2016 Supreme(Del) 2232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SRI GURU SINGH SABHA - Petitioner
Versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS –Respondents
W.P.(C) 4651, 5817 of 2014
Decided On : 7-07-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Arneena Sharma and Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurang Kanth and Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, Adv. for SDMC. Mr. Yash S. Vijay, Adv. for Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Adv. for GNCTD. Mr. Kush Sharma, Adv. for DDA. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Adv. for R-5/UOI.
Headnote:
MCD's modification of layout plan to change the prescribed user of land from that as a school to that as for residential accommodation for its employees, community hall etc. is valid. MCD is the owner of the land and not merely a custodian thereof.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4651/2014 is a Society of the residents of the colony of GK-II which has constructed and manages a Gurudwara adjacent to the said plot of land and has filed this petition objecting to the said development/construction by SDMC inter alia on the ground that the land aforesaid was ear-marked for the purpose of a school and cannot be used for the purpose of a Community Centre-cum-Club and residential accommodation for employees of the SDMC and offering to itself establish a school on the said plot of land. The petitioner in W.P.(C) no.5817/2014 is a Society, also consisting of residents of the colony of GK-II and also objects to the construction/development underway inter alia on the ground that the same would create a concrete jungle to the prejudice of the existing residents of the colony.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the layout plan once sanctioned, can be modified. The power of alternation/modification of layout plan extends to, in accordance with prevalent bye-laws/needs/requirements, change of user of land earlier reserved for one of the purposes under Section 313(1)(b), not only to any other purpose specified therein but also for other purposes not falling therein. The court also held that MCD is the owner of the land and not merely a custodian thereof.
Issues: 1. Whether layout plan once sanctioned, can be so modified? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, whether such modification also extends to change of user prescribed of land reserved for the purposes mentioned in Section 313(1)(b) supra and if so, whether such modification is limited from one of the purposes prescribed therein to another or the modification can also be by changing the user for any other purpose? 3. Whether the user of the subject land, as modified, is within the purpose mentioned in Section 313(1)(b) of the Act? 4. Whether SDMC is merely a custodian of the said land or is the owner thereof.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of alternation/modification of layout plan extends to, in accordance with prevalent bye-laws/needs/requirements, change of user of land earlier reserved for one of the purposes under Section 313(1)(b), not only to any other purpose specified therein but also for other purposes not falling therein. 2. MCD is the owner of the land and not merely a custodian thereof.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed.
1. Both petitions concern a plot of land in the layout plan of the residential colony of Greater Kailash, Part-II (GK-II) on which the respondent no.1 South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) is going ahead with the development/construction of a Community Centre-cum-Club and residential accommodation for its employees. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4651/2014 is a Society of the residents of the colony of GK-II which has constructed and manages a Gurudwara adjacent to the said plot of land and has filed this petition objecting to the said development/construction by SDMC inter alia on the ground that the land aforesaid was ear-marked for the purpose of a school and cannot be used for the purpose of a Community Centre-cum-Club and residential accommodation for employees of the SDMC and offering to itself establish a school on the said plot of land. The petitioner in W.P.(C) no.5817/2014 is a Society, also consisting of residents of the colony of GK-II and also objects to the construction/development underway inter alia on the ground that the same would create a concrete jungle to the prejudice of the existing residents of the colony.
2. W.P.(C) no.4651/2014 came up before this Court first on 28th July, 2014 when though notice thereof was issued but the interim relief sought of restraining the SDMC from going ahead with the work of development/construction on the said land not granted. However vide order dated 19th November, 2014, the construction being carried out was made subject to the further orders in the writ petition and it was clarified that the same would not create any special equities in favour of the SDMC. Similarly, no interim relief was granted in W.P.(C) No.5817/2014 also.
3. The aforesaid plot of land has a long history. The colony of GK-II in which it is situated was developed by a private developer “DLF”, after having the layout plan thereof approved in the year 1959 from the Standing Committee of the then Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and a completion plan in pursuance thereto was approved in the year 1971. In the said layout plan, the said plot was shown for community facilities. However notwithstanding the colony having been fully developed and inhabited, use of the said land for community facilities remained stalled owing to a dispute between DLF, which besides the said colony of GK-II had also developed a large number of other residential colonies in Delhi, and the MCD with respect to the title of such sites sanctioned in each of the colonies for community facilities. The said dispute remained pending in the Court till 1989. Ultimately, in the year 1989, a settlement was arrived at between DLF and the MCD and in which settlement, the sites in different colonies were inter alia divided/allocated between DLF and MCD and the subject site fell to the allocation of MCD.
4. However thereafter also the aforesaid plot of land remained un-utilised and it is the case of the petitioners that a part thereof was developed by the MCD itself as Udai Shankar Park and the remaining land was used by the residents, from time to time, for holding Diwali Utsav, Durga Puja, etc.
5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4651/2014 earlier filed W.P.(C) No.4478/1994 pleading i) that at the time when it had established the Gurudwara and when the residents of the locality had built their houses in the colony of GK-II, the subject land was shown in the layout plan of the colony for the purposes of a school; ii) that MCD had however on 28th September, 1994 laid a foundation stone on the subject land for establishing a public swimming pool; iii) that without issuing a statutory notice inviting objections for changing the ear-marked purpose of the school land to swimming pool and without the permission of the Delhi Urban Arts Commission (DUAC) and without altering the sanctioned layout plan, the land could not be used for a swimming pool; and, iv) that a school at the said site was required for the residents of the colony and use of t