Holding

The High Court was not justified in cancelling the leases; it had unlawfully enlarged the scope of the writ petition beyond the relief sought.

Summary

A public‑interest writ petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court alleging that the Company Bagh, a public park, had been converted into a lease‑hold property with illegal constructions in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975 and the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The High Court held that the Acts were violated and ordered cancellation of the leases and demolition of the structures. The appellants contended that the lease had not been challenged in the petition, that no relief for cancellation was prayed for, and that the leases and constructions pre‑dated the statutes and were authorized. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had unlawfully enlarged the scope of the writ petition and was not justified in cancelling the leases, emphasizing that a court cannot go beyond the specific relief sought under Article 226. It directed the State Government to investigate any encroachment, consider the effect of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Parks Act, and let the Allahabad Development Authority determine any violation of the Development Act. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The scope of a writ petition under Article 226 in a public‑interest litigation – whether a court may pass orders not specifically prayed for.
Whether a lease granted before the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Parks Act, 1975 can be cancelled on the basis of alleged violations of that Act.
The interpretation and applicability of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975 to existing uses and constructions.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing demolition of structures and cancellation of leases without material on the validity of those leases.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973

Subjects

Public interest litigationArticle 226Lease cancellationPark preservationUttar Pradesh Parks ActScope of writConstruction without sanctionMaster planAllahabad Development Authority

Judgment

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
that illegal leases granted and constructions put up in company park in c
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
F
of. Moreover, the constructions made by the appellants were clearly
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
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
B 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

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
F
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.

G 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.
H
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 lease granted to the appellant in Civil Appeal No.6211 B
and Civil Appeal No. 159of2001 be cancelled. Certain other directions given
are subject matter of challenge in the other appeal. All constructions made
were also directed to be demolished.

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:
c
3. A petition styled to be a "public interest litigation" was filed before
the Allahabad High Court primarily making a grievance that the park known
as the Company Bagh has ceased to be a park and illegal leases have been
granted and constructions have been put up in alleged violation of the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces D
(Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975 (in short the 'Act'). The writ petition
was disposed of with certain directions. The State Government field special
leave petition before this Court questioning correctness of the order passed.
The same was disposed of by order dated 9.4.1991 with the following order:

"After hearing the parties for a considerable period of time, we think E
it will be just and fair to pass the following directions:-
(i) The High Court will drop the proceedings for contempt;
(ii) The High Court will hear all the parties and will try to solve the
;.. problem regarding the shifting of the stadium and other problems
..... in a fitting manner after taking suggestions, if any, given by the
F
parties as well as by the State Government as in our opinion, the
High Court will be the fitting and proper authority to dispose of
the matter in order to promote public interest; and
(iii) The High Court will hear all the parties appearing before the
G
Court.

4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court all the parties were heard and
the respective stand was considered. The High Court by the impugned order
which is common to these appeals held that there has been clear violation of
the provisions of the Act and the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A Development Act, 1973 (in short 'Development Act'). The appellants have
questioned correctness of the view expressed by the High Court on several
grounds. Primarily it is contended that there was no challenge to the lease
granted to any of them. There was not even any prayer for cancellation of
any lease. All the leases were executed long time back i.e. much before the
B Act and the Development Act were enacted. The appellants were impleaded
in the writ petition by this Court's direction as they were not parties when
the matter was earlier disposed of. There was no challenge in the writ petition
to any unauthorized construction. The constructions made by the appellants
were clearly authorized. The original writ petitioners have not made any
grievance so far as the present appellants are concerned and the writ petition
C was filed making grievances to a limited extent which have nothing to do with
the leases granted to the appellants. Therefore, the directions as given cannot
be maintained.

5. Learned counsel for the Allahabad Development Authority has stated
D that the impugned order virtually rules out any developmental activity and
even nullifies works already done.
-\:·

6. We find that the High Court has unnecessarily enlarged the scope
of the writ petition. Though in a public interest litigation it is permissible to
take note of the necessary/connected matters; the position was not so in the
E present case. Challenge was not to the grant of lease. There was no averment
made in petition that the constructions by the appellants were unauthorized.
In the writ petition a few officers were impleaded.

7. The High Court was not justified in directing cancellation of lease.

F 8. Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act have relevance. They read as follows.

"6. Prohibition of the use of parks, playgrounds and open spaces in
certain cases-No park, playground or open space, specified in the
list published under Section 3 or Section 4, as the case may be, shall
except with the previous sanction of the prescribed authority, be used
G for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was used on the
date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this Act.

7. Maintenance of parks, playgrounds and open spaces. The local
authority shall maintain in a clean and proper condition all parks,
playgrounds and open spaces belonging to or vested in it and included
H
ALLAHABADLADIESCLUBv. JJTENDRA NATH SINGH [PASAYAT . .1.]239

in the list published under Section 3 or Section 4. A
8. Prohibition of construction of buildings, etc.-No ·person shall
except with the previous sanction of the prescribed authority, construct
any building or put any structure likely to affect the utility of the park,
playgrounds and open space specified in the list published under
Section 3 or Section 4." B
9. Above being the position, we dispose of these appeals with the
~· following directions:

(I) The parties were not required to place any material regarding
validity of leases as that was not the subject matter of challenge C
in the writ petition. It would be relevant to note that Sections 6,
7 and 8 of the Act which have relevance so far as the present
dispute is concerned. Section 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 D
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 immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the 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. E
(2) Under Section 8 there is prohibition on construction of buildings
etc. except with the previous sanction of the prescribed authority.
That obviously means that construction of buildings etc. can be
done with the previous sanction of the prescribed authority. The
High Court has not taken note of the effect of Sections 6 and 7 F
of the Act as quoted above. The State Government is directed
to find out :

(a) If there is any encroachment.

(b) If there is violation of any terms of the Act after taking note G
of Sectons 6, 7 and 8 thereof.

(c) The existing Master plans have to operate and the effect
""-(· thereof is also to be considered by the appropriate authority.

10. It is for the Allahabad Development Authority to find out whether
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A there is any violation of the Development Act and if there is any, it is open ..(
to the authority to take such action as is warranted, as provided in law.

11. To the aforesaid extent the appeals are allowed. Costs made easy.

B D.G. Appeals allowed.