important points
Any executive order passed in its ignorance of the development pan is liable to be rectified on the plans being brought to the notice of the authority.
In absence of a duly executed deed executive order giving allotment does not confer any legal right.

Headnote:(a)DDA Act – The development plans have the force of a statute – Any executive order passed in its ignorance is liable to be rectified on the plans being brought to the notice of the authority – Lieutenant Governor did not commit a mistake in rectifying his earlier order on the plans being brought to his notice. (Para 30)
       (b)Constitution of India – Article 299(1) – Allotment directed by the Lt. Governor did not confer any legal right on the appellant – For possessing a legal title, a deed was required to be executed by the MCD in favour of the appellant. (Para 31)
       (1977) 4 SCC 145 – Relied upon.
       (c)DDA Act – Any allotment by executive order in contravention of development plan without change in user would be illegal. (Para 31)
       (d)Judicial Review – If the judgments directing user of the land in conformity with the Zonal Development Plan and further directing that a cremation ground should not be allowed to operate become final, an order passed in ignorance thereof would be a nullity. (Para 38)
       (e)Constitution of India – Article 226 – Parties heard by the Lt. Governor before passing the order were not impleaded in the writ challenging that order – The writ petition therefore was not maintainable. (Para 39)
       (f)Judicial Review – The earlier order passed by the Lt. Governor as a statutory authority ignoring the development plan was a nullity – Therefore an order recalling the same shall not be allowed to operate only because certain formalities in passing the same have not been complied with.(Para 40)
       (g)Constitution of India – Article 226 – A writ court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not quash an order if it gives rise to another illegal order or may quash both the orders – No interference required in the impugned order. (Para 41)
       Facts of the case:
       1.The present controversy relates to a cremation ground known as ‘Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi’ located in a village Shakur Basti in the town of Delhi. The appellant herein, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, is said to be managing the affairs of the cremation ground being in charge and possession thereof. This site in question was being used as cremation ground by the residents of the village as also the adjoining areas.
       2.A land acquisition proceeding was initiated for acquisition of the said land and an award was also published. The possession of the vacant land was admittedly taken but despite acquisition of the said land unauthorized cremation of dead bodies continued.
       3.The controversy has a checkered history. There had been a number of writ petitions ad representations to the Lt. Governor, Delhi. However, ultimately, the High Court decided against continuation of cremation activities at the site in question.
       Findings of the Court:
       No interference required in the impugned judgment.
       Result : Appeal dismissed with cost.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.The present controversy relates to a cremation ground known as ‘Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi’. It is located in a village known as Shakur Basti in the town of Delhi.

2.Appellant herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is said to be managing the affairs of the cremation ground being in charge and possession thereof. The village in question as also the adjoining areas viz. Rani Bagh, Rishi Nagar, Mohindra Park, Sant Nagar, Raja Park, Sri Nagar etc. are said to be inhabited by the displaced persons from Pakistan. This site in question was being used as cremation ground by the residents of the village as also the adjoining areas.

3.A land acquisition proceedings was initiated for acquisition of the said land on or about 26th December, 1964. An award was also published. The possession of the vacant land was admittedly taken. Despite acquisition of the said land unauthorized cremation of dead bodies continued.

4.It is not in dispute that pursuant to or in furtherance of the land acquisition proceedings a Notification was issued by the Delhi Development Authority declaring the said area to be the residential area. Some Group Housing Societies developed residential units thereat. A few cooperative group housing societies filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court impleading inter alia the Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as parties-respondents therein praying inter alia for discontinuance of the said site as cremation ground. By judgment and order of 8th May, 1996 a purported observation was made that cremation of dead bodies was being made unauthorisedly on the land in question the relevant part whereof reads :-

“Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that it appears that on the land which has been placed at the disposal of DDA, cremation of bodies has been unauthorisedly started sometime in 1991. Even counsel for respondent no.3 has not disputed that the land in question on which bodies are being cremated is an unauthorized cremation ground. We direct respondents to ensue that till further orders the bodies are not cremated upon the land in question. The SHO of Police Station, Saraswati Vihar is also directed to ensure compliance of the order.”

5.The said order of the High Court was challenged by way of Special Leave Petitions before this Court and this Court on or about 17th June, 1996 passed the following order :-

“Issue notice in the special leave petitions. Issue notice in the stay applications also. In the meanwhile the direction of the High Court dated 8th May, 1996 restraining cremation of the dead bodies at the site in question is stayed. It is, however, directed that no construction, whether temporary or permanent, shall be raised at the site by any party till further orders by this Court.”

6.By an order dated 13th January, 1997 the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed observing :-

“Learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that the writ petition which was pending in the High Court has since been disposed of and since these special leave petitions were directed against the interim orders made in that writ petition, these special leave petitions have been rendered infructuous. Mr. Jaitley appearing for the petitioners does not dispute this position. The special leave petitions are dismissed as infructuous.”

7.On or about June, 1998 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi issued a Public Notice that the cremation ground near Harsh Vihar had been closed with immediate effect and the new cremation ground at Beri Wala Bagh was commissioned for Public use henceforth.

8.In or about June 1998 ‘Aggarwal Samaj’, Shakur Pur filed a writ petition raising objection against the opening of the abovesaid cremation ground at Beri Wala.

9.Several other proceedings were also initiated wherein the appellant herein was not impleaded as the party. An attempt made by the appellant to intervene in some of the said proceedings did not succ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1579

important pointsAny executive order passed in its ignorance of the development pan is liable to be rectified on the plans being brought to the notice of the authority. In absence of a duly executed deed executive order giving allotment does not confer any legal right.

Cases Referred (1)

important points
Any executive order passed in its ignorance of the development pan is liable to be rectified on the plans being brought to the notice of the authority.
In absence of a duly executed deed executive order giving allotment does not confer any legal right.