1. Illegal allotment of land earmarked for a park to a school — failure to follow up on vacation notices — subsequent court order for vacation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 607
1996(3) Supreme 374
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
G.N. Khajuria & Ors. -Appellants
versus
D.D.A. & Ors. -Respondents
I.A. No. 2 In Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 1995
Decided on 18-3-1996
Important Points
The judgment emphasizes the preservation of land earmarked for public parks, ordering the removal of illegal constructions. It highlights that illegal allotments camouflaged by official approvals may make it difficult to pinpoint and penalize the specific individuals responsible for the deviation.
Subject
Land Use and Zoning - School Vacating and Dismantling Extension
Headnote
Delhi Development Authority-Development plan-Area earmarked for part-No indication that it was intended to be allotted to any third agency-Illegal allotment of land earmarked for part in favour of a school-Notice issued to have school vacated and park presented-No follow up action persued-Complaint by residents-Order for vacating school and dismantling the same-Observations made regarding the report submitted by Chief Planner, Ministry of Urban Affairs-Person responsible for deviation and illegal allotment could not be pin pointed. (Paras 1 to 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over illegal allotment of park land for school construction — responsibility for deviation from land-use plans. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The submitted report was superficial and failed to analyze the court's order; the land was specifically earmarked for a park and not for third-party allotment. (Para 2 )
4. Land earmarked for public parks cannot be diverted for other uses — official approval of a plan may shield individuals from liability for illegal allotments. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Extension of time for vacating and dismantling the school — closure of the report regarding responsibility for illegal allotment. (Para 1 , 3 )
6. Can land earmarked for a public park be allotted to a third party?
No, land earmarked for a park should be preserved for that purpose, and any allotment to a third agency is considered a deviation and illegal. (Para 2 )
7. What is the effect of official approval on individual liability for illegal land allotment?
When a plan is approved by a high authority, such as the Lt. Governor, the action may be treated as an official act, making it difficult to pinpoint the specific person responsible for the illegal deviation. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Time for vacating the school and dismantling the same as per the judgment of this Court, as prayed for, is extended till 30th April, 1996.
2. Though Shri D.S. Meshram, Chief Planner, Town and Country Planning Organisation, Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment has submitted the report dated November 17, 1995. Unfortunately, he has not adverted to the impact of the order of this Court nor has he brought to bear up the subject in that perspective. He has conducted only superficial enquiry and stated only that is apparent and nothing more. He should have subjected the enquiry to in depth scrutiny but failed to do that. His report is like that of a clerk putting up the note and nothing more. However, we have carefully gone through the record annexed to the report. From the record, it is clear that originally the area was earmarked for the part and there was no indication that it was intended to be alloted to any third agency in the land earmarked for the park. In fact, the Vice-Chairman also had pointed out time and again in that behalf. He had also issued notice to have the school vacated and the park preserved. Though noticce pursuant thereto was given, no follow up action was persued. Resultantly, the residents had to take up the matter and ultimately succeeded in getting the order from this Court.
3. We tried to scan the person responsible for deviation and illegal allotment but it is difficult in the circumstances to pin point the actual person responsible in that behalf. He had skillfully managed and had camouflaged to have the authority after getting the plain approved introducing the allotment of the site to the school. Since the plan was approved ultimately by the Lt. Governor, it went under the carpet of official action. He has escaped from the clutches of law. Therefore, nothing can be done in the circumstances. Report is accordingly closed.
*******
Parallel Citatons of other Journals :
G.N. Khanjuria & Ors. v. D.D.A. & Ors., 1996(3) Supreme 374 : JT 1996(4) SC 7
00018
00019
