Federation Of G-17 Area Residents ... vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1749 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Decision: April 29, 2009

+                     WP(C) No.6453/2004 & C.M. No. 682/2006

        FEDERATION OF G-17 AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
                                                  ..... Petitioner
                      Through:   Mr. Raj Panjwani and Ms. Sonia
                                 Singhani, Advocates.

                           versus

        DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
                      Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
                               for Respondent DDA.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                   ORDER

29.04.2009

1. The present writ petition which is in the nature of 'Public

Interest Litigation' has had a long history. The scope of the writ

petition came to be expanded from time to time and at some stage the

amendment to the petition was also allowed and an amended writ

petition was filed. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner in the

writ petition today is that a District park in G-17 Zone had been

illegally diverted for setting up a PVC Market. Subsequently, the PVC

Market was shut down and shifted to Tikri Kalan. However, the

occupants of the PVC Market refused to vacate the park.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the Court's

attention to an area map of G-17 Zone (Annexure-9 at page 42) and

submitted that the area reserved for various parks in G-17 Zone had

shrunk as also the occupants of the PVC Market had illegally refused

to vacate the District park and continued to occupy a substantial

part of the same. It was thus, contended that a strip of land which

was adjacent to the District park, where the Delhi Development

Authority (in short 'DDA') intended setting up of a service centre

should be reserved for the park, in view of the fact that not only the

areas reserved for the parks had shrunk but also the District park in

question continued to be occupied/encroached upon by the

occupants of the PVC Market despite the PVC Market having been

shifted to Tikri Kalan.

3. The counsel appearing for DDA submitted that no service

centre was proposed to be set up on the land adjacent to the District

park and the same was proposed to be used for public facilities and

semi public facilities as per Master Plan for Development 2021. The

counsel for the petitioner has fairly confined his grievance in the

present writ petition to the adjacent land to the District park being

allotted for a service centre. Since the DDA does not propose to set

up a service centre at all on the said piece of land, the grievance of

the petitioner as also the petition have become infructuous on this

count.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise other issues with regard

to lack of adequate sports facilities such as absence of sports centre,

the gradual reduction in the areas meant for parks in Zone G-17 as

also the grievance of unauthorized construction and occupation of

the District park in Zone G-17 despite the PVC Market having been

shifted to Tikri Kalan by way of a substantive petition and taking

recourse to and availing of appropriate remedies in law.

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of what

is stated hereinabove. The pending application also stands disposed

of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J APRIL 29, 2009 sb