REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7935  OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.757 of 2011)

Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao and another … Appellants

Versus

The Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri  Urban Development Authority and others … Respondents

With

Contempt Petition (C) No.300 of 2011 in  Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.757 of 2011)

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  questions  which  arise  for  consideration  in  this  appeal  are  whether  

respondent  No.1  –  the  Vijayawada,  Guntur,  Tenali,  Mangalagiri  Urban  

Development Authority had the jurisdiction to grant permission to respondent No.3  

–  Sri  Venkateswara  Swamivari  Alaya  Nirmana  Committee  for  construction  of

temple  at  the  site  of  which  land  use  was  shown as  recreational  in  the  Zonal  

Development Plan approved by the State Government and whether the Division  

Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was justified in refusing to nullify the  

decision taken by respondent No.1 by assuming that it was only a case of allotment  

of site.

3. Respondent No.1 was constituted under Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh  

Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, `the Act’) to promote and secure  

the development of different parts of the four towns, namely, Vijayawada, Guntur,  

Tenali  and  Mangalagiri.  In  1978,  respondent  No.1  acquired  91  acres  land  at  

Chenchupet,  Tenali  and  prepared  a  layout  plan  for  development.   As  per  the  

approved plan, 10 sites were earmarked for parks.  These included an area of 75  

cents comprised in Town Survey No.2/3, Block No.1, Ward No.1, Chenchupet.   

4. The Master Plan of Tenali town was approved by the State Government vide  

G.O.Ms.  No.969  dated  21.11.1978  and  the  Master  Plan  of  the  urban  area  of  

respondent No.1 was approved vide G.O. Ms. No.144 dated 3.3.1988.  After about  

15 years, the State Government decided that the Master Plans be replaced by a  

comprehensive Zonal Development Plan.  For this purpose, the Vice Chairman of  

respondent  No.1  was  authorized  to  take  necessary  steps.   Thereafter,  the  area  

covered by the  urban region of  respondent  No.1 was divided  into  23 planning  

2

zones and it was decided that Zonal Development Plans be prepared on priority  

basis in respect of 15 zones including Tenali zone.  The draft Zonal Development  

Plan of Tenali was published in the local newspapers and objections/suggestions  

were invited from the public.  In the final Zonal Development Plan of Tenali town,  

which  was  approved  by  the  State  Government  vide  G.O.  Ms.  No.689  dated  

30.12.2006, land use was divided into the following 9 (main) categories:

“1. Residential use Zone

2. Mixed Residential use Zone.

3. Commercial use Zone [Local, Central and General Commercial  use].

4. Industrial use Zone

5. Public and Semi public use Zone

6. Recreational use Zone.

7. Transportation  and  Communication  use  Zone  (Roads,  Railways, Airports, Bus Depots and Truck Terminals)

8. Agricultural use zone.

9. Water Bodies.”

5. Respondent No.3, which was registered as a society in March, 2009 under  

the  Andhra  Pradesh  Societies  Registration  Act,  2001,  submitted  an  application  

dated 28.5.2009 to respondent No.1 for grant of permission to construct a temple at  

the  site  which  formed  part  of  Town  Survey  No.2/3.    After  considering  the  

3

objections  received  from  the  public,  respondent  No.1  passed  resolution  dated  

4.2.2010 for grant permission to the Residents Welfare Association to construct Sri  

Venkateswara  Swamy  Vari  Temple.   In  furtherance  of  that  decision,  Vice-

Chairman of respondent No.1 issued order dated 30.3.2010, the relevant portions  

of  which,  as  contained  in  Annexure  P-4 of  the  SLP paper  book,  are  extracted  

below:  

“Therefore  the  ‘Residential  Welfare  Association’  is  permitted  to  construct Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Temple in the earmarked site  and orders are issued accordingly.   

The  said  ‘Residential  Welfare  Association’  Alaya  Committee  is  directed to follow the following conditions:

1. The said Association has no ownership rights on the site earmarked  for Religious center in the IDSMT Scheme.  The said Association  has right to construct the temple only.  The complete rights on the  site and building shall rest with the UDA only.

