# Siddartha Kumar v. Upper Civil

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 580
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-04-12
- **Case number:** Misc. Writ Petition No. 13271 of 1986
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog, Tarun Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siddartha-kumar-v-upper-civil-40492
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Sri S.K. Rai
Sri S.M.A. Kazmi
Sri A. Mishra
Sri I.C. Sinha
Sri Anand Mohan (In Person)
Sri Mohammad Isa Khan
S.C.

A-Cantonment
Land
Administration
Rules 1937-Rule-A-1, 14 (5)-Old Polo
ground-classified as class A-1 in the
General Register maintained by the
Military Estate Officer-except with the
previous
sanction
of
Central
Government-No buildings of 48 dwelling
units can be erected-it is a land an open
space-which provides clear, healthy air
to ensure the area free from pollution.

Held: Para 29,36,39,45

General Land Register maintained by the
Military
Estates
Officer
under
the
Cantonment
Act.
No
addition
or
alteration in the register can be made
except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government. Further no building
can be erected on Class A(1) land except
with the previous sanction of the Central
Government. No evidence has been filed
by the respondents to show that the Polo
Ground
is
being
actually
used
or
occupied
for
any
of
the
purposes
mentioned in Rule 5. In fact, it has come
on record, that Polo Ground was being
used by civilians for various functions
over a period of time. Since, the land is
being used for various purposes apart
from military purposes, it is doubtful that
the Government had correctly classified
this Polo Ground as Class-A land.

Rules 3, 14 (3) and 14 (5) of the Rules
mentions the words "previous sanction
of the Central Government". Rule 13
states that no alterations in the plans
2 All] Vivek Srivastava V. Union of India and others

 581
and schedules shall be made without the
previous
sanction
of
the
Central
Government. In our view, it is mandatory
for the respondents to seek previous
sanction from the Central Government
before making any addition or alteration
in Class-A land. Since, previous sanction
was
not
obtained
by
the
military
authorities
from
the
Central
Government,
the
action
of
the
respondents in proposing to raise the
construction on the Polo Ground is
wholly illegal.

The aforesaid principles of law squarely
applied to the facts and circumstances of
the present case. It is, therefore, clear
that if previous sanction is not obtained
in the first place, the said defect cannot
be removed afterwards by seeking post
facto
sanction
from
the
Central
Government.

In our view, Polo Ground was available
to the citizens of Allahabad for the last
100 years initially to play Polo and, later
on, for a variety of functions. Polo
Ground has carved out its name in
history. Why should the use of this land
be changed today? There is no reason
why the said land should not remain as
an open piece of land for the next 100
years. If this land has serviced the
citizens by providing for an open space,
clean
and
pure
air
and
beautiful
surroundings for the last 10 decades,
there is no reason why the status quo
should not continue for the next 10
decades. After all, it must not be lost
sight of, that today, the land in question
is in the heart of the city surrounded and
hedged all around by

## Text

_Characters 0–39,981 of 89,717. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39981 for what follows._

580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
State of U.P. (Writ Petition No. 15342
of 2000 decided on 30.3.2000) and
Siddartha Kumar Vs. Upper Civil
Judge, Ghazipur, (1998) 1 UPLBEC
587.

9. The contention of the counsel for
the petitioner that the delay in moving the
restoration application was not intentional
has no force as the clerk of his office
ought to have noted the orders passed
during the strike period. He could have
inspected the file even after the strike was
over. No sufficient cause and cogent
reasons have been given for restoration of
the writ petition. The application for
restoration has been moved on 6.1.2005.
It suffers from laches due to callous
attitude of the petitioner.

10. The facts of this case are
covered by the decision rendered by me
while deciding Civil Misc. Restoration
Application No. 164294 of 2004 in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 13271 of 1986
(Smt. Beena Rani Garg & others vs.
Deputy Director of Education, Region I,
Meerut & others).

For the reasons stated above, the
restoration application is rejected.
Application Rejected.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54536 of 2004

Vivek Srivastava

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yashwant Varma
Ms. Rohma Hameed

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri S.K. Rai
Sri S.M.A. Kazmi
Sri A. Mishra
Sri I.C. Sinha
Sri Anand Mohan (In Person)
Sri Mohammad Isa Khan
S.C.

A-Cantonment
Land
Administration
Rules 1937-Rule-A-1, 14 (5)-Old Polo
ground-classified as class A-1 in the
General Register maintained by the
Military Estate Officer-except with the
previous
sanction
of
Central
Government-No buildings of 48 dwelling
units can be erected-it is a land an open
space-which provides clear, healthy air
to ensure the area free from pollution.

