Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 70
High Court of Delhi
G. ROHINI & RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, JJ.
Federation Of Residents Welfare Associations, Vasant Kunj – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Others – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 3687 of 1995
Decided on: 19-01-2015
For the Petitioner:Cpt. Karan Singh Bhati with Shubham Shri Seth, Dinesh Bhati, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Manish Mohan with Pooja Sarkar, Hina Shaheen, Abhay Prakash Sahay, Amit Kishore Sinha, Sidhi Arora, Abhay P. Singh, Gaurang Kanth, Arun Birbal, Siddharth Yadav with Wasim Ashraf, Advocates.
Non-party's right to seek review, locus standi to challenge closure of cremation ground, and possession of the land not subject to review.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Closure of Cremation Ground - Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957, Sections 389-392
Fact of the Case:
The review petition was filed by Gram Vikas Samiti, Masoodpur, seeking review of the order directing closure of a cremation ground in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The ground was being used for burning dead bodies, causing nuisance to the residents. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to take possession of an alternative land for a cremation ground and to close the existing ground.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review applicant did not have the right to challenge the closure of the cremation ground as it was not the true representative of the residents and did not have the locus standi to challenge the procedure undertaken by the MCD. The court also clarified that the possession of the land was not the subject of the review proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership and management of the cremation ground, compliance with the procedures under the DMC Act, and the locus standi of the review applicant to challenge the closure of the ground.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the review applicant, being a non-party, had no right to seek review of the order. It emphasized that the review applicant did not have the locus standi to challenge the procedure undertaken by the MCD and clarified that the possession of the land was not the subject of the review proceedings.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Review Petition No.240/2014 & CM No.6255/2014 (for condonation of 3799 / 238 days delay in applying for review)
1. Gram Vikas Samiti, Masoodpur, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi which was not a party to the writ petition seeks review of the order dated 3rd December, 2003 disposing of the writ petition.
2. Notice of the review petition was issued to the writ petitioner as well as respondents. Reply has been filed by the counsel for the writ petitioner.
3. We have heard the counsel for the review applicant, counsel for the writ petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents in the writ petition.
4. The subject writ petition was filed by the Federation of Residents Welfare Associations of Vasant Kunj, impleading Secretary of Ministry of Urban Development, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) only as respondents, and pleading, (i) that the writ petitioner Federation represents 23 Associations of the residents of approximately 20,000 flats in the colony of Vasant Kunj, New Delhi developed by the DDA in or about the year 1992 and management whereof had been handed over by the DDA to the MCD; (ii) that Masoodpur village where about 200 families were residing is situated in the midst of the said colony of Vasant Kunj; (iii) that certain mischievous elements had taken control over a certain portion of the land near the said village which land had been declared as a green area by the DDA and had started using the same for burning dead bodies; (iv) that the residents had complained of the same but no action was being taken; (v) that two major schools were situated just across the road from the said land and approximately 200 flats were at a stone’s throw distance from the said land; (vi) that the use of the said land for burning dead bodies was causing nuisance to the residents of the colony; (vii) accordingly, directions were sought for prohibiting use of the said land as a cremation ground.
5. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued.
6. DDA in its counter affidavit pleaded that the subject land was not notified for acquisition and had not been acquired and was not in possession and disposal of DDA. It was however admitted that the same was being used as a cremation ground albeit unauthorizedly. It was yet further pleaded that a piece of land measuring 1.5 acres at Kishangarh had been allotted to MCD for development of a cremation ground in the locality but MCD had not taken over possession of the said land. It was yet further pleaded that DDA had already directed the MCD to issue notification for closure of the said unauthorized cremation ground and to develop the cremation ground at Kishangarh.
7. MCD in its counter affidavit took the stand that the subject land was being used as cremation ground since prior to the coming up of the colony of Vasant Kunj; however owing to the residential colony of Vasant Kunj, having come up, the said cremation ground was required to be shifted and, showing willingness to take up the land at Kishangarh and to develop the same as a cremation ground.
8. In the light of the aforesaid stand of the DDA and MCD, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 3rd December, 2003 with a direction to the MCD to take possession of the land offered by the DDA at Kishangarh and to make necessary arrangement for use thereof as crematorium and to complete the said exercise within a period of three months and within the said time also issue direction under Sections 390 and 391 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957 for closure of the subject cremation ground.
9. Gram Vikas Simiti, Masoodpur seeks review, pleading:
(a) that the subject cremation ground has been under its care and custody and it was a necessary and / or a proper party to the writ petition;
(b) that it is affected and aggrieved by the portion of the order directing closure of the subject cremation ground;
(c) that under Section 391 of the DMC Act, a decision for closure of
