Judgment

B.L.HANSARIA, J.

(1) THE appellants are some of the residents of Sarita Vihar. According to them. Respondent I, Delhi Development Authority (DDA), permitted a nursery school to be opened in Park No. 6 of Pocket A of Sarita Vihar by Respondent 2 in complete violation of the provisions of Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short the Act). When they approached with this grievance, the High court of Delhi found no merit and dismissed the writ petition.

(2) THE short and important point which is required to be determined is whether the school in question is in possession of the land in question in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Act. According to Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, there is no escape from the conclusion that the school was allowed to be opened in the park in violation of what has been contained in S. 7 and 8 of the Act. The stand of DDA on the other hand, as put forward by Shri Jaitley, is that the appellants have either misconceived the statutory provisions or are interested, for one reason or the other, in seeing that the nursery school does not function at the place allotted to it by the DDA. The counsel for Respondent 2 buttresses this submission by contending that a school having been allowed to be opened and this respondent having spent substantial amount of money in raising a permanent structure at the site, we may not do anything, at this stage, to uproot the school which would cause not only financial loss to the respondent but would hamper the educational progress of the students as well.

(3) A perusal of S. 7 and 8 of the Act, which find place in Ch. III under the heading "Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans", shows that the Development Authority is under an obligation to prepare a master plan which shall define the various zones into which Delhi may be divided for the purposes of development. Section 8 enjoins that a zonal development plan may contain a site-plan and use-plan for the development of the zone and show the approximate locations and extents of land-uses proposed in the zone, inter alia, for such public works and utilities as schools, public and private spaces. This is what finds place in sub-section (2 of Section 8. Clause (d) of Ss. (2 provides that the zonal development plan to be prepared by the Authority would in particular contain provisions, inter alia, for the allotment or reservation of land for open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds and schools, as mentioned in sub-clause (ii). Our attention is further invited by Shri Rao to Rule 4 of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959, whose sub-rule (3(g) states that a draft master plan may include "education, recreation and community facilities plan" indicating proposals for parks, open spaces, recreational, educational and cultural centres.

(4) RELYING on the aforesaid provisions, the submission advanced for the appellants is that the Development Authority was under an obligation to specify in the zonal development plan, locations and extents of land-uses, inter alia, for parks and schools. According to Shri Rao, the land which ultimately was allotted to Respondent 2 for opening a nursery school had originally been kept reserved for a park because of which the land could not have been allowed to be used for opening the school by any executive or administrative decision of the DDA.

(5) SHRI Jaitley contends that the zonal development plans are really required to show in broad outlines "Approximate locations of High Schools and Primary Schools" as has been mentioned in what has been described as "Sub-Division Regulations" a copy of which is placed at page 196 of the paperbook. It is submitted by Shri Jaitley that nursery schools are not required to be indicated either in the master plan or the zonal development plan, as they are not taken to be schools stricto sensa, but are akin to recre