Delhi High Court
Samaj Sudhar Samiti Harkesh Nagar ... vs The Director (Works) & Ors. on 23 May, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd May, 2012
+ LPA No.392/2012
% SAMAJ SUDHAR SAMITI HARKESH
NAGAR (REGD) ....Appellant
Through: Mr. C. Mukund with Ms. Firdouse
Wani & Ms. Vinny Shangloo, Advs.
Versus
THE DIRECTOR (WORKS) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nanda & Ms. S. Bari,
Advs. for R-1,2,4&6.
Ms. Sumeet Pushkarna with Mr.
Varun Dubey & Mr. Gaurav Verma,
Advs. for R-3.
Mr. Amit Trivedi, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 18.05.2012 of the
learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.5525/2012 preferred by the
appellant. The said writ petition was filed challenging the then proposed
closure of road / street leading from Maa Anandmai Marg to the colony of
Harkesh Nagar.
2. The respondents opposed the writ petition pleading that the 'road'
was on the land of the respondent No.2 Indian Institute of Information
Technology (IIIT) and since the campus of IIIT exists on both sides of the
'road', it disturbed the serenity of the campus and came in the way of best
utilization of the land belonging to IIIT.
3. In view of the aforesaid stand of the respondents, it was enquired by
the learned Single Judge when the writ petition first came up for hearing as
to whether the 'road' qualified as a 'public street' within the meaning of
Section 2(44) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Neither was
any reply forthcoming nor was any such plea taken in the petition. Be that
as it may, the appellant today does not controvert that the 'road' is not a
public street.
4. The learned Single Judge in a detailed well reasoned order has found /
observed / held that, i) there is alternate approach to the colony and it is thus
not as if the subject road is the only access to the colony; ii) that merely
because there are public roads running through the campus of Delhi
University and Jamia Millia University is no reason for allowing a road
through the campus of IIIT also; iii) that owing to the said road, the
expansion project of IIIT is held up. To allay the apprehensions expressed
by the appellant about the alternate road, the undertakings of the public
authorities to widen the bridge / culvert on that road etc. were also accepted.
5. We are unable to find any error in the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge. The residents, for whose benefit the petition was filed have no right
to insist on a road, particularly on land of another, as per their convenience,
as long as they have alternate access, even if longer and narrower.
(Reference may be made to Hero Vinoth Vs. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC
545). Moreover, we are informed that the dismantling of the 'road' has
already been affected by the respondents after the order of the learned
Single Judge and the access through that 'road' already stands blocked.
6. The counsel for the appellant has before us contended that the culvert
on the alternate road has not been widened inspite of undertaking /
assurance given before the learned Single Judge. Though the counsels for
the MCD/PWD controvert the said position but assure that the further
widening if required shall also be carried out.
7. The counsel for the appellant has also argued the alternate road is
through the Okhla Industrial Estate and owing to a large number of vehicles
parked thereon, there is hardly any passage for to and fro the Harkesh Nagar
colony. To allay any such apprehensions, we, in addition to the
undertakings / directions in the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
further direct the various authorities to ensure that the problems if any faced
in the said alternate road are resolved immediately upon being brought to
the notice of the said authorities.
8. Save as aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 23, 2012
'gsr'...
