* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA NOS.406/2008 AND 432/2008
1. LPA No.406/2008
J.R. Desai and another .....Appellants
Through: Ms.Malvika Rajkotia with Mr.Ravi
Gupta, Ms.Arpita, Mr.Ramakant
Sharma, Ms.Jyoti Sharma and
Mr.Bandan Kumar, Advocates
Versus
Maharani Bagh Co-op.
Society and ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.A.N. Haskar and Mr.Rajiv
Nayar, Sr. Advocates with Mr.R.
Sudhinder, Advocate for
respondents No.1-2.
Mr.Rajiv Bansal with Mr.Rajan
Tyagi, Advocates for DDA.
Mr.Amit K. Paul, Advocate for
MCD.
AND
2. LPA No.432/2008
J.R. Desai and another .....Appellants
Through: Ms.Malvika Rajkotia with Mr.Ravi
Gupta, Ms.Arpita, Mr.Ramakant
Sharma, Ms.Jyoti Sharma and
Mr.Bandan Kumar, Advocates
Versus
Delhi Development Authority and ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA.
Mr.A.N. Haskar and Mr.Rajiv
Nayar, Sr. Advocates with Mr.R.
Sudhinder, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Mr.Amit K. Paul, Advocate for
MCD.
LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008 page 1 of 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1.Whether reporters of the local news papers be
allowed to see the judgment?n
2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?n
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?n
ORDER
% 5.8.2008 CM No.10711/2008 in LPA No.406/2008 (exemption) CM No.10849/2008 in LPA No.432/2008 (exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
LPA No.406/2008 and CM No.10710/2008 (stay) LPA No.432/2008 and CM No.10850/2008 (condonation of delay)
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the records with their assistance. The appellants had filed two writ petitions against the respondents, which were dismissed by the learned single Judge. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
2. The appellants are the residents of respondent - Maharani Bagh Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as the respondent society). They had filed the writ petitions challenging the allotment of plot bearing number 1, Central Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi measuring 961.5 sq. meters to the respondent society for construction of a community hall. The sanction of LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008 page 2 of 5 building plans is also challenged. The principal contention is that the allotment of plot vide lease deed dated 4th July, 2001 is contrary to the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001. It does not meet the parameters with regard to plot size and other requirements specified under the said Master Plan under the heading "Socio Cultural Facilities". According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, under the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001, the "Community Room" is to be provided on the land with the minimum area of 660 sq. meters with the population of 5000 while a "Community Hall with Library" is to be provided on the land with the minimum area of 2000 sq. meters with the population of 15000. According to him, in the present case, neither of the two standards are met, since the land allotted by the Delhi Development Authority for the purposes of "Community Hall" is only 961.5 sq. meters.
3. We may mention that Sub Clause (4) of Clause 3 of the Development Code of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001 stipulates that the layout plans already approved by the Authority or any other local authority concerned in accordance with law shall be deemed to have been approved under this Code. As per the layout plan, plot No.B-II (now numbered as 1) is earmarked for LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008 page 3 of 5 being used as office-cum-club. The effect of sub-clause (4) is that a layout plan approved by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in 1966 earmarking plot No.B-II (now numbered as 1) for use as office-cum-club shall be deemed to have been approved under the Development Code of Master Plan of Delhi, 2001. Thus the layout plan passed in 1966 is deemed to be fully in accord with the the Development Code of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2001.
4. The construction of the community hall is almost complete. The society has given an undertaking that the plot in question will be used for activities permitted and allowed in a building / plot meant for community hall only. In the circumstances, the submission that the lease granted in favour of the respondent society and consequential building permission is in violation of the Master Plan of 2001 is liable to be rejected.
5. The other contention, which was raised before us, is that there is no specific provision with regard to parking area for the community hall. It was submitted that this is vital for the peaceful enjoyment of the residence in the proximity of a community hall in a residential area. The learned single Judge has noted that the plan shows that the society has indicated and marked equivalent car parking space for 20 cars. The Master Plan LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008 page 4 of 5 requires provision for car parking space and no construction should be allowed in the area marked for car parking. The respondent society has given an undertaking to the Court that no construction will be permitted on the parking area. As regards the concern of the appellants that if cars are parked in a haphazard manner, the learned single Judge has made it clear that traffic police will look into this aspect and it will also be the duty of the respondent society to ensure that cars are not parked on the main road or the street outside the houses of the appellants and others so as to cause inconvenience and problem to residents.
6. Learned single Judge has considered in depth all the issues raised in the petition and come to the conclusion that the construction of community hall is not in violation of the rules. We do not find any ground to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR, J August 05, 2008 "nm"
LPA 406/2008 & 432/2008 page 5 of 5