Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav’s dream project to build a park in memory of senior party leader the late Janeshwar Misra seems to have hit another roadblock.
Barely had the controversy over the change of name (from Ambedkar Green Garden to Janeshwar Misra Park) subsided that the apex court has now directed the authorities to maintain a status quo over a large chunk of the land which is part of the 370-acre park proposed in the Gomti Nagar Extension Housing Scheme in the state capital.
“A petition challenging the acquisition of its 136 acres of land in and around the proposed area of the park was moved by the Adarsh Samuhik Sahkari Awas Samiti and others in 2006. Owing to default by the petitioner, the case was later on dismissed. On an application by the petitioner, the Supreme Court on Tuesday restored the petition and its earlier order to maintain status quo on the petitioner’s land,” said a senior officer.
A battery of lawyers and state government officials, led by Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) vice-chairman Rajneesh Dube, were camping in New Delhi since Saturday to ensure the park project was not affected in any way over the land tussle.
In fact, till late Tuesday evening, senior government officials were busy trying to convince the higher-ups that the apex court order in no way restrained them from going ahead with the project.
“While allowing the pending appeal before it with immediate effect, the SC has clearly said that this will not affect the orders that may have been passed in the meanwhile by the Allahabad high court,” said another senior officer.
He said this was in keeping with the order of the Lucknow bench of the high court, which on a plea moved by LDA, had given it the go-ahead on the park project.
In short, the development agency, he said, could proceed with the beautification and plantation work of the park without encroaching on the land that was the subject matter of the apex court order.
“The impact of the restraint order and its ensuing consequences were evaluated when the question arose how to demarcate this 136-acres of the petitioner’s land, which is not consolidated at one place but scattered all over from the remaining area,” pointed out the official.