HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, AT RANCHI

PIL No. ____/2018

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

- IN THE MATTER OF –

MESRA BANCHAO MANCH ………...……………………………….………….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF JHARKHAND …………………………………………………………Respondent

______________________________________________

________________

Memorial on behalf of the Petitioner

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Astha Mishra

Roll No. 565

Sem: VI “B

Memorandum for the Petitioner

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... 3

Books ........................................................................................................................................... 3

International Treaties and Conventions and Statistical Records ................................................. 3

Statues Referred .......................................................................................................................... 3

Reports ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Websites:- .................................................................................................................................... 4

Cases cited:- ................................................................................................................................ 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATION ........................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 12

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 21

2
Memorandum for the Petitioner
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

1. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa,

2010)
2. SHYAM DIVAN & ARMIN ROSENCRANZ, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY, (2nd Ed,
Oxford University Press, 2012)
3. DR. H.N. TIWARI, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (3rd Ed, Allahabad Law Agency, 2010)
4. DR. S.C. TRIPATHI & MRS. VIBHA ARORA, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, (5th Ed, Central Law
Publications, 2013)
5. P.W.BIRNIE & A.E.BOYLE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT, (2nd Ed,
Oxford University Press, 2004)
6. DHARMENDRA S. SENGAR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PHI Learning Private Limited,2012)
7. ZAFAR MAHFOOZ MOMANI, ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT LAWS, (Satyam Law
International, 2010)
8. 1-10 ACHARYA DR. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
(11th Ed. , Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2009)
9. 1-3 ARVIND P.DATAR, DATAR COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (2nd Ed. ,
Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010)

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS AND STATISTICAL RECORDS

1. United Nations Charter, 1945

2. Stockholm Declaration, 1972
3. Rio Declaration, 1992
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III)
5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 2200 A (XXI)

STATUES REFERRED

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
3. JDA, 2001

3
Memorandum for the Petitioner
 REPORTS
1. House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee Public parks
Seventh Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 30 January 2017
2. The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space, Paul M.
Sherer Published by: 116 New Montgomery Street Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 495-4014 www.tpl.org ©2006 the Trust for Public Land - Reprint of “Parks for People”
white paper, published in 2003.
3. The Health Benefits of Small Parks and Green Spaces, April 3, 2017, Department, by
Kathleen L. Wolf, Ph.D.

WEBSITES

1. http://www.manupatra.com
2. http://www.westlaw.com
3. http://lexisnexis.com

CASES CITED

1. Entertainment Network (I) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries, 2008 (9) SCALE 69
2. His Holiness Kesavanada Bharati Sripadavalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
3. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759
4. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438
5. Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. BirendrabahadurPandey (1984) 2 SCC 534
6. Tractor Export v. Tarapore& Co. (1969) 3 SCC 562, Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United
Arab Republic, (1966) 1 SCR 391
7. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
8. State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685
9. Bokaro v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 516 : 1962 (Supp-3) SCR 831
10. Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal., AIR 1962 SC 1044 (1047) : 1962 (Supp-3)
SCR 1.
11. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Tech ,128 ALR 353

4
Memorandum for the Petitioner
12. Rural Litigation and entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1988
SC 2187; Kendra,
13. Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh,AIR 1988 SC 2187
14. M/s. J. Mohapatra& Co. v. Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572, 1574 : (1984) 4 SCC 108
15. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1981 Supp SCC 87
16. Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 : AIR 2007 SC 1812

17. D.D. Vyas and others vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority,

18. Ghaziabad and another (13.04.1992 - ALLHC) : MANU/UP/0018/1993
19. Shehri and Others v. Province of Sindh and Others (22.05.2001 - SKPK) :
LEX/SKPK/0208/2001,
20. Gias Uddin v. Dhaka Municipal Corporation and others (21.11.1996 - BDHC) :
LEX/BDHC/0229/1996
21. Gulab Kothari and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (12.01.2017 - RAJHC) :
MANU/RH/0184/2017