Held: Para 29,36,39,45

General Land Register maintained by the
Military
Estates
Officer
under
the
Cantonment
Act.
No
addition
or
alteration in the register can be made
except with the previous sanction of the
Central Government. Further no building
can be erected on Class A(1) land except
with the previous sanction of the Central
Government. No evidence has been filed
by the respondents to show that the Polo
Ground
is
being
actually
used
or
occupied
for
any
of
the
purposes
mentioned in Rule 5. In fact, it has come
on record, that Polo Ground was being
used by civilians for various functions
over a period of time. Since, the land is
being used for various purposes apart
from military purposes, it is doubtful that
the Government had correctly classified
this Polo Ground as Class-A land.

Rules 3, 14 (3) and 14 (5) of the Rules
mentions the words "previous sanction
of the Central Government". Rule 13
states that no alterations in the plans
2 All] Vivek Srivastava V. Union of India and others

 581
and schedules shall be made without the
previous
sanction
of
the
Central
Government. In our view, it is mandatory
for the respondents to seek previous
sanction from the Central Government
before making any addition or alteration
in Class-A land. Since, previous sanction
was
not
obtained
by
the
military
authorities
from
the
Central
Government,
the
action
of
the
respondents in proposing to raise the
construction on the Polo Ground is
wholly illegal.

The aforesaid principles of law squarely
applied to the facts and circumstances of
the present case. It is, therefore, clear
that if previous sanction is not obtained
in the first place, the said defect cannot
be removed afterwards by seeking post
facto
sanction
from
the
Central
Government.

In our view, Polo Ground was available
to the citizens of Allahabad for the last
100 years initially to play Polo and, later
on, for a variety of functions. Polo
Ground has carved out its name in
history. Why should the use of this land
be changed today? There is no reason
why the said land should not remain as
an open piece of land for the next 100
years. If this land has serviced the
citizens by providing for an open space,
clean
and
pure
air
and
beautiful
surroundings for the last 10 decades,
there is no reason why the status quo
should not continue for the next 10
decades. After all, it must not be lost
sight of, that today, the land in question
is in the heart of the city surrounded and
hedged all around by buildings. It has
become
all
the
more
essential
to
preserve this land as an open space to
provide clean and healthy air and to
ensure that the area is free from
pollution and other health hazards that
may crop up if the constructions are
raised.
Case law discussed:
2003 (7) SCC 546
1992 (4) SC- 305
AIR 1982 SC 149
AIR 1991 SC 420
1995 (2) SCC-577

B-Constitution of India, Article 226Public
Interest
litigation-allegations
regarding
violation
of
Fundamental
Rights-a person or the class of person
has right to approach the court-No
personal grudge or enmity of petitions
with the Respondents or the vindication
of any personal interest found-petitioner
has a locus standi to file PIL

Held: Para 23 & 24

It is now well settled by the Courts, that
if
there
was
a
violation
of
the
fundamental right or other legal right, a
person or a class of person has a right to
approach the Court for the enforcement
of the fundamental right or to correct a
legal injury. We have no material or
circumstances to hold that this petition
had been filed for the vindication of any
personal
grudge
or
enmity
of
the
petitioner with the respondents. In fact,
we
hold,
that
the
petitioner
had
bonafidely approached this Court in
larger interest and to safeguard the
fundamental rights of the residents of
the city.

The petitioner has rightly invoked the
grievance in a public interest action with
regard to the conduct and action of the
military authorities in relation to the
constitutional and statutory rights of the
citizens of this city. We have, therefore,
no
hesitation
in
holding
that
the
petitioner has a locus standi to file a
Public Interest Litigation and that the
writ petition is maintainable.
Case law discussed:
2005 UPLBEC (1) 144 SC
2002 (8) SCC-182
1997 (3) ALR 616
1995 ALL 88
1977 ALJ 341
1997 (1) SCC-388
1999 (6) SCC-464
2004 (6) SCC-588
1995 (2) SCC-580
2004 (5) SCC 182
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
AIR 1991 SC-1902
2004 (9) SCC-362

(Delivered by Hon.Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Does a member of the public and
a resident of the city of Allahabad have a
right to object to the change in the user of
the land which has been in existence as an
open piece of land for the last hundred
years and which has acted as the lungs of
the city? Does the petitioner, being a
citizen of this city, have a locus standi to
raise issues of ecology, and protection of
the environment on account of the change
in the user of the land as undertaken by
the military authorities in trying to
convert the open piece of land into a
concrete residential duplex complex? Is
the petitioner, being a citizen of this city,
aggrieved by such a diversion and
construction of residential buildings? Do
the
citizens
of
Allahabad
have
a
fundamental right to free and healthy air
in eco friendly surroundings for the full
enjoyment of life as envisaged under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
These are some of the questions of
importance
which
have
arisen
for
consideration during the course of the
hearing of the petition.

