Delhi High Court
C.R. Park M, N & P Block Residents ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 March, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 204 of 2011
C.R. Park M, N & P Block Residents
Welfare Association & Another ....Appellants
Through Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Advocate
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. .....Respondents
Through Mr. D.S. Mahendra, Sr. Standing
counsel for respondent No. 1./UOI.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
% 01.03.2011
CM NO. 4395/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 4393/2011 (delay)
For the reasons contained in the application, the delay in
filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
LPA No. 204/2011 & CM No. 4394/2011 (stay)
Orders dated 21st January, 2010 and 7th January, 2011
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 422/2010
and Review Application No. 186/2010 respectively, are subject matters
of challenge in this intra court appeal.
2. By the impugned orders the Writ Petition and the review
application filed by the appellant have been dismissed. The challenge
in the writ petition was to allotment of plots No. 2 and 3 adjoining
pocket 52 in Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi to respondent No. 4 herein
Buddha Tri Ratna Mission for construction of a Buddhist
Temple/Monestry. The said allotment was made way back in 1997.
3. Learned Single Judge in his order dated 21st January, 2010, has
made it clear that inter-se claims and disputes between Delhi
Development Authority and the respondent No. 4, with regard to
interest, ground rent, etc. which are subject matter of a separate Writ
Petition bearing WP(C) No. 159/1998, are not required to be gone into
and examined. We agree with the said reasoning.
4. Before us, the appellant has contended that the allotment of the
aforesaid plots is contrary to the lay out plan and plots were earmarked
for a park/green area. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out
that the area which was originally shown as green area/ park, has been
re-designated and allotted for construction of Kali Bari Mandir. It is
submitted that the allotment of the aforesaid plots should be cancelled
and should be converted into green area as the area earmarked for
green area/park has been converted into Kali Bari Mandir.
5. The plots in question were/are earmarked and were meant for
allotment for religious site/temple. Consequently, the allotment was
made to respondent No. 4 in 1997. In 1997 itself, challenge was made
by some residents to the said allotment in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1672/1997. L&DO had clearly stated that as per the lay out plan of the
area, the said plots were earmarked for religious site/temple and were
rightly allotted to respondent No.4. The writ petition was disposed of
on 23rd October, 2003 with the direction that the plots should be
utilized only in accordance with the lay out plan as amended from time
to time.
6. After about 3 years in 2010, a fresh writ petition in which
impugned orders have been passed with similar prayers was filed.
Learned Single Judge has rightly held that allotment was made in 1997
and is governed by the lay out plan and the master plan applicable at
the relevant time.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was a
change in the lay out plan and in this connection, has drawn our
attention to the purported lay out plan enclosed with the appeal. This
aspect has been specifically considered in the order dated 7th January,
2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the review
application. The affidavit of the DDA filed on 10th September, 2010,
has been quoted in paragraph 5 of the said order dated 7th January,
2011. DDA had stated that resolution dated 17th June, 1978 was passed
but there is no record available to show that the said resolution was in
fact implemented and, therefore, there was a modification in the lay
out plan. The land use of pocket where Kali Bari Temple exists is
recreational use (District Park) and even in the zonal plan of Zone 'F'
prepared under the Master Plan of Delhi 2021, the land use continues
to be the same. With regard to the land use of the plots in question,
the same is classified under the broad head "Residential" with a
specified land use indicated as 'religious' site. This position is reflected
in the current Zonal Plan approved under Master Plan of Delhi 2021.
Thus, as per the stand of the DDA, there was no modification in the lay
out plan.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
March 01, 2011
KKB
