IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 795 of 2001 (M/B) 1. Jahangir Ubed S/o Sri Ubedo Rahman, R/o Khera Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Sri Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi, S/o Sri Subhash Chandra Chaturvedi, R/o Khera Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. …….. Petitioners Versus 1. State of U.P., through Secretary, Nagar Vikas Vibhag, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow. 2. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary, Nagar Bibhag, Uttaranchal Shasan, Dehradun. 3. District Magistrate / Collector, Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Managing Director, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam, Nainital. 5. Nagar Palika Parishad, Udham Singh Nagar, Through its Executive Officer. ……… Respondents Mr. Manoj Tewari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for respondent No. 5. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. M.M. Ghildiyal, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Manoj Tewari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for respondent No. 5. They are heard. 2 2. The petitioners, residents of Khera Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, have filed this writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ for the following reliefs: “A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and for quashing the GO dated 3.6.2000 issued by the Respondent No. 1 whereby land comprised within Khasra No. 142 has been disposed of in favour of Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Respondents from changing the user and nature of the open space comprised within Khasra No. 142 which is presently used as Public Park. C. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to prepare a list of parks, play grounds and open spaces within the State in accordance with Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 55 of 1975 so that such open spaces be not diverted to other user for commercial purposes. D. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to appoint Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Act No. 55 of 1975 for the purpose of proper management and maintenance of parks, play grounds and open spaces within State of Uttaranchal. E. To issue any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. F. To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.” 3. The petitioners’ main grievance appears to be that first respondent State of U.P. has transferred 900 Square meters out of the open piece of land measuring 7184 Square Meters, which was reserved for a public park, to fourth respondent Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam for the construction of a commercial complex. 4. It is not the petitioners’ case that the said open piece of land was ever earmarked for ‘Public park’ either in the original master plan of the year 1972 or in any subsequent modified master plan, if any. The petitioners have not annexed any resolution, decision, 3 notification, master plan to demonstrate that this open piece of land was ever earmarked for ‘Public Park’. 5. On the contrary, fourth respondent Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam has filed a copy of the master plan along with their counter affidavit, which categorically earmarks the said open piece of land for commercial purpose. 6. As the petitioners have miserably failed in establish that the open piece of land in question was earmarked for ‘Public Park’ and the first respondent, by transferring a portion of the said open piece of land to the fourth respondent for the construction of commercial complex, has violated the said master plan or any provision of law, we find no good ground for grant of any of the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition. 7. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is, hereby, dismissed. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 01.03.2006 01.03.2006 G