Case of the Petitioner:

2. The petitioner claims to be a
citizen and a resident of a locality of this
historic city of Allahabad and has filed
the present writ petition in the form of a
Public Interest Litigation contending that
the respondents are planning to construct
residential buildings in the "Polo Ground"
which had remained vacant as an open
land for the last hundred years. The
petitioner alleged that this ground acted as
the lungs for the citizens of Allahabad and
if the residential buildings were allowed
to be constructed on this land, the lungs
would get choked. Not only this, the
constructions would disturb the ecology
and create a serious imbalance to the
environment of the city. The petitioner
has contended, that the only open piece of
land which is located more or less in the
heart of the city would vanish if the
construction was allowed to come up. The
constructions would not only endanger
the quality of life, but would disturb the
ecology and the environment which has
compelled the petitioner to take recourse
to Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by filing this writ petition and praying
that the decision with regard to the
constructions of the residential buildings
on "Polo Ground" be quashed and that a
mandamus be issued commanding the
respondents to maintain a healthy balance
between
the
constructions
and
the
environment conditions of the City as a
whole. The petitioner further contended
that he has no private gain or interest in it
and has filed this petition in public
interest to bring on record and apprise the
Court of the immense damage which
would be caused to the ecology and the
environment
of
the
city,
if
the
constructions are allowed to be raised in
the expanse of the land which act as the
lungs of the city. The petitioner, in his
writ petition, has therefore, prayed that
the Cantonment Board be restrained from
making any constructions on the Polo
Ground.

Case of Respondent No.1, 3 and 4
(Union
of
India
and
Military
Authorities):

3. The Union of India has filed a
counter affidavit on behalf of the Ministry
of Defence, the Sub Area Commander
2 All] Vivek Srivastava V. Union of India and others

 583
and the Defence Estates Officer and
submitted that the petitioner had no loucs
standi to file the present writ petition, as
he had neither shown himself as a public
representative nor had shown as to how
he was interested in the land belonging to
the army authorities. The respondents
have further alleged that no public interest
was involved nor any issues of public
importance or for the enforcement of the
fundamental rights had been raised, and,
therefore, no writ petition could be filed
in the garb of a public interest litigation.
The respondents further submitted that the
High Court could entertain a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India under a public interest litigation, if
the petition had been filed by a person
who was interested in the welfare of the
people
and
who
were
in
a
disadvantageous position and who was
not in a position to knock the doors of the
Court. Since the petitioner had not sought
any relief for the benefit of the public at
large, the writ petition filed as a Public
Interest Litigation was an abuse of the
process of the Court and was liable to be
dismissed with costs.

4. The respondents have, however,
on merits stated that as per the General
Land Register (GLR) of the year 1941,
the land in question had been described as
''Old Polo Ground' which comprises of
22.77 acres of open land and was
categorized as ''A-1' Defence Land which
was exclusively managed and controlled
by the Army Authorities and was not
governed by any of the provisions of the
Cantonment Act. The scope and use of A1 land was limited as contemplated under
Rule 5(1) of the Cantonment Land
Administration Rules 1937(hereinafter
referred to as the Rules of 1937). Under
the said Rules, A-1 land was exclusively
managed and controlled by the Army
Authorities, which in the present case, is
the Sub-Area Commander of the station in
question. The respondents submitted that
the
proposed
construction
for
the
residential quarters for the married Army
Personnel, being an exclusive army
matter, no public interest was involved
which required adjudication from a Court
of
Law.
The
respondents
further
submitted that the proposed construction
had been sanctioned by the Ministry of
Defence and that the construction would
not
disturb
the
ecology
or
the
environment of the area.

