Public park land cannot be diverted for private use unless the sanctioned scheme is validly altered by the competent authority.

Residents of the affected locality had sufficient interest to challenge diversion of land reserved as a public park because they were directly affected by the loss of open space and environmental amenities. The conversion of park land into a civic amenity site and its allotment for a private hospital was invalid because the sanctioned scheme reserved the land for a park, any alteration had to be made only by the competent authority on an objective finding of statutory improvement, and general executive powers could not override that specific statutory scheme. The diversion was therefore held void and without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether residents of the locality had locus standi to challenge diversion of land reserved as a public park. (ii) Whether the conversion of land reserved for a public park into a civic amenity site and its allotment for construction of a private hospital was valid under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and the sanctioned development scheme.

Issue (i): Whether residents of the locality had locus standi to challenge diversion of land reserved as a public park.

Analysis: Residents of the locality were directly affected by the loss of open space reserved for recreation, ventilation and environmental protection. A challenge to executive action that allegedly defeats the statutory purpose of a development scheme is not excluded merely because the petitioners cannot show a proprietary injury in the narrow sense. In matters affecting community welfare, environmental quality and lawful administration, persons residing in the affected area have sufficient interest to maintain the challenge.

Conclusion: The residents had locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the conversion of land reserved for a public park into a civic amenity site and its allotment for construction of a private hospital was valid under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and the sanctioned development scheme.

Analysis: The sanctioned scheme reserved the land for a public park, and the Act drew a clear distinction between land reserved for parks and play grounds on the one hand and civic amenities on the other. Alteration of a scheme under section 19(4) could be made only by the Authority, only on an objective finding that the change amounted to an improvement, and only through the procedure contemplated by the Act. No such lawful alteration was made. The Government could not usurp the Authority's statutory function under section 19(4), and its general powers under sections 15(3) and 65 could not be used to defeat the Act's specific scheme. The conversion and allotment were also contrary to the legislative policy of preserving open spaces and were made as a colourable exercise of power for a private purpose.

Conclusion: The conversion and allotment were invalid, void and without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The statutory protection of public parks and open spaces prevailed over the attempted private allotment, and the impugned governmental and administrative action could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Land reserved in a duly sanctioned development scheme for a public park cannot be diverted to a private use unless the scheme is validly altered by the competent authority on an objective finding of statutory improvement; general executive directions cannot override that specific statutory limitation.

---