IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.487 of 2008 Date of decision: 12th November, 2009 Ram Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Vijay S. Kajla, Advocate for respondent No.5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Two residents of Sector 12, Panchkula have approached this Court with a prayer that this Court should quash Annexure P-1, whereby alteration was made in the park qua the location of nursery school. It is further prayed that this Court should give direction to the respondent Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as, ‘HUDA’) and District Town and Country Planning Officer to restore the layout plan to its original position, as it was sanctioned in year 1979. To fortify this assertion, reliance has been placed upon Annexure P-2. Petitioners have averred that they are residents of Houses No.594 and 550 in Sector 12, Panchkula and adjacent to their houses a park has been earmarked. It is not disputed that the area where the park was earmarked, there was also a provision of nursery school. Civil Writ Petition No. 487 of 2008 Respondent No.4, Sanjay Nursery School, gave their bid in open auction and succeeded to allotment of the plot for raising and running a nursery school. According to Mr.Rajesh Garg, appearing for the petitioners, to facilitate better view and benefit of greenery to his house, Mr.S.K. Sharma, Secretary of HUDA (now Retired), in a malafide manner, took a decision to move the location of the school from the front of his house to the middle of the park, thereby, the nature of the park was compromised and the park was divided into two parts, having a school in the middle. Mr.Garg has further stated that for doing this, necessary procedure for amendment in the master plan and change in zoning plan was not followed by the official respondents. To controvert this, Mr. J.P. Bhatt, appearing for HUDA, has stated that representations were received from residents of the locality and to provide facility of park to the residents of complete pocket equally, the school site was proposed in the center by bifurcating the park into two parts thereby providing park on each side of the school, so that the residents of each pocket can enjoy the park and green cover is provided. The written statement is silent as to when the zoning plan was altered. Mr. Sunil Nehra, appearing for the State, on instructions from Ramesh Chand, Assistant Draftsman, office of DTP, Panchkula, Haryana, has submitted that the layout was amended in year 2002. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent school, has urged that school is embroiled in unending litigation. This is the third round of litigation. Earlier the residents had filed a civil suit and had sought interim injunction. When the same was refused, they filed Civil Writ Petition No.17287 of 2007. On the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court that the concerned parties should persist with the suit, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further submitted that later, the 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 487 of 2008 civil suit was withdrawn and the present writ petition has been filed. Mr.Arun Jain has further stated that the residents of the locality were divulging un- reconcilable views regarding the location of the park. Therefore, respondent school cannot be made to suffer, especially when they purchased the site in an open auction. Mr.Jain has referred to the photographs (Annexure P-9) to show that huge investment has been made by the school and building infrastructure was created when the order of status quo was pronounced by this Court. Mr. Rajesh Garg, appearing for the petitioners, has out-rightly spurned the proposal made by this Court that the school can be asked to provide facilities for the enjoyment of park to the children of the locality and maintenance of the park can be assigned to school for the benefit of the residents. Therefore, amicable resolution of the dispute, being not in sight, this Court proceeds to decide the case on merits. According to Mr.Rajesh Garg, by shifting the location of the school from one corner to the middle, the park has been bifurcated and it has lost its value, enjoyment and facility. Learned counsel has further submitted that the master plan and the zoning plan were altered without adhering to the necessary procedure and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the residents and no objections were invited. Mr. Sunil Nehra, to controvert this, has stated that the layout plan was amended in year 2002, following the due procedure. In the reply filed by the Department, it has been nowhere mentioned that any objections were invited and they were dealt with by the authorities. Even otherwise, this Court has not got the requisite expertise to determine as to how the value of the park can be enhanced. In these circumstances, Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana is directed to hear all the concerned, taking into consideration the 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 487 of 2008 objections. He will also carry inspection of the site and thereafter pass a well reasoned order. The parties shall be at liberty to assail that order. The needful shall be done by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana within two months after receipt of certified copy of this order. Till the decision is taken by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, order of status quo passed by the Division Bench of this Court shall remain in vogue. With the observations made above, present writ petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 12, 2009 rps 4