The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of retention and the obligation to surrender land were of the owner, DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd., and not of the individual industrial units.

1. The petition at hand filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India sought to assail the order dated 25.03.2010 of the executing court (District Judge) passed on the file of miscellaneous execution case (no. 80/10/03) whereby the application dated 08.08.2003 of DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited, owners of Swatantra Bharat Mills (“SBM”) and DCM Silk Mills (“DCM”) for review of earlier order dated 18.07.2003 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was dismissed, the prime issue being as to whether SBM and DCM are entitled, as two separate units, to retain and develop, for their own benefit, 2000 square metres each of land while surrendering the remaining land to the use of the community at large in terms of directions of the Supreme Court by orders dated 10.05.96, 08.07.96, 04.12.96 and 28.04.2000 in Writ Petition (Civil) 4677/1985 titled as M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others, the said decisions having been reported as (1996) 4 SCC 351; (1996) 4 SCC 750; (1997) 11 SCC 327 and (2000) 5 SCC 525.

2. Before adverting to the issues raised, it is proper to take note of the background facts.

3. Taking note of the facts that Delhi is one of the most polluted cities in the world, quality of ambient air here having become so hazardous that lung and respiratory diseases have been on the increase, it having become a fast and unmanageable conglomeration of commercial, industrial unauthorized colonies, resettlement colonies and unplanned housing, with total lack of open spaces or green areas, the most vital “community need” being the conservation of the environment and reversal of the environmental degradation by urgently providing for “lung spaces” in the shape of green belts and open area, the Supreme Court, by its order dated 10.05.96 in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and Others [(1996) 4 SCC 351] approved a scheme, as proposed, for relocation/shifting of certain industries from Delhi and the surrender of the land used by such industries by their owners so that it could be developed and be put to use for the community at large, the owners having been given the liberty to retain, to an extent, part of such land.

4. The relevant portion of the observations and directions to above effect as appearing in the order dated 10.05.96 may be quoted as under:-

“8. The core question for consideration, however, is how much of the total land which would become available from each of the industrialists is to be taken away by the community for its use and how much is to be left in the hands of the industrialists for the community use. The suggestions given by Alphons Committee in this respect have been noted by us in the earlier part of the order. Mr Omesh Sehgal, Mr P.C. Jain and Justice Khanna by and large agree with the suggestions of the Alphons Committee. We are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining two categories as suggested by Alphons Committee in columns 3 and 4. After leaving a part of the land with the owner for developing the same in accordance with the permissible land use under the Master Plan the remaining land should be surrendered to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for developing the same to meet the community needs. When the Master Plan permits the use of the land only to meet the community needs, it obviously means that the land has to be surrendered and dedicated to the community. While meeting the community needs it is necessary to make a suitable provision for the owner to enable him to meet the expenses of relocating/shifting the industry. It would, therefore, be in conformity with the broader concept of “community need” under the Master Plan, to permit the owner to develop part of the land for his own benefit and surrender the remaining land to the use of the community at large.