5
Memorandum for the Petitioner
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
¶ : Paragraph

AIR : All India Reporter

Art. : Article

EC : Environmental Clearance

EIA : Environmental Impact Assessment

EPA : Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Factsheet : Statement of Facts

HLEC : High Level Expert Committee

Hon'ble : Honourable

ICCPR : International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

MoEF : Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India

NGT : National Green Tribunal

PIL : Public Interest Litigation

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

UDHR : Universal Declaration of Human Rights

6
Memorandum for the Petitioner
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached this court under Article 2261 of the Indian Constitution.

1
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation
to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part
III and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such
order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel
of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it
is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High
Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as
the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

7
Memorandum for the Petitioner
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.

After the formation of State of Jharkhand, the capital Ranchi has become one of the important
cities in India and the developmental processes due to urbanization and industrialization is going
rapidly in every part of the town Ranchi. Construction of multistoried buildings, housing
complex, shopping malls, recreation centres, Hospital, hotels and other new buildings are being
made indiscriminately throughout the whole country. In this way various builders and
construction companies have made their business with the help of various modes of corruptions.
In the mean time, the State legislature has passed the Ranchi Development Authority Act, 2006
to regulate all the building rules and regulation and also area planning for the area the
surrounding Ranchi.

II.

All the vacant lands were occupied by them, felling of trees are going on, filling of water bodies
are in force. In 2005, one vacant land in the area of Mesra near BIT more was allotted by state
government to Damodar Valley Corporation for establishing their housing complex for
employees and one Alfa Health group of companies for developing one highly sophisticated
nursing home with all modern amenities. But the said land had been using by local people for the
long period as public park. The said park was only open space for local children to play and
leisure. The local people of the Mesra area was very much disturbed related to such type of
allotment. They formed one association i.e. Mesra Banchao Manch and complained before
Municipal Corporation about the construction of the said building which is not following the
building norms. But Municipality did not entertain the matter as the area is beyond the territorial
limit of municipality.

III.

When they approached to the Ranchi Development Authority (RDA) they told the said land was
allotted before the formation of RDA by the State government. They met with Chief Minister at
his office then Chief Minister and other members of the government told them out of 123 acres
of land they have allotted 79 acres to the both companies. Only In this course of time Alfa Group
announced they will give 100 jobs to the local residents in their Nursing Home and Hospitals. -

8
Memorandum for the Petitioner
This announcement has bifurcated the movement of Manch and some young members of them
formed a separate group as Mesra Mukti Morcha for the betterment of the area. The area has
become a conflict place for Ranchi relating to land disputes. Now Mesra Banchao Manch has
approached before the High Court of Jharkhand for Public Park for that area. Argue in favour
and against Manch.

9
Memorandum for the Petitioner
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable before this Hon’ble High Court?
2. Whether the act of the state has led to the violation of fundamental right to environment?
3. Whether the act of bifurcation of the park is reasonable and justified?

10
Memorandum for the Petitioner
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the petition filed by Forum for Mesra Banchao Manch is maintainable before the
High Court of Jharkhand?

The petition filed by Mesra Banchao Manch is maintainable. Firstly, the violation of the
obligation to preserve the environment would infringe the fundamental right of the people of
Jharkhand. Therefore, the High Court of Jharkhand is the appropriate forum to enforce the
legal right of the Petitioner.

2.Whether the act of the state has led to the violation of fundamental right to environment?

Protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, play grounds 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

3.Whether the act of bifurcation of the park is reasonable and justified?

The petitioner contends that there is no need of bifurcation of the land, as the land even when
completely devoted to the park is capable of generating a lot of revenue and other benefits for
the people of the community.

11
Memorandum for the Petitioner
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

THE PETITION FILED BY FORUM FOR Mesra Banchao Manch IS MAINTAINABLE.