3. The  Association  should  not  make  use  of  allotted  site  for  other  purposes except for the construction of temple.

4. Temple should be constructed within three years from the date of  issue of this order. Or else the UDA is having every right to take  over the site along with the incomplete building.

5. In  the  said  site  activities  pertaining  to  Temple  alone  should  be  conducted and it should not be used for commercial and business  purposes.

6. The  meetings  and  activities  of  Alaya  Committee  should  be  conducted as per laws.

7. The conditions made by the Government/VGTM UDA from time to  time shall be in force.

4

8. If the conditions are violated the said site along with the building  shall be taken over.”   

After about one month and ten days, the Vice Chairman of respondent No.1  

issued amended order dated 10.5.2010 in the name of respondent No.3 because by  

mistake  permission  for  construction  of  temple  was  issued  in  favour  of  the  

Residents Welfare Association, which had not even submitted application.

6. Having succeeded in convincing respondent No.1 to grant permission for  

construction of temple at the site, which did not even belong to it, respondent No.3  

approached the State Government for change of land use from recreational (park)  

to  public/semi  public.   Simultaneously,  the  Vice Chairman of  respondent  No.1  

addressed  letter  dated  15.6.2010  to  the  Principal  Secretary  to  Government,  

Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department for change of land  

use.  He pointed out that in the Integrated Development of Small and Medium  

Towns Scheme, 1981 (for short, `the 1981 Scheme’) 15 cents land comprised in  

Town Survey No.2/3 was reserved for religious center but, by mistake the same  

was shown as earmarked for recreational use in the Zonal Development Plan.   

7. While respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were making efforts for securing an order  

from the State Government for change of land use, the appellants filed writ petition  

5

by way of public interest litigation questioning the decision of respondent No.1 to  

sanction construction of temple.  They pleaded that the Zonal Development Plan  

prepared by respondent No.1 and approved by the State Government is statutory in  

character and land covered by the Zonal Development Plan cannot be used for a  

purpose other than the one specified in the Plan and respondent No.1 did not have  

the jurisdiction to sanction construction of temple at the site of which land use was  

shown as recreational (park).  In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent  

No.1, it was pleaded that mere allotment of land for construction of temple did not  

give any cause to the writ petitioners to challenge order dated 30.3.2010 and as and  

when  an  application  is  made  for  construction  of  temple,  respondent  No.1  will  

consider whether land can be used for a purpose other than the one specified in the  

Zonal Development Plan.  In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it  

was  pleaded  that  as  per  the  Zonal  Development  Plan,  land  coming  under  the  

Residential  Use  Zone  can  be  utilized  for  construction  of  Kalyana  Mandapams  

without creating any noise pollution, function halls/public assembly halls, religious  

center  etc.  and in  the  absence  of  any  bar  in  the  Zonal  Development  Plan,  no  

exception  can  be  taken  to  the  permission  granted  by  respondent  No.1  for  

construction of temple.

6

8. The Division  Bench of  the  High Court  noticed that  as  per  the  approved  

Zonal Development Plan, Town Survey No.2/3 is earmarked for recreational use  

(park)  and  held  that  unless  the  State  Government  relaxes  the  use  of  land,  

respondent No.1 cannot grant permission for construction of temple.  However, the  

appellants’ prayer for quashing order dated 30.3.2010 was declined by making the  

following observations:

“Once the land was earmarked for the parks/recreational use in  the  modification  of  the  Master  Plan  of  Tenali  Town  as  approved  in  G.O.Ms.No.689,  dated  30.12.2006,  unless  the  Government relaxes the use of the land for any other purpose  than  the  one  notified,  the  first  respondent  cannot  grant  permission for construction of temple if it is prohibited under  G.O.Ms.No.689, dated 30.12.2006.  Mere allotment of the land  for construction of temple will not give rise any cause of action  unless permission for construction of temple is accorded by the  first  respondent  on submitting the  plans.    As and when the  plans are submitted with specific proposal for construction of  temple, the first respondent is under obligation to consider the  prohibition contained under the modified Master Plan issued in  G.O.Ms.No.689,  dated  30.12.2006.  It  is  under  obligation  to  invite the objections from the residents of the locality including  the petitioners and consider the said objections before granting  permission.   If such construction of temple is prohibited, it is  also open for the third respondent to move the Government by  filing an application seeking relaxation of the land use and if  any relaxation is granted by the Government, it  can make its  application to the first respondent.”

