{"id":294,"date":"2020-10-08T12:27:24","date_gmt":"2020-10-08T12:27:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/?p=294"},"modified":"2020-10-08T12:27:26","modified_gmt":"2020-10-08T12:27:26","slug":"decision-to-convert-public-parks-into-residential-areas-in-faridabad-city-stayed-by-punjab-haryana-high-court-stating-every-citizen-has-a-fundamental-right-to-fresh-air","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/2020\/10\/08\/decision-to-convert-public-parks-into-residential-areas-in-faridabad-city-stayed-by-punjab-haryana-high-court-stating-every-citizen-has-a-fundamental-right-to-fresh-air\/","title":{"rendered":"DECISION TO CONVERT PUBLIC PARKS INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN FARIDABAD CITY STAYED BY PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT STATING EVERY CITIZEN HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FRESH AIR"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The petitioners, Jan Kalyan Samiti – a registered body under the provisions of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, had approached the High Court against illegal encroachments upon open spaces and parks after which it was revealed that the Government of Haryana proposed to convert these spaces into residential areas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On 6th<\/sup> October\n2020, during proceedings of the case, Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized\nthat every citizen has a fundamental right to fresh air. The ecology and\nenvironment of the area would be affected drastically if the parks are converted\ninto the residential area.
\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench of Justice Rajiv\nSharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu were hearing a petition challenging the\ndecision of the Government of Haryana to convert Public Park into the\nresidential area (in N.I.T., Faridabad).
\n
\nAccording to the averments made in the petition, Faridabad Township came into\nexistence immediately after partition of the country in 1947. A master-plan was\ndrawn for development of the Township making provision for parks, schools and\ngreen areas. According to the master-plan, residential areas of Faridabad\nIndustrial Township were divided into five parts. Each part was named as\nneighbourhood i.e. Neighbourhood \u2013 I, II, III, IV and V. The total area of\nthese parks was 7.5 Acres approximately. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npetitioner-society had approached the High Court against illegal encroachments\nupon open spaces and parks in the Faridabad Industrial Township. During the\ncourse of hearings, it was revealed that the Government of Haryana proposed to\nconvert these spaces into residential areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Describing\nthe State\u2019s new proposal as a nullification of the Court’s orders, the Court\nstated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/em>It was expected from the\nrespondents to evict the illegal encroachers from the public land instead of\nnullifying the orders passed by this Court from time to time by converting the\npark into residential areas<\/em>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In pleadings, the residential society had termed the new plan proposed by the State as unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 48 of the Constitution. The Court agreed that the State took a U-Turn while proposing to convert parks into residential areas and cited Supreme Court rulings in similar fact situations and stayed the proposal of State Government of Haryana to convert parks into open areas till further orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The petitioners, Jan Kalyan Samiti – a registered body under the provisions of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, had approached the High Court against illegal encroachments upon open spaces and parks after which it was revealed that the Government of Haryana proposed to convert these spaces into residential areas. On 6thRead more about DECISION TO CONVERT PUBLIC PARKS INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN FARIDABAD CITY STAYED BY PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT STATING EVERY CITIZEN HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FRESH AIR<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethicallegal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=294"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":297,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294\/revisions\/297"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}