LPA/204/2011 of CR PARK MN & P BLOCK RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

* 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

…..Respondents

Union of India & Ors.

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 204/2011

Page 1 of 5

LPA No. 204/2011 & CM No. 4394/2011 (stay)

Orders dated 21[st] January, 2010 and 7[th] 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 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 Buddhist Temple/Monestry. The said allotment was made way back in 1997.

3. Learned Single Judge in his order dated 21[st] 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 separate Writ Petition bearing WP(C) No. 159/1998, are not required to be gone into and examined. We agree with the said reasoning.

Page 2 of 5

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 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. aforesaid plots is contrary to the lay out plan and plots were earmarked for 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 23[rd] 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. 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 23[rd] 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.

LPA 204/2011

Page 3 of 5

6. After about 3 years in 2010, 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 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 7[th] January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the review application. The affidavit of the DDA filed on 10[th] September, 2010, has been quoted in paragraph 5 of the said order dated 7[th ]January, 2011. DDA had stated that resolution dated 17[th] June, 1978 was passed but there is no record available to show that the said resolution was in fact implemented and, therefore, there was 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

LPA 204/2011

Page 4 of 5

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 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.

March 01, 2011 KKB

CHIEF JUSTICE

Page 5 of 5