to individual units, out of which 36 entities constructed their industrial units and had also started its operation. Though, many such units have closed down in the course of time, but 10 units are still operational. This factual statement made by the respondents has not been traversed by the petitioners in the rejoinder or additional affidavit. In the reply, it has been stated that though allotments of land made to the Corporation were cancelled by RIICO, but those allotments which were already made by the Corporation to the individual entities were saved. The petitioners suppressing these facts came out with an exaggerated version, which is falsified from the statement of the respondents. As against the statement of existence of 2421 trees of 30 different varieties on the land in question, what has been stated by the respondents in their return is that there are only 735 trees and rest are small bushes and shrubs. It has clearly been stated that all the 735 trees will not be required to be cut or trans-located, inasmuch as only those trees which fall in the plots that are carved out in the plan shall be trans-located. The photographs of the plan have also been placed on record. The respondents have seriously disputed as to whether trees and birds which are shown in the photographs, are found in the land, with reference to which the petition has been filed. Who captured those photographs and further statement with regard to species of birds has not been clearly stated, though in the return the respondents have categorically stated that a false statement with regard to existence of different varieties of birds in the area has been made. The burden was on the petitioners to come out with clinching evidence in this regard. 21. The burden was on the petitioners to come out with clinching evidence in this regard. 21. The respondents have also stated in their reply that Fin-tech Park is an ambitious step towards industrial development to cater the services of the IT professionals and other service providers. In the return, it has also been categorically stated that necessary budget announcement has been made to develop the Fin-tech Park as smart industrial area with facility of plantation cover, power station, dedicated waste disposal, commercial shops etc. Initially NIT was issued on 24.11.2022 but when no one was found qualified technically, second NIT was floated on 14.02.2023 and only one bid was found technically qualified but not financially qualified and, therefore, again third NIT was issued on 30.05.2023 and when four bids were found to be qualified in all respects, work order was given on 31.07.2023 to the lowest bidder and the development of Fin-tech Park is in progress. In the Fin-tech Park, total 36 plots, each measuring 1200 sq. mts. to 18000 sq. mts. will be allotted to different IT professionals and other service providers. The project is expected to provide employment to approximately 50,000 persons in the State and from the said project, the RIICO is likely to get revenue to the tune of Rs.1350 crores, which in-turn, will be used for development of industrial infrastructure in the State. It has been very clearly stated that there will be plantation cover over 6.32 hectares of land, wherein approximately 3700 plants will be planted. It is categorically averred that in the first phase, already existing 244 trees will be trans-located to the dedicated plantation cover area, for which requisite permission has also been obtained from the District Collector vide letter dated 08.09.2023. On 12.09.2023, tender has already been invited by RIICO for the work of translocation of 244 trees in the first phase. Further submission is that other trees will be trans-located in subsequent phases. 22. On 12.09.2023, tender has already been invited by RIICO for the work of translocation of 244 trees in the first phase. Further submission is that other trees will be trans-located in subsequent phases. 22. Prayer made in the writ petition for declaring the lands for industrial area as residential area, which is clear from the relief clause, reveals that the petition is not bonafide and in the garb of seeking a direction for development of bio-diversity park, the petitioners are intending to some how get the industrial area converted into residential one, which cannot be granted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (supra). In that case, following pertinent observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- “33. In the instant case land has been acquired for industrial development. The respondent Society wants the said land for developing the residential houses. Therefore, such a demand is not worth acceptance. 47.14. The land had been acquired for industrial development and thus, cannot be permitted to be used for residential purposes. Therefore, the demand of the respondent Society cannot be held to be justified.” 22.1 It is unfortunate that the petitioners while placing on record various information and orders pertaining to the land in question including judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation & Anr. Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited & Anr. (supra), conveniently avoided to refer to the aforesaid decision as it would have weakened their case. 22.2 Painting a very exaggerated picture of the fact that the land in dispute had several trees standing on it, an attempt has been made to stall the industrial project. The order which was passed by the National Green Tribunal also clearly states regarding protection of trees. The development plan, which has been disclosed in the return, takes care of the green coverage. 23. A bald statement of residential colonies having developed on 425 bighas of land has been specifically denied by the respondents as false statement. Rather, it appears that there were attempts to raise unauthorized constructions. The relief sought by the petitioners is only to seek protection of unauthorized constructions over the land in question. 23. A bald statement of residential colonies having developed on 425 bighas of land has been specifically denied by the respondents as false statement. Rather, it appears that there were attempts to raise unauthorized constructions. The relief sought by the petitioners is only to seek protection of unauthorized constructions over the land in question. The respondents have also placed on record google maps dated 05.07.2013 and 05.01.2022 as Annexure-R/10 along with the reply. 24. As far as the aspect of protection of trees is concerned, the respondents have relied upon the orders dated 20.12.2019 and 08.09.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10732/2019- Lokesh Khandelwal Vs. State of Rajasthan, where there was a project to remove trees for the purposes of construction of a road and statement was made before the Court that 859 trees would be transplanted and relocated at appropriate places. 25. Taking into consideration the aforesaid plantation scheme and further that the respondents have not only made statement regarding developing more than 6 acres of land as plantation area also to start the process of translocation of 244 trees in the first phase, we do not think that the development of industrial Fin-tech Park, as is being done by the respondents, is of such nature that this Court should intervene in the matter. 26. The petitioners have not only concealed the material facts, particularly pendency of application before the National Green Tribunal on the same issue, but have also come out with various incorrect and misleading facts. Moreover, an exaggerated statement based on unsubstantiated facts has been made in the petition. In all fairness, the petitioners ought to have disclosed the petitions filed by them in the past, which has also not been done. Reply of the respondents discloses that this is not the only petition which has been filed by one of the petitioners, but there are many other cases filed and are pending. In-fact, one petition filed by one of the petitioners, namely Ravindra Singh Chaudhary i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.20779/2019- Ravindra Singh Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors., was dismissed on 16.10.2020 with cost. Petitioner No.2 did not disclose the aforesaid fact while filing the petition. In-fact, one petition filed by one of the petitioners, namely Ravindra Singh Chaudhary i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.20779/2019- Ravindra Singh Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors., was dismissed on 16.10.2020 with cost. Petitioner No.2 did not disclose the aforesaid fact while filing the petition. An attempt was made to mislead the Court by giving reference to an order dated 09.12.1983 that at the Government level, a decision was taken not to develop the area as industrial area and to transfer the same to JDA for residential purposes. Even minutes of meeting have also been placed on record, but at the same time, it was suppressed that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. (supra), which has been referred to herein above, the said decision could not be implemented. 27. In view of above consideration of material on record and after giving our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are constrained to observe that present PIL is based on suppression of material facts, misstatement of facts, misleading statements, exaggerated statements with regard to the status of the land and appears to be intended to some how get the land area developed as residential area on the statement that bio-diversity park would be a part of the residential area. 28. Though the respondents, in view of various misleading statements, suppression of facts and misstatement of facts have come out with an application for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, though we are not inclined to proceed against the petitioners under Section 340 Cr.P.C., we are however inclined to dismiss the instant petition with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, payable by the petitioners to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of three months. 29. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.