Back
DHARMESH SHARMA
Purnima Singh – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Developoment Authority – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dharmesh Sharma, J.
1. The petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, on being aggrieved by the allotment of a portion of the land earmarked for having a park to the respondent No. 4, upon which a Gurudwara has been constructed, and thereby seeking the following reliefs:-
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other Writ of similar nature directing the Respondents No.l to 3 to set aside the allotment of the park in favour of the Respondent No.4 and restore the park to its original position and condition after removing all encroachments / recent constructions in the Tikona Park, Sheikh Sarai-I, New Delhi;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other Writ of similar nature directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to maintain the said park properly;”
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner is a resident of Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi, and claims that she has been residing there for the last 33 years and in the neighbourhood, there
The court upheld the DDA's authority to allot land for a Gurudwara, finding no evidence that the land was designated as a green area, thus dismissing the writ petition.
The court affirmed that MCD's land use changes from park to school are valid as they conform to approved zoning and demonstrate the necessity for school playground facilities.
Dela laches - Development plan - Bidders who have made payments should not be made to suffer on account of the belated approach of the petitioner in writ petition
The court affirmed that layout plans must adhere to statutory requirements; DDA's compliance was deemed sufficient and valid despite claims of delayed action regarding community facilities.
Modification of land reserved for public purposes requires valid legal processes, including notification and consultation with affected parties, as determined by relevant sections of the Town Plannin....
The judgment establishes the principle that reserved open spaces in layouts cannot be used for any other purpose, emphasizing the public trust doctrine, the importance of preserving open spaces, and ....
Easementary rights against the State require 30 years of uninterrupted use; 20 years of claimed use by the plaintiffs was insufficient to establish such rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
