ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The controversy revolves around a strip of land measuring 2,405 sq. mtrs. This land, owned by the respondent-Society, has been utilized by the appellant-Authority to develop a green belt abutting the MR-11 Road in Indore. 3. The respondent-Society owned a large parcel of land measuring 19.90 acres in village Niranjanpur, Indore, including the strip of land measuring 2,405 sq. mtrs. The said land fell under the Town Development Scheme, notified by the appellant-Authority on 03.04.1987. The respondent-Society sought the release of its land, on the premise that it would utilize that land for the residential purpose of its members in conformity with the Town Development Plan. The Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore, consequently agreed to release the land of the respondent-Society. Shortly thereafter, the Joint Director approved the residential layout of land vide Memo dated 26.05.1998, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid Memo read as follows: “1. Before carry out development work on the site, the Society shall have to receive possession of land in question again from the M.P. Slum Development Board again. 2. Before construction of Group Housing building, after getting approved it’s Building Layout from the Municipal Corporation, it’s one copy shall have to be produced in this Office. 3. The area of each house to be constructed Group Housing Building, shall not be more than 40 Sq. Mtrs. 4. The allotment of Group Housing Building shall be done as per the instructions issued vide Order No. 1087/32/98, Bhopal dated 13th February, 198 of the Government of M.P., Housing & Environment Department. 5. First of all, the Society shall have to register the sale deeds of the buildings of the Informal Sector, thereafter, the members will be entitled to sell out the plots. 6. In case of dispute related to land, this permission shall stand revoked. 7. Rest of conditions shall remain as it is according to the layout sanctioned vide Letter No. 2357 dated 20.05.1992.” 4. It is evident from the above extract that the respondent- Society was bound by the specific condition that, in addition to what was expressly mentioned from Sr. Nos. 1 to 6, the rest of the conditions would apply in accordance with the “layout plan” sanctioned on 20.05.1992. 5. It is evident from the above extract that the respondent- Society was bound by the specific condition that, in addition to what was expressly mentioned from Sr. Nos. 1 to 6, the rest of the conditions would apply in accordance with the “layout plan” sanctioned on 20.05.1992. 5. In the said layout plan, the subject land was admittedly earmarked for the development of a green belt abutting the MR-11 Road. It is pertinent to mention that the land where the MR-11 Road has been constructed also belonged to the respondent-Society for which compensation, in accordance with law, has been paid. Soon after, the respondent-Society claimed compensation for the land which was utilized to develop the green belt abutting the MR-11 Road. The Society eventually approached the High Court for grant of compensation. Its claim was accepted vide the Impugned Judgment. 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the Layout Plan of the respondent-Society. 7. We find that the members of the respondent-Society, to whom residential plots have been allotted, are the direct beneficiaries of the green belt proposed to be developed by the appellate-Authority. The importance of a green belt, to serve as the lungs for the residents of nearby localities, hardly needs emphasis. 8. Through multiple proceedings before the High Court, the respondent-Society, it appears, sought to derive ‘dual benefit’ from the green belt. At the first instance, the respondent-Society sought financial compensation for the utilization of its land for the purpose of a green belt; alongside this, the Society continues to derive direct and indirect benefits of the adjoining green belt such as, better ambience, increased utility, and heightened potentiality for the Society-owned lands. These multi-tiered benefits were claimed while the appellant-Authority or another statutory body, like the Municipal Corporation, was maintaining the green belt at its own cost and expense. 9. To put it in simpler terms, in return for release of its lands, the respondent-Society bound itself to the terms and conditions of the Layout Plan, wherein the subject land was exclusively earmarked as a green belt. Despite agreeing to those terms and conditions, the Society sought compensation for the subject land utilized for the development of the green belt. 10. Despite agreeing to those terms and conditions, the Society sought compensation for the subject land utilized for the development of the green belt. 10. Given these unique facts and circumstances, we are unable to understand how a writ petition, seeking compensation for the released land being utilized as a green belt for the benefit of the respondent-Society, could be entertained? 11. It appears that this ‘dual benefit’ claim was apparently raised out of greed and with a view to wriggle out of the terms and conditions contained in the Memo dated 26.05.1998, whereby the respondent-Society’s residential layout was approved. 12. In our considered opinion, the strip of land developed as a green belt is a public amenity, of which the members of the respondent-Society are the direct and foremost beneficiaries. Further, since the development of the green belt has taken place in conformity with the Layout Plan, no claim for an indirect private benefit by the Society can be entertained. 13. The appellant-Authority or any public authority, including the State Government, of course, shall be well within its right to utilize such land to maintain it as a green belt. Alternatively, such land may be partly utilized for the expansion of the road. However, the authorities shall not capitalize the land for commercial gains; and it shall be maintained as an open area only. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent-Society is dismissed. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.