PURUSHOTTAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

                       (2013] 12 S.C.R. 540


A                         PURUSHOTTA.M
                                 v.
                 STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 10747 of 2013)
                      NOVEMBER 29, 2013
8
       [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

        Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976:

c       s.38-A (as amended w.e.f. 21.4.1984) - Grant of area
  reserved for civic amenities - Civic amenity site earmarked
  for 'bank', allotted for installing a petrol pump - Held: Under
  s.38A (1), BDA would have the authority to lease, sell or
  otherwise transfer any area reserved for the purpose for which
0 such area is reserved, and no other - In case, a disposition
  is made for a purpose other than the one for which it is
  reserved, it shall be null and void - High Court has rightly
  declared the allotment of civic amenity site in question for
  establishment of a petrol pump as null and void - Bangalore
E Development Authority (Civic Authority Site) Allotment Rules,
  1989- r.3.

         The instant appeals arose out of the order of the
    High Court, whereby it declared allotment of civic
    amenity site no. 2 (which was earmarked for use as bank)
F   for establishment of a petrol pump, as null and void.

        Dismissing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 This Court in 8 . S. Muddappa's case, while
  interpreting s.38A of the Bangalore Development
G Authority Act, 1976 as substituted w.e.f. 21.4.1984, has
  held that once an area has been stamped with the
  character of a particular civic amenity by reservation of
  that area for the purpose, it cannot be diverted to any other

H                              540
     PURUSHOTTAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                  541


use even when it is transferred to another party. The           A
legislative intent of the Bangalore Development Authority
(Amendment) Act, 1991which came into force w.e.f.
16.1.1991 is to prevent the diversion of the user of an area
reserved for a public park or playground or civic amenity
to another user. [para 10-12] [548-G; 549-A-C, G-H]             B

     Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors.1991
(3) SCR 102 = 1991 (4) sec 54 - relied on.

      1.2. Besides, on the interpretation of s.38A(1) and (2)
of the BOA Act the inescapable conclusion is that uls 38A C
(1 ), BOA would have the authority to lease, sell or
otherwise transfer any area reserved for the purpose for
which such area is reserved, and no other. This clearly
means that the Government can pass on the
responsibility to another concern, be it individual, D
company or corporation, for the purposes of carrying on
 the activity for which the plot has been reserved as a civic
 amenity. It does not empower the BOA to convert the area
 reserved for civic amenities for activities which do not fall
 within the definition of civic amenities. Sub-s. (2) of s.38A E
 is an embargo that even such sale or disposal otherwise
 of an area reserved for public parks, playground would
  not be permitted to private parties. Though such spaces,
 playgrounds and parks can be transferred to public
  authorities, but their user would be limited to the F
  purposes for which they are reserved under the scheme.
  In case, a disposition is made for a purpose other than
  the one for which it is reserved, the Act has declared that,
  it shall be null and void. Rule 3 of the Bangalore
  Development Authority (Civic Authority Site) Allotment G
  Rules, 1989 cannot be permitted to override the statutory
   provision contained in s. 38A(1) and (2). Even otherwise,
  the rule only reiterates the statutory provision in s.38A(1)
   and (2). [para 14] [552-B-G]

      1.3. It cannot be said that the site was never allotted       H
    542     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A as a bank and, therefore, it could be allotted as a petrol
  pump. The High Court upon perusal of the pleadings as
  well as annexure 'C' appended to the writ petition, has
  recorded that the site in question was originally
  earmarked as park/playground in 1984 and subsequently,
B civic amenity site no. 2 was earmarked exclusively for use
  as "bank". [para 14) [552-G-H; 553-D]

       1.4. Further, it cannot be said that the term civic
  amenities would permit BOA to change the reservation
C from one particular user to anothel' without the necessary
  amendment in the development plan. This would be
  contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of
  B.S. Muddappa. [para 17) [554-C]

