Residents Welfare Association ... vs Delhi Development Authority, ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1865 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. The appellant association filed writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 2375/2002 stating that an area measuring 1.5 acres situate in Block A-6, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, has been allotted to the third respondent for the purpose of running a middle school. According to the writ petition, this area of 1.5 acres is part of a park which has been developed by the M.C.D. and was illegally allotted to respondent No. 3. The association prayed for the following relief in the writ petition:-

(i) issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the order of allotment of the 1.5 acres land out of this green park to respondent No. 3 - school vide allotment No. F18(52)96-12-846 dt. 01.03.2002;

(ii) Any other writ, direction or order deemed fit be passed;

(iii) Award the costs.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director (Lands), D.D.A., it is stated that land measuring 1.5 acres is earmarked for a primary school in the lay out plan of the colony. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that two areas in the colony measuring 9.5 acres and 3.5 acres have been set apart fro maintaining green areas. In so far as 9.5 acres of land meant for neighborhood park is concerned, the same belongs to the D.D.A. and has been developed as a separate green complex for the residents of Paschim Vihar. As regards the aforesaid area of 3.5 acres, it is stated that the same was handed over to the M.C.D. in the year 1992 for being used as a neighborhood park. The area of 1.5 acres adjacent to 3.5 acres of the neighborhood park is meant for school and has been allotted for the said purpose. Before the learned Single Judge it was not disputed that the land in question is not meant for a park and has been earmarked for a primary school in the lay out plan. The learned Single Judge noted that the allotment had already been made to the third respondent and possession was delivered to him after taking full consideration. The learned Single Judge in the interim application has permitted the third respondent to raise construction for the purposes of a school. The question whether the construction which the third respondent may raise for the purposes of a school could be used for a middle school or a primary school has been left to be decided by the learned Single Judge at the stage a final disposal of the petition. It is this interim order of the learned Single Judge dated September 4, 2002 which has been challenged before us by the appellant.

3. According to the lay out plan, the plot in question is earmarked for a basic primary school. Basic primary school is meant for the student in the age group of 6 to 14 years. In a basic primary school the intake of students cannot go beyond 600. Since it cannot be disputed that the land is earmarked for a school the question which still survive for determination of the learned Single Judge is whether the land could be used for a primary school or a middle school. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was right in allowing the third respondent to put up the construction which at a later date could be used as a middle school or a primary school subject to the decision of the writ petition.

4. We do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.