(emphasis supplied)

7

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned order is liable  

to be set aside because the High Court disposed of the writ petition by erroneously  

assuming that order dated 30.3.2010 was only for allotment of land to respondent  

No.3.  Learned counsel emphasized that in the approved Zonal Development Plan,  

land use of Town Survey No.2/3 has been shown as recreational (park) and argued  

that respondent No.1 committed a jurisdictional error by sanctioning construction  

of temple at the site without even making an effort to find out whether the site  

belongs to respondent No.3.

10. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  supported  the  impugned  order  and  

argued that the permission granted by respondent No. 1 cannot be faulted merely  

because  land  use  of  the  site  has  not  been  changed  by  the  State  Government.  

Learned counsel  for  respondent  No.1 submitted  that  while  preparing  the  Zonal  

Development Plan the competent authority had overlooked the fact that in the 1981  

Scheme 15  cents  land  forming  part  of  Town  Survey  No.2/3  was  reserved  for  

religious center and this is the reason why the Vice Chairman of respondent No.1  

had written to the State Government to rectify the mistake.  He then argued that the  

appellants do not have the locus to question resolution dated 4.2.2010 and order  

dated  30.3.2010  because  they  did  not  file  objection  against  the  proposed  

8

construction of temple at the site of which land use has been shown in the  Zonal  

Development Plan as recreational.

11. We shall  first consider whether the High Court was justified in declining  

relief to the appellants on the premise that respondent No.1 had merely allotted  

land to respondent No.3.  In this context, it is apposite to observe that none of the  

documents produced before the High Court and this Court show that respondent  

No.3 had applied for allotment of land for construction of temple and respondent  

No.1  had  allotted  the  site  after  following  some  procedure  consistent  with  the  

doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.  Not only this, a  

bare reading of order dated 30.3.2010 leaves no manner of doubt that respondent  

No.1 had granted permission to respondent No.3 for construction of temple at the  

site in question.  There is nothing in the language of that order or the conditions  

enshrined therein from which it can be inferred that respondent No.1 had allotted  

land  to  respondent  No.3.   Therefore,  the  High  Court  was  clearly  in  error  in  

deciding the writ petition by assuming that it was only a case of allotment of land.

12. The next question, which merits consideration is whether respondent No.1  

had the jurisdiction to allow construction of temple at the site which was reserved  

for recreational use in the Zonal Development Plan.    Section 2(e) which contains  

9

the definition of term “development” and Sections 7, 12(1), (2), (3) and (4) and 15  

of the Act, which have bearing on the decision of this question read as under:

“2(e) ‘development’  with  its  grammatical  variations  means  the  carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a master  plan or  zonal  development plan referred to  in  this  Act,  and the  carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations  in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in  any building or land and includes redevelopment.  

Provided that for the purposes of this Act, the following operations  or uses of land shall not be deemed to involve development of the  land that is to say-

(i)  the  carrying  out  of  any  temporary  works  for  the  maintenance,  improvement  or  other  alteration  of  any  building,  being works which do not materially affect the external appearance  of the building:

(ii) the carrying out by a local authority of any temporary  works required for the maintenance or improvement of a road, or  works carried out on land within the boundaries of the road;

(iii)  the  carrying  out  by  a  local  authority  or  statutory  undertaking of any temporary works for the purpose of inspecting,  repairing or  renewing any sewers,  mains,  pipes,  cables  or  other  apparatus, including the breaking open of any street or other land  for that purpose:

(iv) the use of any building or other land within the cartilage  purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such;  and

(v)  the  use  of  any  land  for  the  purpose  of  agriculture,  gardening or forestry (including afforestation) and the use for any  purpose specified in this clause of any building occupied together  with the land so used;

7. Zonal development plans: –  (1) Simultaneously with the  preparation  of  Master  Plan or  as  soon as  may be thereafter  the  Authority shall proceed with the preparation of zonal development  

10

plan for each of the zones into which the development area may be  divided.

