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. 1. See Kharak Singh v. The State of U. P., (1964) 1 SCR 332 ; Municipal Council, Ratlant v. Shri Vardhi.chand, (1981) 1 SCR 97; Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 2 SCR 516; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 847 and Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1782. 25. Reservation of open spaces for parks and play grounds is universally recognized as a legitimate exercise of 'statutory power rationally related to the protection of the residents of the locality from the ill-effects of urbanisation.*2 2. See for e.g. : - Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954; The Travancore Town and Country Planning Act, 1120; The Madras Town Planning Act, 1920; and the Rules framed under these Statutes; Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (England and Wales); Encyclopaedia Americana, Volume 22 page 240; Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Volume XII at page 161; Town Improvement Trusts in India, 1945 by Rai Sahib Om Prakash Aggrawala, p. 35 et. seq; 'Halsbury's Statutes, Fourth Edition, p. 17 et. seq. and Journal of Planning and Environment Law, 1973 p. 130 et. seq. See also: Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, (1978) 57 Law Ed 2d 631 438 US 104; Village of Belle Terre v. Bruce Boraas, (1974) Law Ed 2d 797 : 416 US 1; Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company, (1926) 272 US 365; Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd., (1961) 1 WLR 683. 26. 26. In Agins v. City of Tiburon, (1980) 447 US 255, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a zoning ordinance which provided....it is in the public interest to avoid unnecessary conversion of open space land to strictly urban uses, thereby protecting against the resultant impacts, such as.... pollution,.... destruction of scenic beauty, disturbance of the ecology and the environment, hazards related to geology, fire and flood, and other demonstrated consequences of urban sprawl'. Upholding the ordinance, the Court said:- ...The State of California has determined that the development of local open-space plans will discourage the "premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses". The specific zoning regulations at issue are exercises of the city's police power to protect the residents of Tiburon from the ill-effects of urbanization. Such governmental purposes long have been recognised as legitimate. The zoning ordinances benefit the appellants as well as the public by serving the city's interest in assuring careful and orderly development of residential property with provision for openspace areas..." 3. See comments on this decision by Thomas J Schoenbaum, Environment Policy Law-1985p. 438 et.seq. See also summary and comments, (1980) 10 ELR 10125 et. seq.