5. In the supplementary counter
affidavit, the respondents submitted that
the
proposed
constructions
of
the
residential quarters, i.e., the Marriage
Accommodation Project (MAP) falls
under Entry-4 of the Union List. The
defence works was entrusted to the
Military Engineering Services who plans
and executes the same through the
Defence Works Procedure. The Ministry
of Defence vide letter dated 10.9.2004,
granted administrative approval for the
construction of 1128 dwelling units, i.e.
60 dwelling units for Majors and above,
72 for JCO's and 996 dwelling units for
ORs.
at
Allahabad
Station.
While
considering the construction of the
residential quarters, the location of the
land was worked out by the Board of
Officers and the sites were prepared as
per the Zonal Plan of the Allahabad
Station. The zonal plan was made on the
basis of the Key Location Plan (KLP) of
the
station,
which
works
out
the
requirement of the land as per the land
norms, which was based on the strength
of the Officers, JCOs, ORs and civilians
in
the
station.
According
to
the
respondents, as per the KLP of Allahabad,
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
there was a net deficiency of 1761.957
acres of land, inspite of which the old
Polo Ground had been ear marked as a
site for the ''MAP' Project. This zonal plan
had been made by the Board of Senior
Officers and specialized persons basing it
on futuristic operation requirements, the
considerations
of
which
are
kept
confidential. The respondents, however,
submitted that the zonal planning had
been done keeping in view the ecological
policy which the respondents have framed
and the guidelines issued by the Army
Head Quarters. It was alleged that based
on the aforesaid guidelines, the Station
Commander constituted a Board of
Officers, which recommended various
sites for the aforesaid constructions and
recommended construction of 48 dwelling
units for Majors and above at the "old
Polo Ground" and that out of 22.77 acres
of land, 15 acres of land would be left
open to maintain the environment and the
ecological
balance.
The
respondents
submitted that the norms for calculating
the land in the army areas was such that it
embraced the ecology and was most
ecologically friendly. For instance, the
population in a station for KLP was
calculated four times the actual military
strength and open spaces is calculated 7
acres per thousand population which
means 28 acres are required to house
1000 military personel. These averments
have been made on the basis of
Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter
affidavit, which is the land requirement
sheet for Allahabad Station as per KLP,
which we shall refer to it later at the
appropriate stage.

6. The respondents further submitted
that as per the guidelines issued vide
Army
Headquarters'
letter
dated
22.6.1993, the entire planning has to be
done
on
A-1
defence
land.
The
respondents further contended that the
land in question known as old Polo
Ground was transferred to the military
authorities by the municipal authorities
sometimes between the period 1916 and
1941.

Case of Respondent No.2 (Cantonment
Board):

7.

The
Cantonment
Board,
respondent no.2 in their counter affidavit
has stated that the land in question is
under the exclusive Management of the
military
authorities
and
that
the
Cantonment Board or the Municipal
Authority has no concern with it. The
military authority has the exclusive right
to
construct
the
residential
accommodation for its married military
officers and that the petitioner has no
locus standi to file the writ petition.

Case of Respondent No.5 (District
Magistrate):

8.

The
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad appeared and also filed his own
affidavit stating therein that the old Polo
Ground was utilized in the past for
various purposes and public functions as
well as for parking of heavy vehicles
during the general election and also
during the Kumbh Mela. The affidavit
stated, that from time to time, request
were made by the District Magistrate,
Allahabad to the Sub-Area Commander,
Allahabad for using the land for official
purposes for which permission was being
granted by the Sub Area Commander. The
affidavit further stated that the road
known as Hastings Road or C.S.P. Singh
Marg which is also called by the name of
Nyaya Marg and which cuts across the
2 All] Vivek Srivastava V. Union of India and others

 585
old Polo Ground and the New Polo
Ground was now being maintained by the
P.W.D.
The
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad also stated that the Polo
Ground which is situated near the High
Court is one of the heritage of Allahabad
and is one of the important ground on
which government activities had been
taking place since long and, that since
Independence, on every Lok Sabha and
Vidhan Sabha elections, this ground had
been used for parking heavy vehicles, and
for making arrangement for the poll and
dispatching all polling parties to various
places and that there was no other suitable
place for this purpose in the city of
Allahabad except the Polo Ground. The
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
categorically stated that if the Polo
Ground was converted for any other
purpose it would cause a serious setback
to the aforesaid official activities of the
administration. The District Magistrate
further submitted that from time to time in
the past, other functions have been
organized at the Polo Ground and if the
residential complex was constructed, it
would affect the smooth administration of
the city and therefore, the old Polo
Ground should not be converted into a
residential complex.

