ALLAHABAD LADIES CLUB versus JITENDRA NATH SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 20-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ALLAHABAD LADIES CLUB 
A 
JITENDRA NA TH SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 20, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
B 
--
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ Petition-Scope and ambit of-PIL making grievance c 
that illegal leases granted and constructions put up in company park in 
violation of lmv-High Court cancelled the lease granted to appellants-
Justification of-Held: High Court has unnecessarily enlarged the scope of 
writ petition -Hence, not justified in directing cancellation of lease. 
The writ petition filed PIL before the High Court making grievance that D 
the park known as the Company Bagh has ceased to be a park and illegal 
f 
leases have been put up in violation of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh 
"' 
Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulations) Act, 
1975. High Court held that there has been clear violation of the provisions of 
the 1975 Act and the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 
1973 and directed cancellation of lease. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that in the writ petition, 
there was no challenge to the lease granted to any of them nor prayer for 
cancellation of any lease and they were pleased in the writ petition by this 
). 
Court's direction as they were not parties when the matter was earlier disposed 
of. Moreover, the constructions made by the appellants were clearly F 
authorized. 
Disposing of the appeal, the court 
HELD: l. The High Court was not justified in directing cancellation of G 
lease. The High Court has unnecessarily enlarged the scope of he writ petition. 
Though in a public interest litigation it is permissible to take note of the 
--i-
necessary/connected matters, the position was not so in the present case. 
Challenge was not to the grant of lease. There was no averment made in petition 
235 
H 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A that the Constructions by the appellants were unauthorized. tparas 6 and 71 
B 
2.1. The parties were not asked to place any material regarding validity 
of leases as that was not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 
It would be relevant to note ss. 6, 7 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Parks, 
Playgrounds and Open spaces (Preservation and Regulation Act, 1975 which 
have relevance so far as the present dispute is concerned. S.6 deals with 
prohibition of the use of parks, playgrounds and open spaces in certain cases. 
A bare reading of the provision indicates that no park, playground or space 
shall except with the previous sanction of the prescribed authority be used 
for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was used on the date 
C immediately preceding the date of commencement of Act Therefore, if on the 
date of commencement of the Act a park, playground or open space was being 
used for a particular purpose the same can be continued. (Para 91 
2.2. Under s.8 there is prohibition on construction of buildings etc. 
except with the previous sanction of the prescribed authority. That obviously 
D means that construction of buildings etc. can be done with the previous 
sanction of the prescribed authority. The High Court has been taken note of 
the effect of ss. 6 and 7 of the Act. The State Government is directed to find 
out: (a) If there is any encroachment (b) ifthere is violation of any terms of 
the Act after taking note of ss 6 7 and 8 thereof; (c) The existing Master 
E plans have to operate and the effect thereof is also to be considered by the 
appropriate authority (Para 91 
F 
G 
H 
3. It is for the Allahabad Development Authority to find out whether 
there is any violation of Development Act and if there is any, it is open to the 
authority to take such action as is warrantees, as provided in law. (Para IOI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6211 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.6.1999 of the High Court of 
Allahabad in E.C. No. 1/1991 arising out ofC.M.W. No. 19296of1986. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 159/200 I, 2875/200 I. 
Shanti Bhushan, Dinesh Dwivedi, Prashant Bhushan, K.K. Mohan and 
Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay for the Appellant. 
.,... 
;.. 
..... 
ALLAHABAD LADIES CLUB v . . llTENDRA NATH SINGll [Pi\SA YAT . .1.}237 
Ajatshatru, Rachma Srivastava, Pramod Swarup for the Respondents. A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Challenge in these appeals is to the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, inter-
alia, directing that the le
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.