C.R. Park M, N & P Block Residents ... vs Union Of India
2010 Latest Caselaw 332 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
44.
+                            W.P.(C) No. 422 of 2010

      C.R.PARK M, N & P BLOCKS RESIDENTS WELFARE
      ASSOCIATION & ANR.                             ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate.

                    versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                        ..... Respondents
                    Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for
                    DDA.
                    Mr. D.S. Mehandru, Advocate for R-1 & R-2.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

      1.Whether reporters of the local news papers

         be allowed to see the judgment?                          Yes

      2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                   Yes

      3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the           Yes

         Digest ?

                              ORDER

% 21.01.2010

1. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned counsel for the Petitioners at the very outset

points out that the correct name of Petitioner No. 1 is 'C.R. Park (M, N & P

Blocks) Residents Welfare Association (Regd.)' and that the name of

Petitioner No.1 as appearing in the memo of parties as well as in the writ

petition and other documents should read accordingly. This prayer is

allowed and it is directed that as far as the present petition is concerned, the

name of Petitioner No.1 should read as 'C.R.Park (M, N & P Blocks)

Residents Welfare Association (Regd.).'

2. The Petitioner No.1 is an association of the residents of Blocks M, N and

P of Chittranjan Park ('CR Park'), New Delhi. Petitioner No.2 is a welfare

association of the residents of CR Park Block 52.

3. The principal grievance of the Petitioners is against the allotment made by

th a letter dated 12 May 1997 of a piece of land in Plot Nos. 2 and 3 adjoining

Pocket 52 and Blocks, M. N & P, C.R. Park, New Delhi in favour of

Respondent No.4, a Buddhist Mission called the Buddha Tri Ratna Mission

('BTRM'). It is contended that the allotment is contrary to the applicable

rules and bylaws. It is accordingly prayed that the Respondents to maintain

the said land allotted to BTRM as open area as mentioned in the lay out

plan.

4. This is not the first time that the said allotment to BTRM has been

questioned in this Court by residents of CR Park. Writ Petition (C) No. 1672

of 1997 was filed by some of the residents of CR Park, challenging the said

allotment on the ground that the said land was in fact being used as a park

and was liable to be maintained as such.

5. In the said writ petition, the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') filed a

counter affidavit stating that under the original lay out plan of the area, any

three sides measuring 0.25 acres each were earmarked as religious sites. One

of the plots already stood allotted. The Plot Nos. 2 and 3 were earmarked as

a religious site under the layout plan. A proposal has been received from the

Land & Development Office ('L&DO') for utilisation of the said plots as

religious plots to be allotted to the Buddhist Mission. It was in those

th circumstances that the Vice Chairman of the DDA has passed an order on 6

October 1995 for handing the site to the L&DO. Therefore, the use of the

plots for a religious purpose was in accordance with the layout plan.

6. On its part the L&DO supported the stand of the DDA. They pointed out

that "the residents of the area opposed the allotment of the land to the

Buddhist Mission on the ground that the majority of the residents

surrounding the land are Bengalis and they want to retain this land as a

permanent puja park as well as an open park to be used by children as

playground. Since the plot was meant for religious activities, it is not

possible to create certain pockets/colonies exclusively on caste and religious

basis. The land earmarked as religious site is to be allotted to Buddhist

Mission."

7. After noting the above submission, the learned Single Judge of this Court

rd on 23 October 2003 disposed of the writ petition with the following

directions:

"In view of the aforesaid, in my considered view, the only

direction liable to be passed against the respondents is that the

plots in question should be utilized only in accordance with the

layout plan of the area concerned as amended from time to time.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction."

8. It appears that thereafter one of the Petitioners in the above writ petition,

th Shri P.K. Paul of CR Park made an application on 17 August 2007 under

the Right to Information Act 2005 ('RTI Act') to the L&DO seeking

information on the allotment of the land in question to Respondent No.4. In

th response thereto on 27 December 2007 the L&DO wrote to Shri Paul as

under:

"Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter dated 17/8/2007

received through Delhi Division, Ministry of Urban

Development on 28/8/2007 on the above cited subject and

to furnish the following information:-

1 & 2. Area of the site in question was taken over from

DDA on 6/10/95. The land use of the site as per L.O.P. of

the area was religious and was allotted to the Mission on

12/5/1997. Clarification regarding any change of land use

can be had from DDA i.e. Notification No. and date etc.

There is no proposal for cancellation the allotment of land

to Buddha Tri Ratna Mission as the matter is subjudice.

3. There is no proposal to allot the open space to Buddha

Tri Ratna as the matter is subjudice.

4. The Status quo of the said plots has been maintained

and the Land & Development Office does not have any

intention to ignore the direction/orders of Hon'ble High

Court. The case of Buddha Tri Ratna Mission v. DDA

and others is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India.

Yours

faithfully,

(H.K.

Beniwal)

Central Public Information

Officer."

th

9. Shri Paul also made an application under the RTI Act to the DDA on 19

th th September 2007. It appears that by its letter dated 10 October 2007/17

October 2007 the Director (AP) informed Shri Paul that Plot Nos. 2 and 3

Pocket 52 CR Park "is notified as residential as per layout plan in records."

