Delhi High Court
Naharpur Yuva Shakti Rwa vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 March, 2021
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~J-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 10.12.2020
% Judgment Pronounced on: 16.03.2021
+ W.P.(C) 11775/2019
NAHARPUR YUVA SHAKTI RWA ... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anand Yadav, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondents
Through Mr.Avinash Singh, Sr. Panel Counsel
for R-1.
Ms.Nidhi Raman, Standing Counsel
for GNCTD/R-2.
Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Advs. for DDA.
Mr.Prashant Mehta, Adv. for
Intervenors.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
CM APPLs. Nos. 48351/2019 (for interim relief filed by the petitioner) 18505/2020 (u/S 151 CPC filed by DDA)
1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) directing the Respondents particular DDA to prepare the Development Plan and Development Layout Plan of urban Village Naharpur, Delhi considering the physical, social and cultural milieu of urban Village Naharpur and particularly provided playgrounds, open spaces, parks, proper phirni and circular roads and other amenities on the acquired land W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 1 of 15 considering the ground realities and the future needs of the urban Village Naharpur, Delhi and provide said facilities particularly in portion of Pocket E-2 and E-1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi which area from three side suit surrounded urban village Naharpur and one side by sector road dividing Sector 7 and Sector 3 of Rohini or in alternative;
b) direct the Respondent No.l to issue directions to the DDA under section 22(3) of DDA Act or any other provision to prepare Development Plan and Development Layout Plan and also to provide playground, open spaces, parks in portions of Pocket E-2 and E-1, Sector7, Rohini, Delhi on the acquired land and at least leave the utilize the land equivalent to common land of Village Nahaipur, Delhi, which was in the name of Gram Sabha Village Naharpur, Delhi and for which no compensation was paid and same was transferred to DDA and which is vested in Union of India so as to provide playground, parks, open space and other amenities in portion of Pocket E-2 and E-1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi;
c) Restrain the DDA from accepting the auction money of the No.30 to Plot No.51 of Pocket E-2, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi and Plot No. 100 to Plot No.115 of Pocket E-1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi and the area shown in Green colour in Armexure-P9 and not to confirm the said auction and not to handover possession of said plots and not to permit to cut down the trees standing on the said land or raise any construction on the land of portions of Pocket E-2 and E-1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi.
d) Direct the Respondent No.l and 2 to hold enquiry and take action against the officials of DDA, who have failed to discharge their statutory duties to prepare the Development Plan and Development Layout Plan of urban villages particularly urban Village Naharpur, Delhi after DDA has received Urban Village Cess, prepared the project reports on urban villages and also receiving the grant during 7th Five Year Plan for providing various facilities including open spaces, playgrounds, parks and other amenities or under any other plan or project."W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 2 of 15
2. On 08.11.2019, this court in the stay application CM No.48351/2019 passed the following order:-
"1. Mr.Relan informs me that the notice for e-auction was issued on 09.03.2019 and the last date for submission of bids along with EMD was 21.04.2019. The online bidding, according to Mr. Relan, was conducted on 24.04.2019.
2. In sum, Mr Relan says that e-auction stands concluded.
3. There is, however, no clarity as to whether any of the bids received have been confirmed.
4. Therefore, status quo as of today will be maintained till the next date of hearing.
5. Renotify the matter on 28.11.2019.
6. In the meanwhile, the respondents will file an affidavit in the matter. The affidavit will be filed within one week. Rejoinder thereto, will be filed before the next date of hearing."
3. The said interim order continues to be in operation. The respondent DDA has filed CM No. 18505/2020 for vacation of the interim order dated 08.11.2019.
4. As per the writ petition, the said Village Naharpur is well known for participation of its youths in games, particularly in Volleyball. After acquisition, the said Village Naharpur became a part of Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi and is surrounded by Pocket E-1 to E-4. There is a playground in the Village Naharpur, which is now part of Pocket E-2, Sector-7, Rohini Delhi. This area, it is said, was used as a playground by Village Naharpur and is also the lung and open space for the villagers and the residents of the Village Naharpur. It is stated that the petitioner received information in September 2019 that DDA has put some plots for auction which includes plots carved out of the volleyball ground, parks, open areas of Village Naharpur. In a W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 3 of 15 verbose writ petition, the petitioner essentially seeks to urge that the socio- economic changes in these old unplanned areas especially in villages have been substantial. The redevelopment plans should ensure the spelt out facilities.
5. It is stated that a notification under Section 507 of the MCD Act was issued in 1982 and Village Naharpur was declared as an urban village. Therefore, all the common land of Village Naharpur as per Section 150 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was vested with Union of India for its management.