Case of Respondent No.6 (Allahabad
Development Authority):

9. The Allahabad Development
Authority, respondent no.6 in their
counter affidavit has stated that the land
in question is outside their development
area. However, under the Master Plan
2001, the permissible density of the Civil
Lines area is 400 persons per hectare and
that, 5 persons per dwelling unit is taken
into consideration for calculating the
density of the area and, therefore, the
proposed construction would not make a
major difference in the density of the
population.

Case of Respondents No.7, 8 and 9
(Municipal
Commissioner,
Mukhya
Nagar Adhikari and Divisional Town
and Country Planner):

10.

The
Deputy
Municipal
Commissioner, Allahabad has filed an
affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.7
and 8 stating therein that the old Polo
Ground
was
beyond
the
territorial
jurisdiction of the Nagar Nigam and that
the
provisions
of
U.P.
Municipal
Corporation Act 1959 was not applicable
as the Polo Ground came in the
Cantonment area. The affidavit further
stated that if the residential quarters on
Polo
Ground
are
constructed,
the
ecological balance would be adversely
affected and that the Cantonment area
does not have any proper sewer system
nor there is any adequate arrangement for
the disposal of the garbage system.

Similar opinion was also expressed
by the Divisional Town and Country
Planner, Allahabad, respondent no.7. He,
however, further stated, that in the event
the construction was made on the land in
question, such construction should be
subject to the following conditions,
namely,

(i) 20 Meters wide green belt had to be
ensured
all
around
the
residential
complex.

(ii) No approach road from C.S.P. Singh
Road.

(iii) The approach road must be from the
opposite side of C.S.P. Singh Road.
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
(iv) An alternative side for the Polo
Ground had to be proposed on an
appropriate side.

(v) No further construction on Polo
Ground and remaining area to be kept as
an open land.

Case of interveners:

11. During the course of the hearing
of the petition, the President of the Bar
Association
High
Court,
Allahabad
appeared and requested that he may be
heard as the petition raises important
questions and affects the members of the
Bar Association. Sri Anand Mohan, a
social activist also appeared in person and
filed an application praying that he may
be permitted to intervene and be heard as
the writ petition raises vital questions on
the environment of the city of the
Allahabad. By our order, we permitted
them to be heard under Chapter XXII,
Rule 5-A of the Rules of the Court.

12. Sri Anand Mohan in his
application stated that the land in question
was earlier under the management of the
municipal authorities but pursuant to a
Notification No.2465/XI-31-C-1933 dated
8.8.1934, the land was proposed to be
included in the Cantonment limits. He
submitted that prior to 1934, the land was
under the management of the local
municipal authority and that Polo used to
be played even by the civilians and that
even after independence of our country,
the land in question had been used by the
civil administration for election purposes
and that various cultural programmes
have also been organized from time to
time. Further, the land serves as a "public
place" and prayed that the land in
question should remain as an open piece
of land and that the land in question
should revert back to the municipal or
local bodies as the case may be.

13. The land in question, known as
''old Polo Ground' covers 22.77 acres of
open land is an A-1 defence land being
managed by the military authorities and
which
is
owned
by
the
Central
Government, is located in the heart of the
city of Allahabad in the Civil Lines area
collocating the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad on the South-West, the
Government
Press,
Directorate
of
Education, Board of High School and
Intermediate Board, Board of Revenue,
Police Head Quarters and the Accountant
General's Office on the East, the Elgin
Road and the Allahabad Bank on the
South, and a portion of the residential
complex for the Judges of the High Court
on the North and further towards NorthWest by the Radio Station and Circuit
House and the Bar Council of U.P. on
North East and on the West of old Polo
Ground, by a road known as Hastings
Road, now called Justice C.S.P. Singh
Marg and also called Nyaya Marg, and
which is maintained by the Public Works
Department. Therefore, the old Polo
Ground, an open piece of land measuring
22.77 acres, is, surrounded and collocated
by civil areas. In fact, the new cantonment
begins from old Polo Ground itself.
Consequently, the old Polo Ground is
collocated with the civilian areas, being
on the border of the municipal and the
Cantonment limits.