10. Shri Paul appears to have made a third application under the RTI Act in

th 2009 to the L&DO. The letter dated 11 August 2009 by the L&DO

addressed to Shri Paul reads as under:

"Sir,

I am directed to refer to your letter NIL (received in

the Section concerned on 8.7.2009) on the above subject

and to inform you as under:-

      S.No Question                             Answer
      1.   Status quo of the said               The allottee had filed a court case
           plot has been maintained             CWP No. 159/98 in the High
           or not.                              Court of Delhi challenging the
                                                rates of allotment. The said
                                                petition was rejected by the Court.

------------------------------- The institution filed an appeal and

2. Next date of hearing and as per the order of the Hon'ble the case No. in the matter High Court dated 30.8.2001, it was of Buddha Tri Ratna noted by the Hon'ble Court that Mission v. DDA & "learned counsel for respondent others no.2 states that as on date a sum of Rs.40,99,163/- is due from the Appellant to the L&DO. He further says that the appellant is permitted to pay the aforesaid amount in four quarterly installments along with interest at the rate of 12%."

The said position has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4889 of 2002.

However the Mission has not paid the said interest on belated payment of premium and up-to-

date ground rent and interest thereon and therefore, the possession has not been handed

over.

3. Total area of the plot in Total area of the plot in question is question. 2023 sq.m.

-------------------------------

4. -

Area allotted to mission on 12.5.1997.

5. If the area is more than The reference is not clear as the 400 sq.m the reason for Master Plan norm has not been ignoring master plan specifically indicated." norms which state that the area for religious purpose is 400 sq.m in residential area having population of 5000.

11. Much is made of the above three letters to contend that inconsistent

stands have been taken by the Respondents as regards the permissible use of

the plots in question and on the question whether an allotment has at all been

made in favour of BTRM.

th

12. There is no merit in this contention. The letter dated 27 December 2007

of the L&DO is consistent with the stand taken by it before this Court in

Writ Petition (C) No. 1672 of 1997. The L&DO has clearly stated that use of

the site as per layout plan of the area was religious and that it was allotted to

th the BTRM on 12 May 1997. The letter also makes it clear that there was

no proposal for cancellation of the allotment. The further clarification that

there was no proposal to allot the open space on account of the pending

litigation, in fact refers to the case filed by the BTRM against the DDA

regarding the payment of ground rent and the rates of allotment. Whether in

fact BTRM has paid the ground rent or the rats of allotment as demanded, is

a matter for the DDA to examine and take appropriate action. That by no

means can wipe out the fact that the land in question was in fact allotted to

the BTRM way back in May 1997.

th

13. The Petitioners seek to rely on a letter dated 18 June 2007 written by

the Chief Engineer, DDA to its Director (PR) stating that three sites,

including Plot Nos. 2 and 3 between Pocket 52 and N Block, CR Park were

available for holding marriages/social functions. As far as this Court can

see, this letter again cannot be said to nullify the fact of allotment of the land

th in question to the BTRM on 12 May 1997. It is then contended that under

the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 ('MPD 2021') the total area that can be

allotted for religious purposes cannot exceed 800 sq.m. whereas BTRM has

been allotted 2023 sq.m. In the first place it needs to be noted that the

th allotment was made way back on 12 May 1997 when the MPD 2021 was

not in force. The objection that the allotment was consistent with the MPD

1962 as amended by the MPD 2001 was a question that raised in the earlier

writ petition filed in 1997. The mere fact that the petitioner associations

were not parties to that petition makes no difference since the petitioners

rd were residents of CR Park. The order dated 23 May 2003 by this Court

disposing of the said petition has attained finality. It would be an abuse of

the process of law to permit endless rounds of litigations by the residents of

CR Park, whether as individuals or as members of a residents' welfare

association, to repeatedly challenge the allotment of the land in question in

favour of the BTRM on either the same or on different grounds. There has to

be a finality to the litigation on this aspect at some point in time.

14. In the present petition again, it is sought to be urged that the use of the

land in question is residential and not religious. This has already been dealt

rd with and negatived in the order dated 23 October 2003 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court. That issue, therefore, cannot be permitted

to be re-opened. Merely because the majority of the residents of a colony

want to use the plots in question for holding their own social functions, the

allotment made in favour of BTRM consistent with the layout plan cannot be

permitted to be cancelled. It may be useful to recall that Article 15(2) of the

Constitution prohibits discrimination in the matter of access to public

spaces. In a residential colony in an urban metropolis any attempt by the

members of the dominant community of that colony to exclude members of

any other community from access to public space and reserve such space to

themselves must be frowned upon. Such a move will defeat the objective of

a true integration of populations irrespective of their religious or linguistic

denomination. The Master Plan for Delhi 2021 consistent with the

provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution is meant to foster equitable and

non-discriminatory access to public spaces as much as to land held by the

state agency, in this case the DDA. The court should not be used to achieve

the impermissible practice of segregation of populations in a colony may be

comprised predominantly of the members of a particular community. In the

present case, the mere fact that CR Park is dominated by Bengalis, cannot

justify the denial of an allotment of land, on equitable basis, to other

communities.

15. As already observed, if the BRTM has not complied with the terms of

the allotment made to it then it is open to the Respondents to take

appropriate action against it in accordance with law. That however does not

give the Petitioners locus to seek cancellation of the allotment in favour of

BTRM. Further, if the real concern of the Petitioners is about not having

space for their social functions, then it is open to them to make a

representation to the Respondents for permission to use any other open

space that may be available for such purposes either in CR Park or its

neighbourhood consistent with the permissible uses of such space under the

MPD 2021 and other applicable laws.

16. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed as such.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

JANUARY 21, 2010 dn