Supreme Court: Protecting Open Spaces - Land Use Decision

The Supreme Court held that the Government of Haryana acted without authority in leasing land reserved for open spaces to Punjab Samaj Sabha (PSS). The Court emphasized the importance of complying with town planning schemes and the Haryana Municipal Act, directing the Municipality to demolish PSS's construction and restore the land. It underscored the significance of maintaining open spaces for environmental and public health benefits, highlighting the constitutional duty to protect and improve the environment. The Court's decision focused on upholding the law regarding the preservation of open spaces and ensuring adherence to planning regulations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Government's power to lease land reserved for open spaces.
2. Compliance with the Town Planning Scheme and Haryana Municipal Act.
3. Environmental and public health considerations.
4. Validity of the construction by Punjab Samaj Sabha (PSS).

Summary:

1. Legality of the Government's Power to Lease Land Reserved for Open Spaces:
The appellants contended that the Government of Haryana had no authority to lease out land reserved for open spaces to PSS, as it defeated the purpose of the Town Planning Scheme No. 5. The Supreme Court held that the government acted "wholly without authority of law and jurisdiction" and that the lease to PSS was "clearly without authority of law and jurisdiction."

2. Compliance with the Town Planning Scheme and Haryana Municipal Act:
The land in question was vested in the Municipality u/s 61 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, and was earmarked for open spaces. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Municipality must use the land for the purposes envisaged in the Scheme and u/s 61 unless there is an "unavoidable compelling public purpose" requiring a change of use. The Court found that the government's direction to lease the land to PSS violated the Scheme and the Act.

3. Environmental and Public Health Considerations:
The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining open spaces for environmental and public health benefits, citing the Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment, 1972, and Articles 48-A, 47, and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. The judgment stressed that "hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life" and that the State and municipalities have a constitutional duty to protect and improve the environment.

4. Validity of the Construction by Punjab Samaj Sabha (PSS):
The Court noted that PSS proceeded with the construction despite the pending writ petition, which was not justified. The construction was deemed to be in violation of the Scheme and the Act. Consequently, the Court ordered that "any construction made by PSS should be pulled down" and directed the Municipality to restore the land to its original condition within four weeks.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ordering the writ petition as prayed for, and directed the Municipality to demolish the construction by PSS. The judgment elucidated the law regarding the preservation of open spaces and compliance with town planning schemes, making no order as to costs.

---