Delhi High Court
Rohit Prasad vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ... on 19 January, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
1.
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16338/2006
ROHIT PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arun Khosla, Advocate.
Versus
M.C.D. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for
MCD.
Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 19.01.2010
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against rejection of
building plans submitted by the respondent- MCD vide their letter dated 8th
December, 2005 relying upon the letter dated 31st October, 2005 written by
DDA that the petitioner's land falls in the ridge/regional park under the Master
Plan of Delhi 2001.
2. There was dispute whether the petitioner's land as per the zonal
development plan falls in the ridge area or the regional park. Respondent No. 3
has filed additional affidavit dated 2nd January, 2010 stating that survey of the
area has been conducted and as per the report the khasras, in which the
petitioner's land is located, are not recorded as Gair Mumkin Pahar and do not
form part of forest land as per notification dated 2 nd April, 1996 issued by the
Revenue Department of Government of NCT of Delhi under Section 154 of the
Delhi Land Reforms At, 1954. It is stated that the said land falls within the
WPC No.16338/2006 Page 1
regional park as per the land use plan in the Master Plan for Delhi 2021.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view
of the said affidavit, the respondents have erred in rejecting building plans
submitted by the petitioner. He submits that no fetters can be placed on the
right to enjoy private land by the land use plan under the Master Plan and in
this connection he relies upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Raje S.
Jethmalani and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Others, Appeal
(Civil) No. 8274-8275/2003 dated 5th May, 2005.
4. The aforesaid decision is distinguishable as in the present case the
petitioner has not issued any notice under Section 55 of the Delhi Development
Act, 1957. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the application for
sanction of building plan should be treated as an application under Section 55
of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. He submits that this application was
referred to DDA by MCD. The application submitted by the petitioner for
sanction of building plan to MCD cannot be regarded as an application under
Section 55 of the DDA Act, 1957. The said provision is a substantive provision
and has several legal consequences. There cannot be an implied application
under Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
5. The petitioner has not challenged and questioned vires of the Master
Plan of Delhi or any statutory enactment.
6. The building plans of the petitioner have been rightly rejected as
sanction of the said plans would be contrary to the zonal development plan or
the land use plan of the area. The land in question can be used and utilized as a
regional park and no building can be constructed on the said land. It is well
settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India should be read as in a
positive manner and the wrongs, if any, committed earlier do not justify issue
of any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to commit a
further wrong. It is the stand of the respondent DDA that as per Master Plan of
Delhi 2021, approved farm houses sanctioned prior to 1990 can continue in the
regional park.
WPC No.16338/2006 Page 2
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will like to
issue notice under Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The Court
expresses no opinion in this regard in favour of or against the petitioner or the
respondents.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 19, 2010
VKR
WPC No.16338/2006 Page 3