(2) A zonal development plan may,-

(a) contain a site plan and land use plan for the development of the  zone and show the approximate locations and extents of land uses  proposed in the zones for such purposes as roads, housing, schools,  recreation, hospitals, industry, business, markets, public works and  utilities, public buildings, public and private open spaces and other  categories of public and private uses;

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d)  in  particular,  contain  provisions  regarding  all  or  any  of  the  following matters, namely—

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii)  the allotment or reservation of lands for roads, open spaces,  gardens,  recreation  grounds,  schools,  markets  and  other  public  purposes;

(iii) to (xii) xxx xxx xxx

12. Modifications to plan:  – (1) The Authority may make such  modifications  to  the  plan  as  it  thinks  fit,  being  modifications  which,  in  its  opinion,  do  not  effect  important  alterations  in  the  character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land  uses or the standards of population density.

(2)  The Government may  suo motu or on a reference from the  Authority  make  any  modifications  to  the  plan,  whether  such  modifications  are  of  the  nature  specified  in  sub-section  (1)  or  otherwise.

11

(3) Before making any modifications to the plan, the Authority or,  as the case may be, the Government shall publish a notice in such  form and  manner  as  may  be  prescribed  inviting  objections  and  suggestions  from  any  person  with  respect  to  the  proposed  modifications before such date as may be specified in the notice  and  shall  consider  all  objections  and  suggestions  that  may  be  received by the Authority or the Government.

(4) Every modification made under the provisions of this section  shall  be  published  in  such  manner  as  the  Authority  or  the  Government,  as  the  case  may  be,  may  specify  and  the  modifications shall come into operation either on the date of the  publication  or  on  such  other  date  as  the  Authority  or  the  Government may fix.

15. Use of the land and buildings in contravention of plans: –  After the coming into operation of any of the plans in a zone, no  person shall use or permit to be used any land or building in that  zone otherwise than in conformity with such plan:

Provided that it shall be lawful to continue to use upon such terms  and conditions as may be determined by regulations made in this  behalf, any land or building for the purpose for which, and to the  extent to which, it is being used on the date on which such plan  comes into force.”   

13. The definition of the “development” is comprehensive.  It takes within its  

fold the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a Master Plan or  

Zonal Development Plan and the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or  

other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in  

the existing building or land.  Redevelopment is also included within the ambit of  

the term “development”.   The proviso to the definition excludes certain works,  

12

which are of temporary nature.  Section 13 of the Act empowers the Government  

to declare an urban area or group of urban areas to be a development area for  

proper development of such area or areas.  Once an urban area or a group of urban  

areas is declared to be a development area, the Government is obliged to constitute  

an Urban Development Authority under Section 3(1).  The Development Authority  

is enjoined with the task of promoting and ensuring development of all or any of  

the areas comprised in the development area according to the sanctioned plan and  

for that purpose, the Authority has the power to acquire, by way of purchase or  

otherwise, hold, manage, plan, develop and mortgage or otherwise dispose of land  

and other property, to carry out by or on its behalf building, engineering, mining  

and other operations,  to execute works in connection with supply of water and  

electricity,  disposal  of  sewerage  and  control  of  pollution,  other  services  and  

amenities [Section 5(1)].  Chapter III of the Act contains provisions for preparation  

of Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan.  Section 7(1) provides for preparation  

of Zonal Development Plan for each of the zones into which the development area  

may be divided.  Section 7(2) enumerates the matter, which may be specified in the  

Zonal Development Plan.  Clause (a) thereof speaks among other things of land  

use plan for the development of the zone and the approximate locations and extents  

of  land  uses  proposed  in  the  zones  for  purposes  like  roads,  housing,  schools,  

recreation, hospitals, industry, business, markets, public works and utilities, public  

13

buildings, public and private open spaces and other categories of public and private  

uses.  Sections 8 and 9 lay down the procedure for preparation and approval of the  