       1.5. It was not the case of respondent nos. 4 to 14
D (writ petitioners in the High Court) that petrol pump is not
  a civic amenity, therefore, the site could not have been
  allotted to open a petrol pump. Their grievance was that
  civic amenity site no.2 had been earmarked for a bank
  and could not be allotted for a petrol pump without
E making necessary amendment in the development plan.
  Therefore, the High Court has rightly distinguished the
  judgment in Aicoboo Nagar Residents Welfare
  Association and not relied upon the same. [para 18) [554-
  F-G]
F       Aicoboo Nagar Residents Welfare Association & Anr. Vs.
    Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore & Anr. ILR
    2002 Kar. 4705 - distinguished.
        R.K. Mittal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
G 2011(15) SCR 877 = 2012 (2) sec 232 - cited.
                       Case Law Reference:
       · 1991 (3) SCR 102       relied on           para 3
        ILR 2002 Kar. 4705      distinguished       para 7
H
     PURUSHOTTAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                    543

    2011 (15) SCR 877         cited                 para 8        A
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
10747 of 2013.

    From the judgment order dated 05.09.2011 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 5428 of 2006.         B

                            WITH

C.A. Nos. 10748, 10749 and 10750 of 2013.

    V. Giri, Shyam Divan, V. Lakshimi Narayana, Sharan            C
Thakur, B.S. Gautham, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Rajeev Mishra,
Sanand Ramakrishnan, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur
S. Kulkarni, Shanth Kumar V. Mahale, Harish S. R. Hebbar,
Rajesh Mahale, Anitha Shenoy for the appearing parties.
                                                                  D
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. These four appeals arising out of SLP (C) No.31690 of
2011, SLP (C) No.31695 of 2011, SLP (C) No.33184 of 2011          E
and SLP (C) No.33319 of 2011, impugn the judgment of a
Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ
Petition No. 5428 of 2006 (BDA-PIL), and Writ Petition No.
5173 of 2006 (GM-RES/PIL), whereby the High Court has
declared the allotment of civic amenity site no. 2 to Bharat      F
Petroleum Corporation (respondent No. 3) for establishment of
a petrol pump, null and void. The writ petitions have been
allowed. The allotment dated 4th August, 2005 made in favour
of respondent No. 3 has been set aside.
                                                                  G
     3. The facts as narrated in C.A. No. 10747 of 2013 arising
out of SLP (C) No. 31690 of 2011 are as under:-
           On 29th August, 1990 a Notification was issued by
           the State of Karnataka Government under Section
           2bb(vi) of the Bangalore Development Authority         H
    544   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A          Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "BOA Act,
           1976") to the effect that the amenities such as
           liquefied petroleum gas godowns, retail domestic
           fuel. depots, petrol retail outlets are the "civic
           amenities" for the purposes of the aforesaid Act.
B
           Thereafter, the State Government issued another
           Notification on 29th April, 1994, inviting objections
           or suggestions to the Revised Comprehensive
           Development Plan of Bangalore City Planning Area,
           prepared under Karnataka Town and Country
c          Planning Act, 1961, (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963),
           which had been provisionally approved by the
           Government.
           On 5th January, 1995, Site No.2 is reserved for
D          civic amenities (hereinafter referred to as "CA Site
           No.2")
           On 31st January, 2000, Bangalore Development
           Authority (hereinafter referred to as "BDA") passed
           Resolution No. 28 of 2000 empowering the
E          Chairman or the Commissioner to allot Civil
           Amenity Site to any Government Body, State or
           Central Government undertaking.
           On 1st January, 2001, BOA allotted CA Site No.2
F          and 3 in HRBR Layout Ill Block each measuring
           2195.35 sq. mtrs. and 629.18 sq. mtrs. in favour of
           Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
           (hereinafter referred to as "BWSSB") on lease for
           a period of 30 years for the purpose of service
G          station and pump house.
           On 28th March, 2002, a detailed representation
           was submitted by one Mr. Padmanabha Reddy on
           the subject : Requisition for Allotment of Civic
           Amenity Site No.2 & 3 in HRBR UI Block,
H          Bangalore - 43 as park. It was pointed out in this
     PURUSHOTTAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     545
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
            representation that the Ill Block of the HRBR Layout A
            is a residential layout, with homes situated, chock-
            a-block, with absolutely no ventilation space. It was
            pointed out that in these circumstances, the
            provision for a park/ventilation space is a crying-
             need of the locality. The representation also B
            mentions that the objectors had an opportunity to
             go through the Revised Comprehensive
             Development Pian - 2011 (RCDP) pertaining to
             District No.7, which clearly showed that, a squarish
             block of land, situated on the western side of Civic c
             Amenity site wherein the BWSSB has already
             housed the Twin Ground Level reservoirs had been
             earmarked for a park. The other surprise in store
             in the RCDP was the earmarking of CA Site No.2,
             which was the bone of contention, as Commercial
                                                                    0
             Area/Zone. It is pointed out that in reality, much
             before 1995, when the RCDP had allegedly been
             finalized, the BOA had already accomplished the
             task of converting this squarish block of land into
              residential sites and either allotted or auctioned E
             such sites. The land had been clearly shown as
              earmarked for a park or a playground. Another
              similar block of land, which was also earmarked to
              be developed as a park has continued to be used
              as a burial ground. The representationist also
              brought to the notice of the BOA sentiments F
              expressed by this Court in the case of Bangalore
              Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors. 1
              Particular attention of the authorities was drawn to
              Paragraphs 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 37 and 48 with the
              comment that the observations made in the G
              aforesaid paragraphs reflect the aspirations of the
               respondent Nos. 4 to 14 (petitioners in the High
               Court). Legally it was stated that the action of the