6. It is further pleaded that as per the information of the petitioner, DDA with malafide intentions has not prepared the Development Plan and the Development Layout Plan for the urban Village Naharpur. But DDA, for the reasons best known, has modified the plans of plots envisaged by them around the Village. It is stated that it is the duty of the respondents to provide amenities including playgrounds, open spaces, parks, community centres and other amenities to urban villages for their requirements on acquired land especially around Village Naharpur, Delhi. It is pleaded that there is an area of about more than 100 bighas which was common land in the name of Gaon Sabha of Village Naharpur. No compensation was paid to the Gaon Sabha and the land was transferred to DDA. The said land can be legitimately left or can be used for parks, playgrounds and for other facilities and amenities as DDA has not paid any amount or compensation for the said land. However, the common land has been utilized by DDA for Rohini Residential Scheme, particularly, for Sector-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Rohini. It is pleaded that if the land of Pocket E-2 and E-1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 4 of 15 is auctioned, then no space will be left for parks, playgrounds and other amenities and Village Naharpur will be choked.
7. It is further urged that DDA has failed to discharge its statutory duties in spite of the order passed by this court. It is the statutory duty of respondent No.1/UOI that direction be issued under Section 22 (3) of the DDA Act or any other provision to direct DDA to deal with the said land and provide playground, open spaces, parks and other amenities and facilities to the natives/residents of urban Village Naharpur in Pocket E-2 and E-1, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi on the acquired land that is owned by Union of India. Hence, it is pleaded that non-action of the respondents are violative of the fundamental rights of the natives/residents of Village Naharpur, particularly, right to life.
8. Reliance is also placed on an order of a Coordinate Bench of this court passed on 01.09.1993 in the case of Shri Sanjeev vs. Administrator of Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1188/1987] which also dealt with the issue of water supply, toilets, sewerage system, parks, playgrounds and common facilities for the villagers of Village Naharpur.
9. Though the petition as noted above is verbose and rambles on with various jumbled contentions, essentially it seeks that the residents of the Village be given appropriate facilities including proper drains, proper and efficient scavenging facilities, proper streets, parks and playgrounds around the village and to provide other amenities and facilities.
10. In the application being CM No.18505/2020 filed by DDA, it is pointed out by DDA that under the E-Auction Programme DDA invited applications for sale of vacant plots or built up units in accordance with the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981. The writ petition W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 5 of 15 concerns Auction event held on 24.04.2019 in respect of vacant residential plots under Phase III. 402 number of vacant residential plots originally listed under the said auction event, included 35 out of the 38 plots mentioned in prayer clause (c) of the writ petition. It is stated that on the day of bidding i.e. 24.04.2019, bids were received in respect of all the 30 number of listed plots. Thereafter, 28 of these bids were deemed competitive and the same were accepted by the competent authority on 17.06.2019. Letter of intent was issued on 19.06.2019. In the first week of September, demand notices were issued for the aforesaid 21 plots whereby the purchasers were asked to deposit the balance 75% of the bid amount within 90 days. Number of the purchasers have deposited the full bid amount.
11. It is also pointed out that the Layout Plan of Pocket E-1 to E-5, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi stands revised on the basis of a feasibility report submitted by the Executive Engineer on 29.06.2004 and 28.04.2005 with the approval of the Vice Chairman of DDA on 06.05.2005. While finalising the Revised Layout Plan, it was noticed that some plots and pieces of land were lying vacant in all the pockets as per the feasibility report sent by the Executive Engineer. While considering the revision of the Layout Plan, the following facilities were considered to have been provided on the directions of this court dated 03.04.1995:-
a. Community hall.
b. Park c. Urinal and lavatory block d. Multipurpose TRG-cum-work centre.
e. Dustbin f. for landless harijans.W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 6 of 15
12. It is also pointed out that there are two sports complexes in close proximity to Village Naharpur , namely, Rashtriya Swabhiman Khel Parisar, Pitampura and Rohini Sports Complex. It is reiterated that all the said plots which are subject matter of the interim order of this court are earmarked for residential use in the Layout Plan.
