IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Smt. Laxmi Dhoandiya & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (D. B. Civil Review Petition No.39/2008) In (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1829/2006) D. B. Civil Review Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 14-2-2008 passed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1829/2006. Date of Judgment: April 8th, 2010 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. S. Rathore Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Alok Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr. A. K. Gupta, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (Per R.S.CHAUHAN, J.) The petitioners have sought the review of the order dated 14-2- 2008, passed by this Court, wherein this Court had observed as under:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners by way of Public Interest Litigation alleging that the area earmarked for woodland was getting disturbed on account of setting up of petrol pump and converting the area into a commercial complex. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents including the Rajasthan Housing Board as the area in dispute lies within the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Housing Board. The Rajasthan Housing Board has filed counter affidavit along with the additional affidavit stating therein that the woodland area, which was earlier shown to be raised in Sector 8, Zone 80, which was situated on the left side, is now going to be shifted on the right side and the land on the left hand side would be used for commercial purpose. In view of the reply filed by the respondent—Housing Board, no cause of action survives for the petitioners to press this writ petition. The writ petition be treated as disposed of in view of the reply filed by the respondent—Housing Board, indicating the change but retaining the woodland. It was the petitioner's case that in Sector 8, Zone 80 of Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur there is a public facility area known as “woodland”. The area had been ear-marked as woodland, ever since the Government acquired the land, and the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short `RHB') started its housing scheme for Mansarovar Housing Colony. According to the scheme, the woodland covered a total area of 2.5 bighas. This woodland is essential not only for ensuring the greenery of the area, but also to prevent environmental pollution created by urban living. The area of the woodland has been developed for the last twenty-two years. It is utilised by the residents for their physical exercises, by the children for their games, and by the people, in general, for its aesthetic beauty. However, without any rhyme or reason, and in utter violation of laws governing urban planning, the Government had decided to construct a petrol pump and a commercial complex within the woodland area. Since the petitioners were alarmed by the possibility of a petrol pump and commercial complex being constructed in the woodland area, they filed the writ petition as a public interest litigation before this Court. The petitioners had not only questioned the wisdom of the Government on the ground that it would adversely affect the residents, but also questioned it on the ground that there are other commercial land available within the vicinity, which can be utilised for construction of the petrol pump and the commercial complex. Moreover, the construction of proposed petrol pump and commercial complex near educational institutions, like Maharshi Arvind Institute of Technology, the Central School No.5, and the Cambridge Court High School, would adversely affect the educational institutions in the area. Thus the petitioners raised following legal issues:- Whether RHB has the power to change the nature of the woodland—a public facility service area or not? Whether the procedure has been followed by the RHB or not? What would be the impact of such a change on the locality? Whether such a change is reasonable, just and fair? Whether it would adversely affect the civil rights/ fundamental rights of the residents or not? The RHB in its additional affidavit, in counter to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, claimed that “it had not curtailed the woodland area”. It had merely “shifted the woodland area from one side to the other”. Based on the impression that the woodland area has not been reduced, and under the impression that woodland area has merely been shifted from one side to the other, this Court had passed the aforesaid order. Hence, the present review petition. Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the Court had over-looked the legal issues involved in the case. In its failure to deal with the legal issues, the error is apparent on the face of the record. Secondly, RHB had submitted a mis-statement of fact that it had “not reduced the woodland area”, but “has merely shifted the woodland”. In fact, the area of woodland, which was originally shown as 6026 sq. meters, has suddenly been reduced to 3026 sq. meters. For, originally 6026 sq. meters was reserved for woodland, and 2000 sq. meters was reserved for P&T department. However, according to the revised plan, the woodland area has been reduced from 6026 sq. meters to 3026 sq. meters, and 2000 sq. meters reserved for P&T department has been cancelled. After carving out 3000 sq. meters from the woodland area and cancelling the reservation of 2000 sq. meters for the P&T department, 5000 sq. meters has been ear-marked for petrol pump and commercial complex. Thus, apparently the RHB has drastically reduced the woodland area by 50%. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners a mis-impression was created in the mind of the court. Hence, there is not only an error apparent on the face of record, but also a grave injustice is being caused to the residents by the reduction in the woodland area. On the other hand, Mr. A.K.Gupta, the learned counsel for RHB has contended that RHB has merely shifted the woodland from one side to the other. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record. According to reply to the additional affidavit filed by petitioners—a reply filed by RHB, the RHB has admitted that initially the woodland covered 6026 sq. meters, which has been reduced to 5026 sq. meters. Thus, the RHB admits that the woodland area has been “reduced”, although not to the great extent as claimed by the petitioners. Hence, RHB was not justified in its plea, made earlier before this court, that the woodland area “has not been curtailed”. Moreover, it had created a false impression in the mind of the Court that woodland area has merely been shifted from one side to the other. Thus, clearly it had misled the Court in passing the aforesaid order. Believing the submissions of the RHB, this Court had concluded that interest of the petitioners would not be adversely affected in case woodland area were merely shifted. After all, woodland would continue to exist, and would continue to perform its original function. Therefore, this court did not go into the legal issues mentioned above. However, as the RHB has admitted that it has “reduced” the woodland area, howsoever little, the aforesaid order needs to be reviewed and the issues need to be decided. Hence, the case deserves to be re-opened, and re-argued. Hence, the review petition is, hereby, allowed. The order dated 14-2-2008 is set aside. The writ petition is restored to its original number. The Registry is directed to list the writ petition for hearing. There shall be no order as to cost. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. (K.S. RATHORE), J. arn