Preliminary Objections:

14. The Union of India has raised a
preliminary objection with regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition and
submitted that the petitioner had no locus
2 All] Vivek Srivastava V. Union of India and others

 587
standi to file the petition under the garb of
a Public Interest Litigation. The learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that
a Public Interest Litigation could be filed
only if it raised an issue of public
importance, or raised an issue for the
enforcement of a fundamental right of a
large number of the members of the
public which in the present case did not
exist nor the petitioner had shown himself
as a public representative nor had shown
as to how he was interested in the land
pertaining to the Army authorities. The
learned counsel further submitted that a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India could only be
entertained by a Court from an interested
person who was concerned with the
welfare of the people and who were in a
disadvantageous position and who were
not in a position to knock on the doors of
the Court. In support of his submission,
the respondent had relied upon a decision
of the Supreme Court in Guruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee and
another v. C.K.Rajan and others,
2003(7) SCC 546 and submitted that the
petitioner had not raised any question nor
sought any relief for the benefit of the
public at large and, that it appeared that
the writ petition had been filed at the
instance of some interested organization.
The learned counsel further submitted that
the petitioner was not a resident of the
cantonment and had not chosen to stop
the mushrooming construction being
carried out in the city of Allahabad, nor
had challenged the illegal encroachment
in and around his locality and therefore, if
the veil was lifted, the vested interest
would come out which would show that a
frivolous writ petition had been filed
under the garb of a Public Interest
Litigation. The learned counsel submitted
that since no public interest was involved,
the writ petition should be thrown out
with cost.

15. The petitioner, on the other hand
contended that he is a citizen of
Allahabad and had rightly brought the
matter before the Court as the alleged
construction was bound to affect the
ecology and the environment of the city.
The open expanse of land which acted as
the lungs of the city would get choked and
if the construction is allowed, the ecology
of the city would be disturbed thereby
creating a serious imbalance to the
environment of the city. The petitioner
contended that it was not necessary that
he should be a resident of the locality
where the buildings are going to be
constructed. It was sufficient that he was a
citizen of the city of Allahabad and had
raised an issue with regard to maintaining
a
healthy
balance
between
the
urbanisation and the environment of the
city as a whole. The petitioner contended
that he had no private interest in the
matter and had brought this matter to
apprise the Court of the ecological
damage that would be caused if the
construction were allowed to be raised.
The petitioner submitted that the field of
Public Interest Litigation had expanded
and was not confined to the welfare of the
people who are weak and who were not in
a position to knock on the doors of the
Court. The learned counsel submitted,
that where ecological and environmental
issues have been raised and where the
open expanse of land was acting as the
lungs for the citizens of Allahabad for
almost 100 years, the alleged construction
on it definitely raised issues of public
importance which would benefit the
public at large and therefore, the writ
petition was maintainable and that the
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
petitioner had a locus standi to raise these
questions of public importance.

We have heard Sri Yashwant Varma
assisted by Ms. Rohma Hameed, the
learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri
S.K.Rai for the Union of India and the
Military authorities, Sri S.M.A. Kazmi,
Chief Standing Counsel, for the District
Magistrate, Municipal Commissioner and
Divisional Town and Country Planner, Sri
A. Mishra for the Allahabad Development
Authority and Sri Anand Mohan, in
person, as the intervener.

16. Taking up the issue of
maintainability of the writ petition and the
locus standi of the petitioner in filing the
present writ petition, it is well settled, that
a person acting bonafide and who has a
sufficient interest in the proceedings is
competent to file a writ petition and has a
locus standi to approach the Court and
wipe out the violation of the fundamental
rights and/or the infraction of the statutory
provisions of law.

What is public interest? Blacks Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines "public
interest" as-

"Something in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary
interest, or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected. It
does not mean anything so narrow as
mere curiosity, or as the interests of the
particular
localities,
which
may
be
affected by the matters in question.
Interest shared by citizens generally in
affairs
of
local,
state
or
national
government."

In Janta Dal vs. H.S.Chowdhary,
1992(4) SCC 305, the Supreme Court
held-

"Therefore, lexically the expression
''PIL' means a legal action initiated in a
Court of law for the enforcement of
public interest or general interest in which
the public or a class of the community
have pecuniary interest or some interest
by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected."

On the locus standi, the Supreme
Court in Janta Dal's case (supra) held-

"Though it is imperative to lay down
clear guidelines and propositions; and
outline
the
correct
parameters
for
entertaining a Public Interest Litigation-
particularly on the issue of locus standi
yet no hard and fast rules have yet been
formulated
and
no
comprehensive
guidelines have been evolved. There is
also one view that such adumbration is
not possible and it would not be expedient
to lay down any general rule which would
govern all cases under all circumstances.

