Sanjiv Gambhir vs Delhi Development Authority
1993 Latest Caselaw 543 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) This petition is directed against the order of the respondent Delhi Development Authority ('D.D.A.' for short) seeking a restraint on the D.D.A. from barricading the parking area in the place known as Meera Tower, Commercial Complex, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-52, thereby depriving the petitioner of his right of parking his trucks, heavy or medium vehicles in the area. This area has been marked with blue arrows in the site plan filed with the petition. The area where parking is permitted is shown with red marks. The petitioner's shop premises is shown with green marking. The petitioner took this premises on rent from the owner of the property having a super area measuring 343 sq. ft. on the ground floor at the back portion of- the shop. The actual area of the shop would be quite less. However, that may not be quite relevant. This agreement is dated 27 January 1993 and this shows that the premises of the petitioner are situated in the area called D.D.A. Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi.

(2) Petitioner says he is running the business of transportation under the style of Punjab Tempo Transport Service and has been using the parking place in the area for parking his light and heavy vehicles. His grievance is that if the barricades are put, that would stop the entry of the vehicles of the petitioner in the parking area. The area has not been handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by the respondent D.D.A. who has developed the area.

(3) We have seen the original site plan of the area. The word 'car parking' is used and not the word 'parking' as shown in the site plan filed with the petition. D.D.A. says that the car parking in question has been earmarked for the public at large and not for the parking of heavy vehicles of the petitioner or others. The entire area has been developed as community centre with shops, offices, nursing home, S.T.D. facility, etc., and the parking of heavy vehicles, therefore, could not be allowed as it would interfere with the convenience of the general public and defeat the very purpose for which the community centre has been developed. The barricade is done in such a way that the cars can pass through it but not the heavy vehicles.

(4) Mr. Ahmadi, learned counsel for the petitioner, said that for the last five years there had been practice for parking heavy vehicles in the area and since it was a consistent past practice, he had legitimate expectation to have his vehicles parked in the area and this right of his could not be interfered with or diminished without there being any notice to him or issue of any public notice. How this argument is available to the petitioner Who, on his own showing, has come in the premises in January 1993 itself. In support of his submission he referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Navjyoti Cooperative Group Housing Societyandothersv.Union of India and others, . We do not think the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this judgment is of any help to the petitioner. Considering the area developed as a community centre, overriding interest is that the heavy vehicles should not be allowed to be parked in that area. When the area is marked for car parking as shown in the site plan, the petitioner could not have any reasonable expectation much less legitimate expectation to park his heavy vehicles to the inconvenience of the public at large. Parking of heavy vehicles in the community centre is itself hazardous. We have seen the photographs filed by the petitioner and we find that number of trucks have been parked in that area. We are of the opinion that the D.D.A.was right in taking the step to put a barrier. Then, the next point raised by Mr.Ahmadi was that D.D.A. had no power to put barricade as no power vested with it for that purpose. This argument is just stated to be rejected. It is the D.D.A. which controls area and is entitled to see that there is no misuse of the parking which is meant for car parking only.

(5) This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed in liming.