The writ petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent is maintainable before the High
Court of Jharkhand as the government is under an obligation to protect environmental damage
[A]. Further, the violation of such obligation would infringe the fundamental right of the
Petitioner [B] and therefore, the High Court of Jharkhand is the appropriate forum to enforce the
legal right of the Petitioner [C].

A. STATE IS BOUND TO FOLLOW INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

In order to fulfill spirit of international obligations which India has entered into, when they are
not in conflict with the existing domestic law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extensively made
use of international law.2 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that certain
International Conventions, to which India is a party, impose an obligation upon the State to
fulfill them.

THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE

A public spirited citizens having faith in rule of law are rendering great social and legal service
by espousing cause of public nature. They cannot be ignored or overlooked on technical or
conservative yardstick of the rule of locus standi or absence of personal loss or injury. Present
day development of this branch of jurisprudence is towards free movement both in nature of
litigation and approach of the courts.

State has duty to not violate the human rights

Where the protection of environment, ecology and other second generation or third generation
right is involved, the courts shall not be loathe to refer to the International Conventions.3 Art. 51
of the Indian Constitution directs the State that it shall endeavour to foster respect for
international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another. In

2
Entertainment Network (I) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries, 2008 (9) SCALE 69
3
Id.

12
Memorandum for the Petitioner
the case of His Holiness Kesavanada Bharati Sripadavalvaru v. State of Kerala,4it was stated
that in view of Art. 51 of the Constitution, the Court must interpret language of the Constitution,
if not intractable, in the light of United Nations Charter and the solemn declaration subscribed to
it by India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also pointed out in the case of Apparel Export
Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra,5 that domestic courts are under an obligation to give due
regard to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic laws, more so,
when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. In other words,
Courts in India would apply the rules of international law according to the principles of comity
of Nations, unless they are overridden by clear rules of domestic law.6

It is almost accepted proposition of law that the rules of customary international law which are
not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law
and shall be followed by the courts of law.7 As India is a member of United Nations8 and a
ratified party to the aforementioned Stockholm9 and Rio Declarations10 and UN Charter11 it is
bound to follow the obligations and responsibilities set out by these International Instruments.

B. PETITIONERS HAVE AN ENFORCEABLE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

The existence of a right is the foundation of a petition under Art. 226.12 The right alleged may be
a fundamental right13 or an ordinary legal right.14

Obligation is a corollary to duty and duty is a corollary to right

Obligation in its popular sense is merely a synonym for duty. 15 When the law recognizes an act
as a duty, it commonly enforces the performance of it, or punishes the disregard of it. 16 Every
duty must be a duty towards some person or persons, in whom therefore, a correlative right is
4
His Holiness Kesavanada Bharati Sripadavalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
5
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759
6
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438; Also see, Gramophone Company of India
Ltd. v. BirendrabahadurPandey (1984) 2 SCC 534 and Tractor Export v. Tarapore& Co. (1969) 3 SCC 562, Mirza
Ali Akbar Kashani v. United Arab Republic, (1966) 1 SCR 391
7
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
8
Clarifications to the Fact Sheet, question no. 8
9
See http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/PartiesandSignatories/tabid/252/Default.aspx
10
See http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php
11
See https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-1&chapter=1&lang=en
12
State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685
13
Bokaro v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 516 : 1962 (Supp-3) SCR 831
14
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal., AIR 1962 SC 1044 (1047) : 1962 (Supp-3) SCR 1.
15
SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE, 446 (P J Fitzgerald, 12th Ed, Universal Law Publishing Co. 2010)
16
Id., p. 217

13
Memorandum for the Petitioner
vested. There can therefore be no duty unless there is someone to whom it is due; there can be no
right unless there is someone from whom it is claimed; and there can be no wrong unless there is
someone who is wronged.17 Thus, there cannot be a duty without a corresponding right.18

It is almost accepted proposition of law that the rules of customary international law which are
not contrary to the municipal law shall be followed by the courts of law. 19 The rules laid down in
the aforementioned International Instruments casts an obligation upon the Respondents the
following of which is their duty. This duty is directed towards the Petitioners for the reason that
the failure of this internationally casted duty would wrong the Petitioners and hence the
Petitioners has a title, that is to say, certain facts or events by reason of which the right has
become vested in them.

