Delhi High Court
Mahesh Yadav vs D.D.A. on 3 August, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Rule. Mr. Chopra waives notice of Rule. With consent of counsel for the parties the matter was heard for final disposal.
2. The Petitioner owns lands bearing No. 14/19 and 14/20 Village Nangli Poona. He had approached the Reliance Industries for appointment as a Dealer; a dealership letter was issued on 17.9.2004 It is alleged that pursuant to the offer an amount of Rs. 34.4 lakhs was deposited with the Respondent-Delhi Development Authority (hereafter called as the 'DDA') as land use charges for setting up a petrol pump. Correspondence with the concerned municipal authorities and other regulatory bodies such as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Fire Services, Local Sub Magistrate etc. for licensing of petrol pump ensued. In the meanwhile, on 27.9.05, the DDA notified certain regulations in terms of Section 57 of the Delhi Development Act ('the Act'), as Regulations for Petrol Pumps on Private lands in NCT of Delhi. In terms of these regulations, petrol pumps were permitted on private lands not notified for acquisition, subject to certain norms and standards prescribed in Regulation 2.
3. It is alleged that there was some confusion in respect of the amount of land use charges; consequently, a further amount of Rs. 13,01,475 was deposited with the DDA. Thus an aggregate amount of Rs. 47,52,000 was deposited with DDA towards land use charges.
4. It is alleged that in spite of deposit of the requisite charges the DDA took action, nor even indicative its unwillingness to grant permission. In these circumstances, directions are sought.
5. The DDA in its counter affidavit states that the proposal was turned down; after the filing of the present writ petition. It is claimed that the land in question is required for planned development of the Narela Project Phase III. It has also been averred that the issue pertaining to the acquisition of lands including the suit lands is under process and therefore the DDA was of the opinion that permission could not be granted.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court; including the one rendered in WP(C) 19978-80/05 (Praveen Kumar v. MCD) and stated that a land owner rights could not kept in 'cold storage' due to delay and bureaucratic indifference. The Court had further held that the mere proposal to acquire land could be construed as a deterrent to grant permission if there is no other impediment in law.
7. In Praveen Kumar the Court had considered various issues such as the master plan MPD- 2021 and RP- 2021 as also the proposal for change of land use in respect of an area 556.5 hectares. The deliberations of the National Capital Region Planning Board and its correspondence with the DDA particularly letter dated 8.10.04 were also taken into consideration. The Court held as follows:
The judgment in Pritam Singh's case (supra) proceeds on the footing that the existence of a proposal for acquisition, or for declaring any area as a development area, is not an impediment to the lawful use for which any land can be put to. There, the issue was whether sanction to construct could be withheld on the ground of pendency of a proposal for land acquisition. It was held that having regard to Section 337 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the judgment in Delhi Auto and other decisions, mere contemplation of land acquisition proceedings could not bar the legitimate use of land by its owner.
xx xx xx
It has not been contended on behalf of the DDA that apart from the proposal that there are any serious objections to the request of the Petitioner. The basis of the MCD's stand rejecting the plans of the Petitioner is the DDA's letter dated 17.01.2003.
8. In the present case too the rationale of the DDA to decline permission is the same, Narela Project III comprehending 556 hectares.
9. In the normal circumstances the above findings ought to have been dispositive of the Petitioner's entitlement. However, I am of the opinion that in the event of the DDA acting upon its proposal and acquiring lands, the petrol pump (if acted put up in this case) ought not to create any equities in favor of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel Mr. Anand Yadav at this stage, upon instructions of the Petitioner, who is present in Court, expressed willingness of the Petitioner to furnish an appropriate undertaking stipulating that no equities would be claimed if the land upon which the petrol pump is constructed for a public purpose.
10. In view of the above discussion, the Petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking stating that he would not claim any special equities in the event of acquisition of the suit lands, as a consequence of the present petition being allowed and the petrol pump being put up on suit lands. The undertaking shall be furnished to Court and a copy thereof shall be given to the DDA within two weeks from today. Subject to the above condition the Respondent-DDA is directed to process the Petitioner's application and communicate its considered view within four weeks from today.
11. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
