(i) In Virender Gaur and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 1998 (I) CTC 143, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"8. Section 203 of the Act enjoins the Municipality to frame the Scheme Providing environmental and sanitary amenities and obtain sanction from the competent authority to provide, preserve and protect parks, open lands, sanitation roads, sewage, etc. to maintain ecological balance with hygienic atmosphere not only to the present residents in the locality but also to the future generation. The lands vested in s. 61(c) of the Act should be used for the purposes envisaged therein. We do not agree with the appellants for non-user of open land by the Municipality for more than two decades, the land stood divested from the Municipality and vested in them. Yet the Municipality has to use the land for the purposes envisaged in the Scheme read with those found in s. 61 unless unavoidable compelling public purpose require change of user. Take a case where in the zonal plan certain land is marked out and reserved for park or recreational purpose. It cannot be acquired or allotted for building purpose though housing is public purpose.
9. Section 66 gives power to the Municipality to transfer any of the lands vested in it to the Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act but they will be subject to s. 64 thereof and other related purposes. Section 250 of the Act reserves general power in the Government and it provides that the State Government may issue directions to any Committee for carrying out the purposes of the Act and, in particular, (a) with regard to various uses to which any land within municipal area may be put (e) adoption of development measures and measures for promotion of public safety, health, convenience and welfare; and (f) sanitation and cleanliness etc. Therefore, the Government, though, have power to give directions that power should be used only to effectuate and further goals of the approved Scheme, zonal plans etc. and the land vested under the Scheme or reserved under the plan would not be directed to be used for any other public purposes within the area envisaged thereunder unless grave compelling purpose of general public demands/requires issuance of such directions.
10. The question is whether the Government can lease the land to the private trust like PSS-4th respondent in the appeal. It is seen that the land is vested in the municipality and the Government have no right and title or interest therein. They have no power to give either by lease to PSS or deal with the property as if the land vested in it. Therefore, the grant to lease by the Government in favour of PSS is clearly without authority of law and jurisdiction. This Court has considered the power of the Government to grant lease or issue directions to the Corporation to lease out open land reserved for public use to private trust to establish hospital and explained the context in which the power could be exercised when the land was reserved for town scheme or city scheme in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa , JT 1991 (3) SC 172 : (1991) 4 SCC 54. The facts therein were that a site near the Sankey's Tank in Rajamahal Vilas Extension in the City of Bangalore was reserved as an open space in an improvement scheme adopted under the City of Bangalore improvement Act, 1945. Pursuant to the orders of the State Government dated May 27, 1976 and June 11, 1976 and by its resolution dated July 14, 1976, the Bangalore Development Authority allotted the open space in favour of the appellant, a Medical Trust, for the purpose of constructing a hospital. That allotment was challenged by the respondents in the locality. This Court considered the power of the Government for granting assignment or directions to lease out in favour of the private trust and consequential effect emanating from the user of the land reserved for public purpose or to any other purpose. In para 23 of the judgment, this Court held that 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 ill-effects of urbanisation. It meant for the 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. The statutory object 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. In paragraph 25 of the judgment, this Court further held that the reservation of open spaces for parks and playgrounds are universally recognised as a legitimate exercise of statutory power nationally related to the protection of the residents of the locality from the ill-effects of urbanisation. The residents of the locality are the persons intimately, vitally and adversely affected by any action of the BDA and the Government which is destructive of the environment and which deprives them of facilities reserved for the enjoyment and protection of the health of the public at large. The residents of the locality, such as the writ petitioners, are naturally aggrieved by the impugned orders and they have, therefore, the necessary locus standi. The action of the Government and the BDA was held to be inconsistent with and contrary to the legislative intent to safeguard the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the locality. These orders evidence a colourable exercise of power and are opposed to the statutory scheme. The ratio therein squarely applies to the facts in this case.