Furthermore, International law can be used to provide a relief contained in a covenant but not in
national law.20 As Aressia is a ratified party of these conventions it creates a legitimate
expectation amongst the people with regard to its observance. This rule of legitimate expectation
of an international rule has been recognized in the case of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
Affairs v. Tech.21 For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioners have a legal right which is
enforceable and this legal right flows from the ‘enforceable public duty’ that is casted upon the
Respondent.

Also, the Petitioners Right to Life which is a Fundamental Right guaranteed by the
Constitution22 which includes within it Right to Environment23 is also in imminent danger of
being violated by the Respondent.

C. HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE FORUM

It is humbly submitted that the High Court of Jharkhand is the most appropriate forum as Firstly,
the Petitioners have the locus standi to file the petition. The law with respect to locus standi has

17
Id., p. 216
18
Id., p. 220
19
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
20
Entertainment Network (I) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries, 2008 (9) SCALE 69
21
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Tech ,128 ALR 353
22
Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
23
Rural Litigation and entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 2187; Kendra,
Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh,AIR 1988 SC 2187

14
Memorandum for the Petitioner
considerably advanced.24 Whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or
omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law any
member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for
redressal of such wrong or public injury.25 In the instant case the act of state government would
cause a public wrong. Further, the members of Mesra Banchao Manch are the residents of the
area where the impact of the said action of State would be realized, has sufficient interest to
maintain an action of public injury and pray for the observance of constitutional law. Hence,
Mesra Banchao Manch has the Locus Standi to file the instant writ petition.

Secondly, A High Court can issue a writ if the cause of action either wholly or partly arises
within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction.26 Cause of action implies a right to sue.27 Cause
of action can be interpreted to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court.28 Even if a small
fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.29 In the instant case the High Court of Jharkhand
is competent vide Article 226 (2) to accept the said petition as the writ is well within its
territorial jurisdiction.

SECONDLY, THAT THERE HAS BEEN VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

TO ENVIRONMENT

In Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Mudappa30 the Supreme Court struck down the order of the
Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'B.D.A.), allotting areas reserved for public park
and play grounds, to private persons and permitting construction of buildings for hospital thereon
by them. In this case, an open space was reserved for a public park under a duly sanctioned
Scheme. However, pursuant to the orders of the State Government, the B.D.A. by its resolution
allotted the open space in favour of a medical trust for the purpose of constructing a hospital. The
contention of the trust was that the public would be benefited more from the hospital than from a
24
M/s. J. Mohapatra& Co. v. Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 1572, 1574 : (1984) 4 SCC 108
25
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1981 Supp SCC 87
26
Art. 226 (2) of The Constitution of India, 1950
27
MP JAIN,INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,429 (6th ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2010)
28
Id.,
29
Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335 : AIR 2007 SC 1812
30
1991 (3) JT 172 : MANU/SC/0426/1991)

15
Memorandum for the Petitioner
park, for which the open space was reserved, and that the open space having been diverted for a
better purpose, the order of the State Government be not interfered with. Such a plea was
negatived by the Supreme Court, which emphasized that it is the preservation of the quality of
life of the community that is sought to be protected by the Scheme reserving open space for a
public park. The Supreme Court said that alteration of the Scheme must be for the purpose Of
improving and better development of the city of Bangalore and adjoining areas and for general
application for the benefit of the public at large. Any alteration of the Scheme with a view to
conferring a benefit on a particular person and without regard to the general good of the public at
large, is not an improvement contemplated by the Section. Stressing on the legislative intent
behind reserving open space for a park, the Supreme Court observed:

"All these provisions unmistakably point to the legislative intent to preserve a public park or
public play ground in the hands of the general public, as represented by the B.D.A. or any other
public authority, and, thus, prevent private hands from grabbing them for private ends."

