SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.K. Thakker & Altamas Kabir
GREATER KAILASH PART-II WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS -PETITIONER
VERSUS
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. & ORS-RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 2520 of 2007
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2520 OF 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 4909/2006)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/05/2007
Traffic Congestion - Change of User of Plot - Delhi Master Plan, Building Bye Laws 1983, Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 2002 - The court considered the apprehension of serious traffic problems by the residents of certain colonies due to the change of user of a plot for the construction of a cinema complex. The court found that the respondent had obtained requisite sanctions and complied with parking standards. The court held that the owner of a plot is entitled to use it for any lawful purpose and cannot be prevented from utilizing it in accordance with the law. The Division Bench was justified in observing that the learned Single Judge had in effect sat in appeal over the decision of the Executive authorities which he was not entitled to do in law. The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the concerned authorities to take appropriate steps to contain any problem that may arise in the future.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal involved the apprehension of serious traffic problems by the residents of certain colonies due to the change of user of a plot for the construction of a cinema complex. The appellant, a society of residents, filed writ petitions complaining of the change of user of the plot and the resulting traffic congestion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had obtained requisite sanctions and complied with parking standards. The court held that the owner of a plot is entitled to use it for any lawful purpose and cannot be prevented from utilizing it in accordance with the law. The Division Bench was justified in observing that the learned Single Judge had in effect sat in appeal over the decision of the Executive authorities which he was not entitled to do in law. The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the concerned authorities to take appropriate steps to contain any problem that may arise in the future.
Issues: The main issue was the apprehension of serious traffic problems by the residents of certain colonies due to the change of user of a plot for the construction of a cinema complex. The court also considered the authority of the concerned authorities and the role of the Delhi Urban Art Commission in the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the owner of a plot is entitled to use it for any lawful purpose and cannot be prevented from utilizing it in accordance with the law. The Division Bench was justified in observing that the learned Single Judge had in effect sat in appeal over the decision of the Executive authorities which he was not entitled to do in law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and allowed the concerned authorities to take appropriate steps to contain any problem that may arise in the future.
JUDGMENT
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
Leave granted.
2.This appeal involves the apprehension of serious traffic problems by the residents of Greater Kailash Part -II, Alaknanda Complex, Mandakini Enclave and Chittaranjan Park on account of the change of user of the plot situated at the junction of Outer Ring Road and the main entry point to the aforesaid colonies on which the Savitri Cinema is located. The said plot, (hereinafter referred to as the Savitri Plot ), though situated in a residential area, was earmarked as a cinema complex in the Delhi Master Plan at the initial stage when Greater Kailash Part -II was being developed.
3.The appellant No. 1 herein is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act and claims to have over 3400 members who are all residents of Greater Kailash Part II Colony.
4.There is no dispute that that the Savitri Cinema Hall had been operating on the Savitri Cinema Plot ever since the Greater Kailash Part II Colony had come into existence, that is, for a period of about thirty years. The cinema hall was closed in 1997 by the respondent No.1 after a fire broke out in the Uphaar Cinema complex. Subsequently, a decision was taken by the respondent No.1 to convert the Savitri Cinema Hall into a smaller capacity mini cinema hall with modern features and facilities. The respondent No.1 submitted its alteration/renovation plans to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as MCD) for requisite sanction. As required by the MCD, the respondent No.1 duly obtained the following clearances :-
(a) Approval from Delhi Urban Arts Commission on 24.9.2001;
(b) No Objection Certificate from the office of DCP Traffic, Delhi on 1.3.2002;
(c) No Objection Certificate from Delhi Fire Service on 9.9.2002;
(d) No Objection Certificate from BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. on 30.10.2002;
(e) Provisional Clearance Certificate from the office of DCP Licensing (Cinema), Delhi on 29.11.2002.
5.On the basis of the above and being satisfied that the Building Plans were in consonance with the Building Bye Laws 1983, Master Plan 2001 and Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 2002, the MCD accorded sanction to the said plans on 4th December, 2002 with a direction that such renovation should be completed by 3rd December, 2004.
6.It also appears from the materials on record that as per the sanction granted by MCD, the respondent No.1 completed the renovation of Savitri Cinema within the time prescribed and applied to the MCD for Completion Certificate on 2nd December, 2004.
7.It is at this stage that the appellants herein filed four Writ Petitions, being Nos.19798-19801/2004, in the Delhi High Court in the month of December, 2004, inter-alia, complaining of the change of user of the Savitri Cinema Plot by converting it into a multiplex -cum- commercial complex.
8.The case made out in the writ petitions was that the respondent No.1 herein was converting the single screen cinema hall into a multiplex -cum-commercial complex with
four cinema halls which would result in a much larger number of visitors to the complex, which, in turn, would result in a larger number of vehicles being parked in and around the complex and particularly on the road branching off from Outer Ring Road as the entry point into Greater Kailash Part II and the other colonies situated in the area. It was also the case of the writ petitioners that the said entry point from Outer Ring Road being a single entry point into the colonies it is already congested and there are continuous traffic jams causing great hardship to the inhabitants of the aforesaid colonies. According to the writ petitioners, the congregation of more vehicles on the already congested entry point would cause a complete breakdown of the traffic system both to and from the colonies in question and also on Outer Ring Road notwithstanding the construction of a flyover at that particular point.
9.Complaining that the construction of the multiplex -cum-commercial co
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.