1.   (1991) 4 sec 54.                                              H
    546   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 12 S.C.R.


A           BOA is contrary to Section 38A(2) of the BOA Act,
            1976. It was ultimately stated that the land on which,
            now, reservoirs had been developed was beyond
            "redemption and resumption". The other area
            earmarked for the park can not be used as a park
B           since it has already been used as a graveyard.
            Their only intention was to save the remaining part
            which has now been allotted for the use as the
            petrol pump.

            On 9th February, 2005, the State Government
c           passed an order for continuation of revised CDP
            1995 till 2015.

            On 30th June, 2005, Bharat Petroleum Corporation
            (respondent No.3) requested BOA to allot land for
D           development of a retail outlet.

            On 4th August, 2005, BOA allotted CA Site No.2
            in favour of respondent No.3.

            Thereafter, on 7th October, 2005, the lease deed
E           was duly executed between BOA and respondent
            No.3 for a period of 30 years. Dealership licence
            was granted in favour of wife of the appellant by
            respondent No.3 on 4th February, 2006.

F           Thereafter on 21st February, 2006, BOA has
            approved the plan for establishment of petrol pump
            in favour of respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the
            aforesaid action, Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2006
            and others were filed in public interest to challenge
G           the decision of BOA dated 21st February, 2006
            with a prayer to quash the allotment of CA Site
            No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 for establishing
            a petrol pump and to convert the same to a park
            for the elderly and a playground for the young.
H     4. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of
     PURUSHOTTAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                       547
          [SURINOER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
Karnataka High Court on interpretation of Section 38A               A
concluded that the allotment was in violation of Section 38A sub-
section (2). The High Court has concluded that CA Site No.2
at the time of its allotment to respondent No.3 was expressly
earmarked for use as "bank". Therefore, in terms of Section
38A of the BOA Act, 1976 could not have been leased, sold           B
or otherwise transferred for a purpose other than the one for
which such area is reserved. Since the site in question was
earmarked/reserved for "bank", it could not have been allotted
for use as a petrol pump. The High Court also held that the
allotment of the site was null and void as it was not in            c
consonance of Section 38A sub-section (2). The High Court
further observed thateven though both "bank" and "petrol pump"
are civic amenities within the meaning of Section 2(bb) of the
BOA Act, 1976, yet the mandate of Section 38A is clear and
unambiguous. It is for the very civic amenity, for which the area
                                                                    0
is reserved, for which it has to be put to use.
     5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
      6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the High Court
has erred in holding that any area of particular civic amenity
cannot be subsequently changed to another user which also E
falls within the definition of a civic amenity. It is submitted by
the learned senior counsel appearing for all the appellants that
the High Court has failed to appreciate that the sites still remain
allotted to a civic amenity. Merely, because the user has been
changed from public park to bank and now to petrol pump F
would not violate the provisions contained in Section 38A(1)
and (2). It is submitted that since the Notification was duly
issued that petrol pump would be a civic amenity as provided
under Section 2(bb)(vi) of the Act, there was no violation of
Section 38A(2).                                                     G
     7. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that
in fact there is no resolution passed by the BOA to show that
the site in question has been earmarked for a bank. It is further
submitted that the change of purpose or user for a particular
piece of land as a civic amenity is permissible under Rule 3(1)     H
   548        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A of the Bangalore Development Authority (Civic Amenity Site)
  Allotment Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "BDAA Rules,
  1989") as amended. According to the learned senior counsel,
  once the land is reserved as a civic amenity and allotted in
  favour of a Government department or statutory authority of the
B Central Government, the BDA Rules, 1989 has no application.
  It was further submitted that the Division Bench has erred in
  distinguishing the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of the
  same Court Aicoboo Nagar Residents Welfare Association &
  Anr. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore & Anr. 2
c in which it has been clearly laid down that "the use of site as a
  civic amenity for the distribution of petroleum products also
  would come within the scope of civic amenity".
       8. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA and the State
  of Karnataka have supported the case pleaded by the
D appellants. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4
  to 14, however, submitted that the High Court has correctly
  interpreted Section 38A(1) and (2) that any area reserved for
  a particular civic amenity cannot be diverted to any other civic
  amenity on the ground that civic amenity is a general term.
E According to the learned counsel, the judgment of the High
  Court is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in
  the case of B.S. Muddappa (supra). The aforesaid judgment
  has been subsequently followed by this Court in R.K. Mittal &
   Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 3 It has been submitted
F that in view of the law declared by this Court, the impugned
  judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference.
         9. We have considered the submissions made by the
    learned counsel for the parties.
       10. In our opinion, it is no longer necessary for us to
G consider the issues raised by the appellants on first principle,
  as the issue is no longer res integra. In the case of B.S.
  Muddappa (supra), this Court examined the entire issue
    2.   ILR 2002 Kar. 4705.
H 3. (2012) 2 sec 232.
     PURUSHOTTAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                        549
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
w~rein, it has been held "that the legislative intent of the          A
Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1991
(hereinafter referred to as "BDA (Amendment) Act, 1991 "),
which came into force w.e.f. 16th January, 1991 is to prevent
the diversion of the user of an area reserved for a public park
or playground or civic amenity to another user.                       B
    11. Original Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976 has been
substituted with the present Section 38A w.e.f. 21st April, 1984,
which reads as under:-
    "'38-A. Grant of area reserved for civic amenities etc.-
                                                                      c
     (1) The Authority shall have the power to lease, sell or
     otherwise transfer any area reserved for civic amenities
     for the purpose for which such area is reserved.
     (2) The Authority shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any
     area reserved for public parks and playgrounds and civic         D
     amenities, for any other purpose and any disposition so
     made shall be null and void:
     Provided that where the allottee commits breach of any of
     the conditions of allotment, the Authority shall have right to
                                                                      E
     resume such site after affording an opportunity of being
     heard to such allottee."
    12. Interpreting the aforesaid provision, this Court has held
as under:-
     "This new Section 38-A, as clarified in the Statement of         F
     Objects and Reasons and in the Explanatory Statement
     attached to L.A. Bill 6 of 1991, removed the prohibition
     against lease or sale or any other transfer of any area
     reserved for a civic amenity, provided the transfer is for
     the same purpose for which the area has been reserved.           G
     This means that once an area has been stamped with the
     character of a particular civic amenity by reservation of that
     area for purpose, it cannot be diverted to any other use
     even when it is transferred to another party. The rationale
     of this restriction is that the scheme once sanctioned by        H
    550       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A         the government must operate universally and the areas
          allocated for particular objects must not be diverted to
          other objects. This means that a site for a school or
          hospital or any other civic amenity must remain reserved
          for that purpose, although the site itself may change hands.
B         Th is is the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 38-A as
          now substituted. Sub-section (2) of Section 38-A, on the
          other hand, emphasises the conceptual distinction
          between 'public parks and playgrounds' forming one
          category of 'space' and 'civic amenities' forming another
c         category of sites. While public parks arid playgrounds
          cannot be parted with by the BOA for transfer to private
          hands by reason of their statutory dedication to the general
          public, other areas reserved for civic amenities may be
          transferred to private parties for the specific purposes for
          which those areas are reserved. There is no prohibition,
0
          as such, against transfer of open spaces reserved for
          public parks or playgrounds, whether or not for
          consideration, but the transfer is limited to public
          authorities and their user is limited to the purposes for
          which they are reserved under the scheme. The distinction
E         is that while public parks and playgrounds are dedicated
          to the public at large for common use. and must therefore
          remain with the State or its instrumentalities, such as the
          BOA or a Municipal Corporation or any other authority, the
          civic amenities are not so dedicated, but only reserved for
F         particular or special purposes ....................... .
          24. Protection of the environment, open spaces for
          recreation and fresh air, playgrounds for children,
          promenade for the residents, and other conveniences or
          amenities are matters of great public concern and of vital
G
          interest to be taken care of in a development scheme. It
          is that public interest which is sought to be promoted by
          the Act by establishing the BOA. The public interest in the
          reservation and preservation of open spaces for parks and
          playgrounds cannot be sacrificed by leasing or selling such
H
PURUSHOTTAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                         551
     [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
sites to private persons for conversion to some other user.       A
Any such act would be contrary to the legislative intent and
inconsistent with the statutory requirements. Furthermore,
it would be in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate
to ensure that any State action is inspired by the basic
values of individual freedom and dignity and addressed to         B
the attainment of a quality of life which makes the
guaranteed rights a reality for all the citizens.
25. Reservation of open spaces for parks and playgrounds
is universally recognised as a legitimate exercise of
statutory power rationally related to the protection of the       C