The Supreme Court continued to observe in paras 23 and 24 at pages 184 and 185:

"Conversion of the open space reserved for a park for the general good of the public into a site
for the construction of a privately owned and managed hospital for private gains is not an
alteration for improvement of the scheme as contemplated by Section 19, and the impugned
orders in that be half are a flagrant violation of the legislative intent and a colourable exercise
of power..... The very purpose of the B.D.A., 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 the by preservation of
the character and desirable aesthetic features of the city."

20. In paragraph 25 on page 85, the Supreme Court emphasized the utility of public parks thus:

"Protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, play grounds 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 B.D.A. The public interest
in the reservation and preservation of open spaces for parks and play grounds cannot be
sacrificed by leasing or selling such sites to private persons for conversion to some other user.

16
Memorandum for the Petitioner
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."

Applying the victim of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust (supra), it must be held
that the Authority cannot amend the plan under Section 13(1) so as to deprive the public of a
public park. Not only the G.D.A. even the State Government cannot alter the plan under Section
13(2) so as to enable the Authority to use open space, earmarked for a public park, for a different
purpose. Whereas Section 13(1) carries several limitations, Section 13(2) gives the State
Government unlimited powers to make amendments in the plan of the nature specified in sub-
section (1) or otherwise. The words "or otherwise" occurring in Section 13(2) cannot be
interpreted to mean that the State Government has a right to alter the plan so as to enable the
G.D.A. to use the open space, reserved for a park, for the purposes having no semblance of a
park. In Bangalore Medical Trust (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that once an open space
is dedicated for a park that cannot be converted into any other purpose.31

THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE RESPONDENT ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL

The petitioner contends that there is no need of bifurcation of the land, as the land even when
completely devoted to the park is capable of generating a lot of revenue and other benefits for the
people of the community.

Economic Benefits of Parks

Increased Property Values

“The real estate market consistently demonstrates that many people are willing to pay a larger
amount for a property located close to parks and open space areas than for a home that does not

31
D.D. Vyas and others vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and another (13.04.1992 - ALLHC) :
MANU/UP/0018/1993 also refer to : Shehri and Others v. Province of Sindh and Others (22.05.2001 - SKPK) :
LEX/SKPK/0208/2001, Gias Uddin v. Dhaka Municipal Corporation and others (21.11.1996 - BDHC) :
LEX/BDHC/0229/1996

17
Memorandum for the Petitioner
offer this amenity,” writes John L. Crompton, a professor at Texas A&M University who has
published extensive research on parks and recreation32 Repeated studies over the years have
confirmed that people prefer to buy homes close to parks, open space, and greenery.

In a 2001 survey conducted for the National Association of Realtors by Public Opinion
Strategies, 50 percent of respondents said they would be willing to pay 10 percent more for a
house located near a park or other protected open space. In the same survey, 57 percent of
respondents said that if they were in the market to buy a new home, they would be more likely to
select one neighborhood over another if it was close to parks and open space.33

“It is well known and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that residential plots sell at a much
higher price than the agriculture land. To sell the land as plots, a part of the land has to be left to
provide for common purposes such as roads, community centre, schools and parks. Having taken
advantage of selling the plots in a developed colony and charging a higher price, which were
purchased by the inhabitants with the understanding that civic amenities including the park were
well provided for, the plaintiff-respondents cannot be permitted to turn around to claim the land
left in the Scheme for being used as a park as their personal property."34

Tourism Benefits

A park often becomes one of a city’s signature attractions, a prime marketing tool to attract
tourists, conventions, and businesses.