Master  Plan/Zonal  Development  Plan.   Section 10 lays  down that  immediately  

after approval of Plan by the State Government, the authority shall publish a notice  

evidencing such approval and from the date of first publication of notice the Plan  

shall come into operation.  Section 12(1) empowers the Development Authority to  

make  appropriate  modifications  in  the  plan  which  do  not  effect  important  

alterations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land  

uses or the standards of population density.   Section 12(2) empowers the State  

Government  to  make  any  modification  in  the  plan  either  on  its  own  or  on  a  

reference made by the Development Authority.  Section 12(3) and (4) lays down  

the procedure for making modification of plan which is substantially similar to the  

procedure prescribed for preparation of the plan.  Section 15 prohibits the use of  

land otherwise than in conformity with the plan.

14. An analysis of the above noted provisions shows that once the Master Plan  

or  the  Zonal  Development  Plan  is  approved  by the  State  Government,  no  one  

including  the  State  Government/Development  Authority  can  use  land  for  any  

purpose other than the one specified therein.   There is no provision in the Act  

under which the Development Authority can sanction construction of a building  

14

etc.  or  use  of  land  for  a  purpose  other  than  the  one  specified  in  the  Master  

Plan/Zonal Development Plan.  The power vested in the Development Authority to  

make modification in the development plan is also not unlimited.  It cannot make  

important alterations in the character of the plan.  Such modification can be made  

only by the State Government and that too after following the procedure prescribed  

under Section 12(3).   

15. In  the  pleadings  filed  before  the  High  Court,  the  respondents  had  not  

controverted  the  assertion  made  by  the  appellants  that  in  the  approved  Zonal  

Development Plan,  land comprised in Town Survey No.2/3 was earmarked for  

recreational use.  Therefore, in the absence of change of land use which could have  

been  sanctioned  only  by  the  State  Government,  respondent  No.1  had  no  

jurisdiction to grant permission to respondent No.3 to construct temple at the site.  

Respondent No.1 was very much alive to this legal position and this is the reason  

why its Vice Chairman had written letter dated 15.6.2010 to the Principal Secretary  

to  the  Government  for  change of  land  use  by  stating  that  a  mistake  had been  

committed at the time of preparation of Zonal Development Plan.  It is a different  

thing  that  the  State  Government  has  not  sanctioned  change  of  land  use  by  

modifying the zonal development plan in accordance with the procedure prescribed  

under  Section  12(3)  and  (4).  In  this  scenario,  there  is  no  escape  from  the  

15

conclusion that respondent No.1 could not have entertained the application made  

by respondent No.3 and granted permission for construction of temple at the site  

reserved for recreational use and that too by ignoring that the same had not been  

allotted to respondent No.3 by any public authority.  As a corollary, it must be held  

that  the  High  Court  committed  serious  error  by  refusing  to  quash  order  dated  

30.3.2010 by assuming that it was merely a case of allotment of land.   

16. The view taken by us on the legality of order dated 30.3.2010 finds support  

from the judgment of this Court in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa  

(1991) 4 SCC 54.  In that case, allotment of land, which was shown as open space  

in  the  sanctioned  development  plan,  for  construction  of  a  nursing  home  was  

challenged  on  the  ground  that  the  State  Government  and  the  Bangalore  

Development Authority did not have the jurisdiction to make such allotment.  The  

learned Single Judge negatived the challenge but the Division Bench allowed the  

appeal  and  quashed  the  allotment.   The  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  was  

approved  by  this  Court.  R.M.  Sahai,  J.,  who  delivered  the  main  judgment  

highlighted  the  importance  of  reservation  of  land  for  the  public  park  in  a  

development plan and adversely commented upon use thereof for construction of  

nursing home in the following words:

“Public  park  as  a  place  reserved  for  beauty  and  recreation  was  developed in 19th and 20th century and is associated with growth of  

