Delhi High Court
Aman Lekhi & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 July, 2014
Author: Manmohan
#28
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3263/2014 & CM APPL. 6739/2014
AMAN LEKHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Petitioners, Mr. Aman Lekhi and
Ms. Manali Singhal in person with
Ms. Richa Oberai and Mr. Abhikalp
P. Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for R-1/UOI.
Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Manoj K. Das, Advocate for
R-19/NBCC.
Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for R-2,
13, 17 & 18.
Mr. Pushkar Sood with Mr. Dharmender
Sharma, Advocates and Mr. A.S. Rao,
Law Officer for R-5/DMRC.
Mr. B. Mahapatra, Advocate with
Mr. D. Jindal, Law Officer for R-8.
Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.
Mr. Chitranshul Sinha with Mr. Kabin
David, Advocates for R-10.
Mr. Jayant Tripathi, Advocate for
R-11.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
ORDER
% 03.07.2014
Despite opportunity, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the main
contesting parties, namely, NBCC, Union of India and DDA.
Mr. Aman Lekhi, petitioner no. 1 who appears in person has drawn
this Court‟s attention to the affidavit filed by the respondent-Delhi Urban
Arts Commission (DUAC) to contend that vide its letter dated 14th/16th
August, 2012 addressed to M/s. Chapman Taylor, DUAC had rejected the
initial proposal of construction of 5000 flats in 76 typical tower blocks
spread over 86 acres on various grounds including the ground that the
existing road network did not have the capacity to hold the enhanced FAR
and the project would have led to cutting of more than 2400 trees.
Mr. Lekhi points out that subsequently, the DUAC approved the
revised proposal of NDMC for not only 4747 houses of category of Type-II
to Type-VII but also commercial space of 1,04,413 sq. mtr. (FAR area). In
this connection, he refers to NBCC‟s brochure titled as "Redevelopment of
East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi".
Mr. Lekhi states that if commercialisation and redevelopment of East
Kidwai Nagar, as envisaged, is allowed, it would amount to creating an
urban slum in the heart of the city.
On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned senior counsel
appearing for the implementing agency, i.e., respondent-NBCC states that
the project has been approved by all the statutory authorities. He states that
even the first conceptual proposal had been approved by the Union Cabinet
in 2010 with a 10% commercial space component. He further states that the
project is in consonance with the Master Plan of Delhi.
Mr. Chandhiok lastly states that at least for one year, there is no
possibility of handing over of possession of any portion of the project to any
third party.
In rejoinder, Mr. Lekhi disputes the contentions advanced by
Mr. Chandhiok.
Since, NDMC has submitted the proposal in question, they are
impleaded as a respondent. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within
a period of one week.
However, this Court finds that none of the respondents who have filed
their counter-affidavits have even taken the stand that the East Kidwai Nagar
project of NDMC is in accordance with the Master Plan of Delhi or the
Zonal Development Plan or Lay Out Plan.
In the absence of a counter-affidavit by the UOI as well as NBCC and
DDA this Court is not in a position to conclude that any statutory authority
has studied the impact of commercialisation and redevelopment of East
Kidwai Nagar on the infrastructure as well as the right to life of residents of
the adjourning areas, like South Extension.
This Court takes judicial notice that the existing infrastructure of road,
water and electricity in Delhi and, in particular, in South Delhi is already
„severely overburdened‟. No material has been placed on record to indicate
that any proposal for additional road, flyover, underpass or augmentation of
electricity or water supply has been approved by any statutory authority in
anticipation of the impugned redevelopment plan.
Since this Court is of the view that any interdiction would impede a
large project envisaged by the Union of India, it had on the last date of
hearing suggested that the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi
should examine the concern of residents who have filed the present petition.
Today, Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, learned counsel appearing for
Government of NCT of Delhi states that Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor has
kindly consented to examine the concern of the residents who have filed the
present writ petition. Consequently, the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor is
requested to revisit the project and analyse its impact on existing
infrastructure as well as lives of residents in the neighbourhood in particular
with regard to noise, air pollution as well as traffic congestion. Remedial
measures, if any, like augmentation of infrastructure should also be
examined by the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor.
A senior representative each from all respondents and all agencies
would be personally present before the Lieutenant Governor as and when he
convenes the meeting in the last week of July. It is made clear that
Lieutenant Governor has the discretion to convene as many meetings or
invite any other person or organisation as he deems fit and proper.
This Court makes it clear that it is not passing any further interim
order in view of the statement made by Mr. A.S. Chandhiok. However, the
first interim order shall continue till next date of hearing.
Let the counter-affidavits be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if
any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
List on 29th September, 2014.
Order dasti under signature of Court Master.
MANMOHAN, J
JULY 03, 2014
rn
