2003 (4) TMI 583 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Karnataka park notification, restricts constructions, emphasizes environmental preservation.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision regarding a notification under the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act, ... - Issues involved:1. Validity and correctness of the order passed by the High Court in a writ petition challenging a notification under the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act, 1975.2. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Act regarding the application and limits of the Act.3. Whether the impugned notification diminishing the area within the limits of a park violates the Act or constitutional provisions.4. Consideration of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution in relation to the impugned notification.5. Examination of the duty of the State Government under Section 4 of the Act to preserve and maintain government parks as horticultural gardens without alienation of land or buildings.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the High Court's order regarding a notification under the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act, 1975. The Act aims to preserve parks as horticultural gardens and prohibits alienation of land or buildings within the parks. The High Court upheld the validity of the notification allowing certain constructions but restricted further constructions without clearance, considering the Act's objectives and environmental concerns.2. The Act's Section 3 specifies the application to lands and buildings within parks as notified by the State Government. The dispute centered on whether the impugned notification diminishing the park area for constructions violated the Act's provisions. The High Court's decision balanced the need for development with the Act's objective to maintain open spaces and healthy environments.3. The appellant argued that the impugned notification violated the Act and constitutional provisions, including Articles 14 and 21, by reducing the park area. The Court acknowledged the importance of preserving open spaces but did not overturn the High Court's decision, leaving legal questions open for future consideration.4. The State Government's duty under Section 4 of the Act includes preserving and maintaining parks as horticultural gardens without alienation of land or buildings. The Act prohibits alienation of park land or buildings, emphasizing the importance of maintaining these spaces for public benefit.In conclusion, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision on the notification under the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act, 1975. The Court highlighted the Act's objectives of preserving open spaces and maintaining healthy environments while leaving legal questions open for future interpretation.