16

the  concept  of  equality  and  recognition  of  importance  of  common  man. Earlier it was a prerogative of the aristocracy and the affluent  either  as  a  result  of  royal  grant  or  as  a  place  reserved  for  private  pleasure. Free and healthy air in beautiful surroundings was privilege  of  few.  But  now  it  is  a,  ‘gift  from  people  to  themselves’.  Its  importance  has  multiplied  with  emphasis  on  environment  and  pollution.  In  modern  planning  and  development  it  occupies  an  important place in social ecology. A private nursing home on the other  hand is essentially a commercial venture, a profit oriented industry.  Service may be its motto but earning is the objective. Its utility may  not be undermined but a park is a necessity not a mere amenity. A  private nursing home cannot be a substitute for a public park. No town  planner  would  prepare  a  blueprint  without  reserving  space  for  it.  Emphasis on open air and greenery has multiplied and the city or town  planning or development Acts of different States require even private  house owners to leave open space in front and back for lawn and fresh  air. In 1984 the B.D. Act itself provided for reservation of not less  than  15  per  cent  of  the  total  area  of  the  layout  in  a  development  scheme for public parks and playgrounds the sale and disposition of  which is prohibited under Section 38-A of the Act. Absence of open  space  and  public  park,  in  present  day  when  urbanisation  is  on  increase,  rural  exodus  is  on  large  scale  and  congested  areas  are  coming up rapidly, may give rise to health hazard. May be that it may  be taken care of by a nursing home. But it is axiomatic that prevention  is better than cure. What is lost by removal of a park cannot be gained  by  establishment  of  a  nursing  home.  To  say,  therefore,  that  by  conversion of a site reserved for low lying park into a private nursing  home social welfare was being promoted was being oblivious of true  character of the two and their utility.”  

T.K. Thommen, J., who agreed with R.M. Sahai, J. referred to the provisions of the  

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and observed:

“The  scheme  is  meant  for  the  reasonable  accomplishment  of  the  statutory object which is to promote the orderly development of the  city of Bangalore and adjoining areas and to preserve open spaces by  reserving public parks and playgrounds with a view to protecting the  residents  from  the  ill-effects  of  urbanisation.  It  meant  for  the  

17

development of the city in a way that maximum space is provided for  the  benefit  of  the  public  at  large  for  recreation,  enjoyment,  ‘ventilation’  and  fresh  air.  This  is  clear  from  the  Act  itself  as  it  originally  stood.  The amendments  inserting  Section  16(1)(d),  38-A  and other provisions are clarificatory of this object. The very purpose  of the BDA, as a statutory authority, is to promote the healthy growth  and  development  of  the  city  of  Bangalore  and  the  areas  adjacent  thereto.  The  legislative  intent  has  always  been  the  promotion  and  enhancement of the quality of life by preservation of the character and  desirable aesthetic features of the city. The subsequent amendments  are not a deviation from or alteration of the original legislative intent,  but only an elucidation or affirmation of the same.

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 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  BDA.  The  public  interest  in  the  reservation  and  preservation  of  open  spaces  for  parks  and  playgrounds  cannot  be  sacrificed  by  leasing  or  selling  such  sites  to  private  persons  for  conversion to some other user. 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 the attainment of a  quality of life which makes the guaranteed rights a reality for all the  citizens.”

17. The matter deserves to be considered from another angle.  It is neither the  

pleaded case of respondent No.3 nor any document was produced before the High  

Court and none has been produced before this Court to show that 15 cents land  

forming part of Town Survey No. 2/3 was allotted to it by any public authority  

after following a recognized mode of disposal of public property.  It has surprised  

18

us that even though respondent No.3 was not an owner of the site,  it  made an  

application for grant of permission to construct  the temple and functionaries of  

respondent No.1 accepted the same without making any inquiry about the title of  

respondent No.3.  Thus, the illegality committed by respondent No.1 in issuing  

order dated 30.3.2010 is writ large on the face of the record.  

18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.  As a  

corollary, the writ petition filed by the appellants is also allowed and order dated  

30.3.2010 as also amended order dated 10.5.2010 issued by respondent No.1 are  

quashed.  The parties are left to bear their own costs.

19. Since we have allowed the main appeal, the contempt petition filed by the  

appellants is disposed of as infructuous.

….………………….…J. [G.S. Singhvi]

…..…..………………..J. [H.L. Dattu]

New Delhi September 19, 2011.

19