JUDGMENT

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

(1) THESE are applications for directions in Civil Appeal Nos. 1401 and 1402 of 1990 decided by us on March 13, 1990.

(2) FOR facility of fact situation resort be had to our judgment dated 13/03/1990. 1 Direction given by us to the DDA was meaningful and clear that it shall grant to the Delhi Cloth Mills conditional approval subject to the removal of the objections enumerated and extracted in the judgment, as raised, or such of them as were valid and tenable in law, after the Delhi Cloth Mills is heard by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the author of the objections, and which the DDA had adopted, and the matter to be formalised forthwith by the DDA and the authorities connected therewith within a time frame. This has reportedly met with hurdles necessitating these applications. The objections may broadly be divided in three parts:

(I) objections which are within the exclusive domain of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi; (ii) objections which are exclusively within the domain of the DDA; and (iii) objections which are lendingly common to both, the DDA, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi overseeing and safeguarding the interests of each other. And these objections can also be divided as surmountable and insurmountable.

(3) THE objections, to begin with, as raised by the Municipal Corpora- tion of Delhi and later adopted by the DDA, presently requiring smoothening before us relate to those which are within the exclusive domain of the DDA for it is asserted by the applicant Delhi Cloth Mills that the objections relating to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi are not insurmountable and those can, for the present, be left alone to be tackled by the applicant without the intervention of the court. For this reason neither any direction is asked at this stage nor is one necessary to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

(4) THE DDA has broadly three objections:

(I) To further the resolution of the DDA, dated February I, 1983, the Delhi Cloth Mills should file an amended or modified plan so as to conform to the Master Plan of the year 2001;

(II) Since the matter before the Delhi High court, as also in this Court, had proceeded on the assumption that the entire 63 acres of land involved in the re-development for flatted factories and residential complex was owned by the Delhi Cloth Mills, which assumption was wrong, the Delhi Cloth Mills should confine its plan to about 52 acres of land as owned by it as the balance about 11 acres of land is owned by the DDA which is either on varied termed leases or in trespass with the Delhi Cloth Mills. The plan would require rectification accordingly; and

{III) The fact of grant of permission vide resolution of 1/02/1983 did not ipso facto mean that the DDA had given up its rights on leasehold lands in accordance with the terms thereof or the title to it or to regularize possession of the trespassed upon land with the Delhi Cloth Mills. On that basis it is required of the Delhi Cloth Mills to confine its plans within those 52 acres as owned by it and by a process of reasoning it is hinted that after providing for recreational and other necessary facilities, as required by law, there hardly would remain any land to further the project.

(5) IT has been maintained on behalf of the Delhi Cloth Mills that the posture of the DDA is obstructive in nature and a step to flout or undermine the orders of this court. It has on the other hand been maintained on behalf of the retrenched workers that since the settlement arrived at by them with the Delhi Cloth Mills was beneficial to them in nature, as a price for closure of the mill, the posture of the DDA was indirectly against their interests. They have prayed for suitable directions so that the benefits accruing to them by lapse of time may not go dry.

(6) AT the outset, we put it beyond any doubt and reaffirm that the DDA stands directed by this court to gr