Be that as it may, it is needless to
emphasise that the requirement of locus
standing of a party to be litigation is
mandatory; because the legal capacity of
the party to any litigation whether in
private or public action in relation to any
specific remedy sought for has to be
primarily ascertained at the threshold."

and further held-

"In contrast, the strict rule of locus
standi applicable to private litigation is
relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which
gives the right of locus standi to any
member of the public acting bonafide and
2 All] Vivek Srivastava V. Union of India and others

 589
having sufficient interest in instituting an
action for redressal of public wrong or
public injury, but who is not a mere
busybody or a meddlesome interloper;
since the dominant object of PIL is to
ensure observance of the provisions of the
Constitution or the law which can be best
achieved to advance the cause of
community or disadvantaged groups and
individuals
or
public
interest
by
permitting any person, having no personal
gain or private motivation or any other
oblique consideration but acting bonafide
and
having
sufficient
interest
in
maintaining an action for judicial redress
for public injury to put the judicial
machinery in motion like actio popularis
of Roman Law whereby any citizen could
bring such an action in respect of public
delict."

17. The Supreme Court in various
decisions has held that a person, acting
bonafide and having sufficient interest in
the proceedings, would have a locus
standi. The Supreme Court also cautioned
to be extremely careful and ensure that a
vexatious petition under the garb of a
Public Interest Litigation was not brought
before the Court for vindicating any
personal grievance. The Supreme Court
further held that the Courts should not
allow a busybody or a meddlesome
interloper to misuse the process of the
Court for private gain.

18. The parameters of Public
Interest Litigation have been indicated by
the Supreme Court in a large number of
cases. The guidelines so laid down by the
Supreme Court has to be applied to the
facts of each case. In defining the rule of
locus standi, no rigid litmus test can be
applied since the law relating to Public
Interest Litigation is still developing. In
this context, the Supreme Court in
S.P.Gupta and others vs. President of
India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149
held-

"The Court has to innovate new
methods and device new strategies for the
purpose of providing access to justice to
large masses of people who are denied
their basic human rights and to whom
freedom and liberty have no meaning.
The only way in which this can be done is
by entertaining writ petitions......."

19. Thus, keeping in mind the
development of the doctrine of Public
Interest Litigation and the rule governing
the locus standi, as enunciated by the
Supreme Court in various decisions, it
would be appropriate to revert to the facts
of the instant case and examine them to
find as to whether the petitioner has a
locus standi to file this petition and
whether this petition falls within the ambit
and scope of Public Interest Litigation.

20. The sum and substance (as
gathered from the averments made in the
writ petition, supplementary affidavit and
rejoinder affidavit) is, that the petitioner,
who is a resident of the city has come
forward and filed the writ petition in
public interest and prayed for intervention
and drawing the attention of this Court, to
the
detrimental
effect
which
the
construction could cause on the ecology
and environment of the city as a whole.
The petitioner has alleged that this open
piece of land available is acting as the
lungs of the city, and that these open
spaces are necessary to maintain the
ecological balance of the city. The
petitioner
has
alleged
that
if
the
construction
is
permitted,
the
open
expanse of land would vanish which in
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
turn would create a serious imbalance to
the environment of the city. The petitioner
has further stated that he has no private
gain or interest in this litigation and, as
the citizen of this city, had filed this
petition in public interest to restrain the
respondents from the immense danger
that would be caused if the construction
was allowed on the land in question. The
petitioner has complained that the open
space of land existing for years would
vanish and that the lungs of the city would
be choked if the constructions were
permitted on this land.

21. We have given our thoughtful
consideration and, we find that every
citizen has a right to breathe clean and
pure air. Right to life is enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
and, as held by the Supreme Court in
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and
others, A.I.R.1991 SC 420.

"right to live is a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution and it
includes the right of enjoyment of the
pollution free water and air for full
enjoyment of life."

Article 48-A of the Constitution of
India enjoins that the State shall endeavor
to protect and improve the environment.
The right to breathe, thus inheres the
Directive Principles of the State Policy.

