Delhi High Court
East Pakistan D.P. Association vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 28 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995 RLR 505
Author: M Narain
Bench: M Narain, C Joseph
JUDGMENT
Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) Rule D.B. Since a short point is involved in this matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 17030/94 dated 5.10.94 preferred against the order of status quo passed by this Court on 5.8.94 we have heard this W.P. and proceed to dispose off the same.
(2) The petitioner Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and they have filed this W.P. in public interest.
(3) The petitioners in this case approached this Court by this W.P. to stop the misuser of zonal park in the colony, known as Chitranjan Park.
(4) The Chitranjan Park Colony, actually known as East Pakistan Displaced Persons Colony is covered by the approved zonal plan.
(5) EXT. P3 is the site plan approved as one of the zonal plans of the DDA. By virtue of S. 8 of the Dd Act, it is a statutory plan.
(6) Section 14 of the Act prohibits any person from using any land contrary to either of the plans. The word either of the plans in S. 14 means either Master plan or Zonal plan.
(7) The consequence of S. 14 of the Act as applied to this case is that plan Ex. P3 cannot be violated by any person.
(8) It cannot be doubted that the Mcd is a statutory body. It is not open to the Mcd to permit user of the Park contrary to the Zonal plan. Since the Mcd is proposing to use the park for tehebazari business, the proposal is Countrary to Zonal plan. Ext. P3 if modified in the manner prescribed by the Delhi Dev. Act, such use may become permissible use.
(9) We are told by the Mcd that they had proposed the scheme for the purpose of resettlement of the squatters which is pending before the Supreme Court.
(10) We have specifically told the learned counsel for the Mcd that the scheme proposed by the Mcd in this case violates the Zonal plan, as it permits use of certain areas earmarked as park in the Zonal plan. The fact is that only 0.7 acres of the park is available for settlement of persons who are entitled to be resettled, according to the scheme before the Supreme Court.
(11) It is also clear, that so far the Supreme Court has not approved the violation of the Zonal plan. So we cannot approve the breach of the Zonal plan. In this view of the matter we have no option but to allow the W.P. It is allowed. We make it clear that this order relates only to the land mentioned in this case, and the other land mentioned in the Zonal plan Ext. P 3.
(12) The Scheme of the Mcd which is now be fore the Supreme Court has not been filed before us. We do not know its contents, it cannot be affected by our order, except to the extent indicated hereinabove.