residents of the locality from the ill-effects of urbanisation.
27. The statutes in force in India and abroad reserving
open spaces for parks and playgrounds are the legislative
attempt to eliminate the misery of disreputable housing
condition caused by urbanisation. Crowded urban areas             D
tend to spread disease, crime and immorality. As stated
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Samuel Berman v. Andrew
Parker: (L Ed pp. 37-38 : US pp. 32-33)
        "... They may also suffocate the spirit by reducing       E
        the people who live there to the status of cattle. They
        may indeed make living an almost insufferable
        burden. They may also be an ugly sore, a blight on
        the community which robs it of charm, which makes
        it a place from which men turn. The misery of
                                                                  F
        housing may despoil a community as an open
        sewer may ruin a river.
        ... The concept of the public welfare is broad and
        inclusive .... The values it represents are spiritual
        as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary.       G
        It is within the power of the legislature to determine
        that the community should be beautiful as well as
        healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced
         as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case,
        the Congress and its authorized agencies have             H
    552      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A               made determinations that take into account a wide
                variety of values .... " (Per Douglas, J.)."
        13. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations are a
    complete answer to all the submissions made by the learned
    counsel for the appellants.
B
         14. This apart on the interpretation of Section 38A(1) and
   (2), the inescapable conclusion is that under Section 38A (1 ),
   BDA would have the authority to lease, sell or otherwise transfer
   any area reserved for the purpose for which such area is
C reserved, and no other. This clearly means that the Government
   can pass on the responsibility to another concern, be it
   individual, company or corporation for the purposes of carrying
   on the activity for which the plot has been reserved as a civic
   amenity. It does not give a licence to the BDA to convert the
   area reserved for civic amenities for activities which do not fall
D within the definition of civic amenities. Sub-section (2) of
   Section 38 is an embargo that even such sale or disposal
   otherwise of an area reserved for public parks, playground
  would not be permitted to private parties. Though such spaces,
  playgrounds and parks can be transferred to public authorities,
E but their user would be limited to the purposes for which they
  are reserved under the scheme. In case, a disposition is made
  for a purpose other than the one for which it is reserved, the
  Act has declared that, it shall be null and void. In our opinion,
  Rule 3 of which the support is sought by the appellants can not
F be permitted to override the statutory provision contained in
  Section 38A(1) and (2). Even otherwise, the rule only reiterates
  the statutory provision in Section 38A(1) and (2). We also do
  not find any substance in the submission that the site was never
  allotted as a bank, and, therefore, it could be allotted as a petrol
G pump. The High Court upon perusal of the pleadings as well
  as annexure 'c' appended to the writ petition has recorded the
  following facts :
        "In so far as the factual matrix is concerned, it is necessary
        to record that the site in question was originally earmarked
H       as park/playground in 1984. This factual position stands
    PURUSHOTTAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     553
         [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
   acknowledged at the hands of the Bangalore Development A
   Authority in paragraph 5 of its counter affidavit.
   Subsequently, three civic amenity sites came to be carved
   out, in the area earlier earmarked for park/play ground. The
   first of these is presently being used by the Bangalore
   Water supply and Sewerage Board. The second site, B
   which is the one in question was earmarked for use as a
    "bank". So far as the instant aspect of the matter is
    concerned, our attention has been invited to Annexure-C
    appended to the writ petition, wherein civic amenity site
    no.2 has been shown as earmarked for "bank". The
    aforesaid Annexure-C came to be executed on 06.01. 1996. C
    Civil amenity site no.2 is indicted therein, as measuring
    2195.35 sq. meters. In the column titled "purpose for which
    earmarked", Annexure-C specifies "bank". It is the
    contention of the petitioners that, civic amenity site no.2
    which was earmarked exclusively for use as "bank" has D
    never undergone any change at the hands of the Bangalore
    Development Authority. Civic amenity site no. 3 is not
     relevant for the instant case, and as such we refrain, for
     reasons of brevity, from recording any details in connection
    therewith."                                                    E
     15. Upon consideration of the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties, the High Court has concluded -
     "We are satisfied that civil amenity site no. 2, at the time
     of its allotment to respondent no.3 was expressly F
     earmarked for use as "bank". The aforesaid position has
     remained unaltered to this day. In terms of the mandate
     contained in Section 38-A of the Bangalore Development
     Authority Act, 19776 it could not have been leased, sold
     or otherwise, transferred for purpose other than the one
     " .... for which such area is reserved". Since the civil G
     amenity site in question was earmarked/reserved for
     "bank", we are satisfied that it could not have been allotted
     for use as a "petrol station".
      16. From the above, it is evident that in fact, the site had H
    554     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 12 S.C.R.