22. Under Article 51-A of the
Constitution, it is the fundamental duty of
every citizen to strive, protect and
improve the natural environment. The
object of Part-IV-A of the Constitution of
India is that every citizen must feel that it
is his duty to achieve the objects laid
down under Article 51-A and one such
duty is to protect the natural environment.
In Virender Gaur and others vs.
State of Haryana and others,(1995)2
SCC 577, the Supreme Court held-

"Article 48-A in Part IV (Directive
Principles) brought by the Constitution
42nd Amendment Act, 1976, enjoins that
"the State shall endeavour to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard
the forests and wild life of the country".
Article 47 further imposes the duty on the
State to improve public health as its
primary duty. Article 51-A (g) imposes "a
fundamental duty" on every citizen of
India to "protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes,
rivers and wild life and to have
compassion for living creatures". The
word ''environment' is of broad spectrum
which brings within its ambit "hygienic
atmosphere and ecological balance". It is,
therefore, not only the duty of the State
but also the duty of every citizen to
maintain
hygienic
environment.
The
State, in particular has duty in that behalf
and to shed its extravagant unbridled
sovereign power and to forge in its policy
to
maintain ecological balance
and
hygienic environment. Article 21 protects
right to life as a fundamental right.
Enjoyment of life and its attainment
including their right to life with human
dignity encompasses within its ambit, the
protection
and
preservation
of
environment, ecological balance free from
pollution of air and water, sanitation
without which life cannot be enjoyed.
Any contra acts or actions would cause
environmental pollution. Environmental,
ecological, air, water, pollution, etc.
should be regarded as amounting to
violation
of
Article
21.
Therefore,
hygienic environment is an integral facet
of right to healthy life and it would be
impossible to live with human dignity
2 All] Vivek Srivastava V. Union of India and others

 591
without
a
humane
and
healthy
environment. Environmental protection,
therefore, has now become a matter of
grave concern for human existence.
Promoting
environmental
protection
implies maintenance of the environment
as a whole comprising the man-made and
the natural environment. Therefore, there
is a constitutional imperative on the State
Government and the municipalities, not
only to ensure and safeguard proper
environment but also an imperative duty
to take adequate measures to promote,
protect and improve both the man-made
and the natural environment."

23. Thus, in our view, an issue
relating to the enforcement of the
fundamental rights, and the Directive
Principles, which is of public importance,
is clearly involved in the present petition.
An issue relating to the urbanization and
the expansion of the city and its effect on
the ecology and the environment has been
raised which concerns the residents of
Allahabad. Therefore, the submission of
the learned counsel for the respondents,
that a Public Interest Litigation was only
for the enforcement of the fundamental
right of those people who were in a
disadvantageous position and who were
themselves not in a position to knock on
the doors of justice, in our view, a hyper
technical approach raised only to defeat
the ends of justice and the objects
enshrined in Part III and IV of the
Constitution. It is now well settled by the
Courts, that if there was a violation of the
fundamental right or other legal right, a
person or a class of person has a right to
approach the Court for the enforcement of
the fundamental right or to correct a legal
injury.
We
have
no
material
or
circumstances to hold that this petition
had been filed for the vindication of any
personal grudge or enmity of the
petitioner with the respondents. In fact,
we hold, that the petitioner had bonafidely
approached this Court in larger interest
and to safeguard the fundamental rights of
the residents of the city.

24. If anything endangers or impairs
the quality of life in derogation of the
laws, the petitioner had an equal right,
like any other citizen to come forward for
the prevention of the damage that could
be caused by the alleged construction to
the lungs of the city and its impact on the
ecology
and
the
environment.
The
petitioner
has
rightly
invoked
the
grievance in a public interest action with
regard to the conduct and action of the
military authorities in relation to the
constitutional and statutory rights of the
citizens of this city. We have, therefore,
no hesitation in holding that the petitioner
has a locus standi to file a Public Interest
Litigation and that the writ petition is
maintainable.

Relevant Statutory Provisions:

25. Before proceedings further, it
would be relevant to place a few
provisions of the Cantonment Land
Administration Rules 1937 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules). These Rules
were framed under section 280 of the
Cantonment Act 1934. Chapter II of the
said Rules deals with the classification
and transfers of land. Rules 3,4,5, 7 and 9
of Chapter II of the Rules of 1937 which
are relevant for the purpose of this case,
are quoted hereunder:

"3. General Land Register (1) The
Military Estates Officer shall prepare, in
the form prescribed in Schedule I, a
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
General Land Register of all lands in the
Cantonment-
(a) inside bazaars; and
(b) outside bazaars.

(2) No addition or alteration shall be
made in the General Land Register except
with the previous sanction of the Central
Government or such other authority as the
Central Government may appoint for this
purpose or in accordance with the
provisions of rules 10 and 45.

4. Classification of land for the
purposes of the General Land Register
prescribed by rule 3-