1 7 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.921/1997. Heera Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 31st July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.L. Purohit, for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Government Counsel. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioners filed this writ petition on 12.02.1997 with the submissions that the area marked 'A' in the plan Annexure- 1 had been reserved for park at Mandi Pilibanga and, while asserting themselves to be the occupants of the residential or commercial premises adjacent to the said area of park, stated the grievance that from out of such area of park, 55 x 155 sq.feet land was sought to be allotted to Shivratan Harlal Pediwal Dharmarth Trust, Pilibanga for construction of a Dharamshala and a resolution to that effect had been taken on 06.01.1997 (Annex.5). The petitioners submitted that the resolution so adopted by the Mandi Development Committee, Hanumangarh on 06.01.1997 was entirely illegal and nullity in the eye of law as the space left for park could only be developed and maintained 2 as park but cannot be leased out or sold in any manner; and referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors. : AIR 1991 SC 1902 and G.N. Khajuria Vs. D.D.A. & Ors. : JT 1996 (4) SC 7. On 26.02.1997, this Court, while admitting this writ petition passed the following interim order,- “Meanwhile, and until further orders, respondent No.2 shall not give effect to resolution No. 19 of the meeting dated 06.01.97 of the Mandi Vikas Samiti, Hanumangarh.” The aforesaid interim order was confirmed to last until the decision of this writ petition by the order dated 19.08.1999. On the matter being taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention towards the averments as taken by the respondents in their reply, particularly in paragraph 10 and its sub-paragraphs; and submitted that such averments are suggestive of the position that the said Trust had been allotted the land at some other place as per the decision dated 26.09.1997 and the fact remains admitted that the place in question has been that of the park. 3 Though the averments as taken by the respondents in the reply, in paragraph 10 and its sub-paragraphs, are not candid and clear on the position if the respondents have dropped their proposition as contained in the impugned resolution dated 06.01.1997 but then, the averments of the petitioner regarding the place marked 'A' in Annexure-1 are not disputed. When the core fact is not disputed that the place referred by the petitioners had been reserved for park; and when the other aspect is kept in view that effect of resolution dated 06.01.1997 has remained in abeyance per the force of the interim order passed by this Court and the same position has hitherto continued, it appears appropriate that this rule be made absolute in terms of the said interim order with the result that the questioned resolution dated 06.01.1997 stands annulled. Obviously, the place, when marked for park, could not have been, and cannot be, allotted for the purpose of Dharamshala. The petition stands allowed in terms aforesaid but without any order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//