Organized events held in public parks-arts festivals, athletic events, food festivals, musical and
theatrical events-often bring substantial positive economic impacts to their communities, filling
hotel rooms and restaurants and bringing customers to local stores.71

Environmental Benefits of Parks

Pollution Abatement and Cooling

32
33
John L. Crompton, The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property Values and the Property Tax Base (Ashburn,
Va.: National Recreation and Park Association, 2000), p. 1.
34
Gulab Kothari and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (12.01.2017 - RAJHC) : MANU/RH/0184/2017

18
Memorandum for the Petitioner
Green space in urban areas provides substantial environmental benefits.

Trees and the soil under them also act as natural filters for water pollution. Their leaves, trunks,
roots, and associated soil remove polluted particulate matter from the water before it reaches
storm sewers. Trees also absorb nutrients created by human activity, such as nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium, which otherwise pollute streams and lakes.35 Trees also act as
natural air conditioners to help keep cities cooler, mitigating the effects of concrete and glass that
can turn cities into ovens under the summer sun. The evaporation from a single large tree can
produce the cooling effect of ten room-size air conditioners operating 24 hours a day.

Social Benefits of Parks

Among the most important benefits of city parks-though perhaps the hardest to quantify-is their
role as community development tools. City parks make inner-city neighborhoods more livable;
they offer recreational opportunities for at-risk youth, low-income children, and lowincome
families; and they provide places in low-income neighborhoods where people can experience a
sense of community.36

Reducing Crime Recreation Opportunities:

Access to public parks and recreational facilities has been strongly linked to reductions in crime
and in particular to reduced juvenile delinquency. Recreational facilities keep at-risk youth off
the streets, give them a safe environment to interact with their peers, and fill up time within
which they could otherwise get into trouble.37

For small children, playing is learning. Play has proved to be a critical element in a child’s future
success. Play helps kids develop muscle strength and coordination, language, cognitive thinking,
and reasoning abilities. “Research on the brain demonstrates that play is a scaffold for
development, a vehicle for increasing neural structures, and a means by which all children
practice skills they will need in later life,” according to the Association for Childhood Education

35
Jeff Beattie, Cheryl Kollin, and Gary Moll, “Trees Help Cities Meet Clean Water Regulations,” American Forests
(summer 2000), p. 18, http://www.americanforests.org/downloads/graytogreen/treeshelpcities.pdf.
36
Witt and Crompton, “The At-risk Youth Recreation Project.”
37
Beattie, Knollin, and Moll, “Trees Help Cities Meet Clean Water Regulations,” p. 18

19
Memorandum for the Petitioner
International.38 teaches children how to interact and cooperate with others, laying foundations for
success in school and the working world. Exercise has been shown to increase the brain’s
capacity for learning. In 1999, researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute found that
voluntary running boosts the growth of new nerve cells and improves learning and memory in
adult mice. The new nerve cells were concentrated in a part of the brain called the hippocampus,
which plays a central role in memory formation, including spatial learning-locating objects in the
environment-and consciously recalling facts, episodes, and unique events.39

38
Joan Packer Isenberg and Nancy Quisenberry, “Play: Essential For All Children,” Association for Childhood
Education International, 2002,http://www.udel.edu/bateman/acei/playpaper.htm.
39
Henriette van Praag et al., “Running Enhances Neurogenesis, Learning, and Long-term Potentiation in Mice,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96, no. 23 (November 9, 1999): 13427-13431,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/23/13427. See also press release at
http://www.hhmi.org/news/sejnowski.html.

20
Memorandum for the Petitioner
 PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the Petitioner humbly prays before the Hon’ble court that the present petition is allowed and the
court to order –

4. That the area is re- allotted for the park.

5. That the bifurcation of the park will not take place.
6. The claims of the Mesra Mukti Morcha are not justified.

And pass any order in favor of the appellant that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity
and good conscience.

All of which is most respectfully submitted before this Court.

Counsel on behalf of Petitioner

21
Memorandum for the Petitioner