A been originally earmarked to be developed as a public park!
  playground in 1984. However, since the same has been
  converted to a residential area, respondents Nos. 4 to 14 have
  very fairly stated that it could not at this stage be restored to
  its original purpose without causing havoc in the lives of the
B residents. They have, therefore, not insisted that the site be
  restored to its original purpose.
        17. We also do not find any merit in the submission that
  the term civic amenities would permit BOA to change the
  reservation from one particular user to another without the
c necessary amendment in the development plan. This would be
  contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of B.S.
  Muddappa (supra).
        18. We also do not find any substance in the submissions
  that the High Court has wrongly distinguished the judgment of
D the earlier Division Bench of the High Court in A/coboo Nagar
  Residents Welfare Association (supra). A perusal of the
  paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment clearly shows that in
  that case, the High Court considered the legality of allotment
  of civic amenity site no.3. There was, in fact, no change in the
E activity/purpose, as the site had not been reserved for any
  specific purpose. The other question was whether the lease in
  favour of the government company for opening of petrol and
  diesel outlet would fall within the definition of civic amenity. In
  the present case, it was not the case of the respondent nos. 4
F to 14 that petrol pump is not a civic amenity, therefore, the site
  could not have been allotted to open a petrol pump. The
  grievance of the respondents (writ petitioners in the High Court)
  was that civic amenity site no.2 had been eam1arked for a bank
  and could not be allotted for a petrol pump without making
  necessary amendment in the site. Therefore, the High Court
G has rightly distinguished the aforesaid judgment and not relied
  upon the same.
        19. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals and the
  same are hereby dismissed.
H R.P.                                         Appeals dismissed.