Modification of a lay out plan can be carried out by the Vice Chairman of the DDA without following the procedure prescribed for modification of the Master Plan.

Mohd. Sharnim, J.-

( 1 ) THE petitioner has brought forward the present petition for issue of a direction against the respondent No. 3, their servants and agents restraining them from carrying out illegal construction of flats in the area marked A in between Pocket A-11 and A-14 at Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi which is a site reserved for a primary school in the lay out plan and for restoration of the said area for the purposes of a primary school and to construct a school thereon.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under : that the petitioner is a mother of four daughters. Out of them, namely, Priyanka and Garima are 11 and 9 years of age respectively and are students of a primary school. The petitioner is also a member of the Park Committee of Kalkaji Extension. The petitioner is a resident of Kalkaji Extension area. The population of the area is approximately 1. 6 lacs, yet with no Government primary school. Conseqeuntly the children of the said area have to travel long distances for their primary education.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 i. e. the Delhi Development Authority was constituted by an Act of Parliament. Section 7 of the Delhi Development Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of convenience) requires the Authority to prepare a Master Plan whereas Section 8 of the Act talks of a Zonal Plan. The Master Plan prepared and submitted by respondent No. 3 and approved by the Central Government and which is in operation contains a provision for construction of primary schools. According to the site plan the prescribed area for the said school for 500 students is 0. 40 hectares. The Zonal Plan made subsequent to the Master Plan contains a space in between Pocket A-ll and A-14 marked for a primary school in accordance with the Master Plan (vide Annexure P-1 ). Respondent No. 3 in violation of the said plan are constructing flats over the abovesaid place and are thereby violating the Master Plan and the Zonal Plan and the Fundamental Rights of the children of the petitioner and of other residents of the area to primary education which is a part of life and liberty.

( 4 ) THE petitioner submitted a representation dated November 13, 1990 to respondent No. 3 in regard to the non construction of a primary school at the abovesaid place and mis-user of the said land by construction of LIG flats (vide Annexure P-2 ). All of a sudden the respondent No. 3 started the construction of the flats at the abovesaid place in the month of January 1993. The petitioner again wrote to the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi on January 25, 1993 with a copy to the Vice Chairman of respondent No. 3, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and other authorities bringing to their notice the mis-user of the land marked in the plan for the purposes of a school. Subsequently the petitioner also issued a reminder and again brought to the notice of the authorities the misuser of the said land meant for a school. The respondent No. 3 have very recently stepped up the construction of the flats in the area at a place marked for construction of a primary school in the plan. Despite repeated requests orally and in writing from the petitioner the respondent No. 3 continue to construct the flats in the said area marked in plan by letter A (Annexure P-l) in violation of the Master Plan and the Zonal Plan. The peitioner has thus got no other option but to prefer this petition for the protection of her rights.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 put in contest, inter aha, on the following grounds: that it is absolutely wrong and false that there has been any unauthorised construction or any mis-user of the land earmarked for the primary school. In fact, the area in question has been shown as residential area in the Master Plan. It implies thereby that the said area can be utilised for the construction of flats as well as for a school. There is no approved Zonal Plan of the area. The area in question was earmarked for the construction of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document