13. It is reiterated that in the revised plan that was duly approved for the aforesaid pockets/sectors, there is due provision made for community hall, parks, urinal and lavatory block, multipurpose TRG-cum-work centre, dustbin and area for landless harijans. Further, it is reiterated that there are two sports complexes, namely, Rashtriya Swabhiman Khel Parisar, Pitampura and Rohini Sports Complex which can easily be used by the residents of Village Naharpur. It is stressed that the plots which were put to auction are meant for residential purposes. This area in question was never meant for a playground or any other such facility It is further stated that the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the auction was completed long before the present writ petition was filed. Hence, it is prayed that this court may vacate the interim directions issued by this court on 08.11.2019 and allow the respondent DDA to execute appropriate transfer documents in favour of the successful bidders of various plots which have been made subject matter of this writ petition.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondent DDA. I have also heard learned counsel for the intervenors i.e. the persons who have participated in the e-auction and whose finances are stuck having made payments to DDA pursuant to the e-auction.
W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 7 of 1515. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, as noted above, it is a verbose writ petition but in a nut-shell, the petitioner seeks more facilities for the residents of the Village Naharpur including multipurpose community-halls, urinal and lavatory facilities, playgrounds and other such common facilities.
16. I may first look at the legal position regarding the Delhi Development Act. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Rohit Dhupar & Ors. Vs. Lt. Governor & Ors., 2009 (109) DRJ 586 (DB) was dealing with a case where some residents of New Friends Colony had filed a PIL for quashing and setting aside allotment of plots to New Friends Colony Temple Society by DDA. It was the plea of the petitioners in the said petition that a part of the said land was earmarked for a park and the allotment was therefore contrary to the Master Plan for Delhi. It was submitted that land use from park to any other use cannot be changed without complying with the provisions of Section 11A of the DDA Act. In those facts, the Division Bench noted as follows:-
"7. City of Delhi is spread over 1480 sq.kms. As per the provisions of the DD Act, Master Plan for Delhi is prepared to meet demands and requirements of the City and to ensure planned urbanization. MPD, 2001 contained broad parameters and set out rules and regulation for construction and urbanization, balancing out needs and requirements of the residents and concrete construction on one side and environment, greens and open spaces on the other side.
8. Section 7 of the DD Act requires periodical preparation of Master Plan of Delhi with the following requirements:-
(a) Divide Delhi into Zones for purpose of development and indicate the manner in which land in each Zone should be used.W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 8 of 15
(b) Stipulate basic pattern of frame work for preparation of Zonal Development Plan for various zones.
9. MPD, 2001 divided Delhi into 15 Zones. A Zonal Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as ZDP, for short) is prepared for each Zone and thereafter adopted after following the procedure as prescribed for adoption in the DD Act. Each ZDP comprises of site plan and use plan. MPD 2001 divided Delhi into 9 categories of uses comprising of 37 use zones to be detailed in the ZDP. 136 use premises are prescribed in the MPD-2001.
10. Lay Out Plans are different and distinct from ZDP. Lay Out Plans demarcate specific areas which can be used for different purposes and earmark land/plots which can be used for different purposes. Under Development Code of MPD 2001, Clauses 2(3) and (4), Lay Out Plan and ZDP have been defined as:
"2 (3). Layout Plan-Layout Plan means a sub-division plan indicating configuration and sizes of all use premises. 2(4). Zonal Development Plan means a plan for one of the zones (divisions) of the Union Territory of Delhi containing detailed information regarding provision of social infrastructure, parks and open spaces and circulation system."
xxx
12. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that Lay Out Plan can be modified or amended only after following the prescribed procedure for amendment of the MPD 2001 and ZDP as prescribed under the DD Act. The Lay Out Plan can be amended and modified without following the procedure U/s 11A of the DD Act, as long as amended and modified lay out plans are in conformity with the ZDP and the MPD. Section 11A of the DD Act, quoted above, deals with amendment of the ZDP and MPD, 2001 and not amendment or modification of the lay out plans. This has been the consistent W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 9 of 15 view of this Court as is clear from the judgments of Division Benches of this court in B-1, Vasant Kunj Resident Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, 2003 (1) AD (Delhi) 727 and Shanti Devi Gupta and others v. Delhi Development Authority, 54 (1994) DLT 620 Delhi. In Star Residents Society (Regd.) and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority, 2004 (77) DRJ (Delhi) 599, it was observed that:
29. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision Shanti Devi Gupta, v. DDA, AIR 1994 Delhi 299, vide para 16 held that the Delhi Development Act, 1957 in general and Section 9 of the said Act in particular, only refer to the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan and not the lay out plan. The lay out plan was held to be a sort of working drawings prepared by the DDA. Any departure from the lay out plan was held as not to be equated with the violation of the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan which are statutory.
30. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision, Smt. Maya Devi v. UOI, 65 (1997) DLT 405 held that a lay out plan could be administratively modified by the Delhi Development Authority without resorting to the process of modification envisaged to a Master Plan and a Zonal Development Plan as per the mandate of Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act. In para 11 it was observed:--
"If this is the situation, in that eventuality there is only a lay out plan of the area in question. A careful scrutiny of the provisions of the Act reveals that Chapter 3A deals with the modification of Master Plan. Section HA(i) to (iv) deals with the modification of the said plan. There is no other provision in the entire act which deals with the modification of the lay out plan. It implies thereby that the lay out plan can be modified by the Vice Chairman of the DDA."W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 10 of 15
31. Another Division Bench of this Court, in the decision, Triveni Educational & Social Welfare Society v. DDA & Another, 76 (1998) DLT 329 : 1998 (47) DRJ 249 (DB) took a view similar to the one taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Mayadevi's judgment. Another Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported as 87 (2000) DLT 603, B.U Block Residents Welfare Association v. DDA held:--
"9................In any case, we find no breach or violation of MPT-2001 or the 2DP. It cannot be disputed that if there is a change in the lay out plan, no approval or sanction of the Central Government is required."
17. What follows is that Master Plan for Delhi is prepared to meet the demands and requirements of the city to ensure planned urbanisation. A Zonal Development Plan relates to one of the zones of Delhi which contains detailed information regarding provisions of social infrastructure, parks, open spaces and circulation system. A layout plan means a sub-division plan indicating configuration and sizes of all use premises. The Layout Plan demarcates specific areas which can be used for different purpose.
18. As noted above, in the application filed by DDA being CM No. 18505/2020, DDA has clearly pointed out that the plots which are subject matter of the auction are residential plots in terms of the Layout Plan for the area in question. A copy of the Layout Plan has in fact been filed by DDA along with the status report filed by DDA. This plea about the contents of the Layout Plan has not been denied by the petitioner. Hence, the user of the area in question is as per approved plans.
W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 11 of 1519. Much reliance is placed on an order of a Coordinate Bench of this court passed in W.P. (C) 1188/1987 in Shri Sanjeev vs. Administrator of Delhi & Ors., (1993) 27 DRJ 469 (dated 01.09.1993) where this court for Village Naharpur directed as follows:-
"14. I order that while developing the area the town planners of the Delhi Development Authority must make in the acquired land abutting the village provision of (i) a multi purpose Community-Hall; (ii) at least one urinal and lavatory block inside the village, if possible, or in the immediate vicinity of the village abadi and (iii) a Training-cum-Work Centre. It should also connect the existing roads and paths in the village with the peripheral circulation by properly aligning the approach roads, and must also reserve some area for landless natives of the village particularly Harijans and must make provision for dust- bins at suitable locations. Besides this, the Delhi Development Authority must provide sufficiently large parks around the village abadi. Of course, some parks have been provided as would be borne out from the plan XY but they are not, barring one or two, in the immediate vicinity of the village abadi.
15. Purely by way of suggestions, I feel that provision for multi-purpose Community Hall can be made somewhere around the portion marked by me as AA and it should not be less than 300 square meters. Parks can be provided at or around the portions marked by me as BB. I do, however, direct that such parks should be in an area not less than 1200 square meters each. Similarly a urinal-cum-lavatory block, if it cannot be provided inside the village, can easily be provided at or somewhere around the portion marked by me as CC. Provision for Training-cum-Work Centre can be made at or near the place marked DD but it must be in an area not less than 200 square meters and dust-bins can be provided somewhere near the portion marked by me as EE. Some area can be reserved for the landless natives of the village particularly Harijans, if any, near the portion marked by me as FF. If there are no such persons in the village the said portion can be utilised for providing open W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 12 of 15 space. From what has been suggested by me, it would be clear that the location of the parks, Community-Hall etc. etc. as detailed above, should be as near to the village abadi as possible. The suggestions leave the Delhi Development Authority with an opportunity to display its skills in planning and architectonic virtuosity. I grant it three months time to demonstrate the same."
20. The above matter went up in appeal where the Division Bench in LPA No.77/1994 vide order dated 19.08.2008 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge but vacated the interim order.
21. DDA states that the aforesaid order dated 01.09.1993 had been duly complied with and the layout plan of the area in question provides for the community-halls, parks, urinal and lavatory blocks, multipurpose TRG-cum- work centres, dustbins and areas for landless Harijans. It is stressed that there are two sports complexes, namely, Rashtriya Swabhiman Khel Parisar, Pitam Pura and Rohini Sports Complex which are available. The petitioner, of course, denies that necessary facilities have been provided.
22. In view of the above facts, in my opinion, the interim order of this court dated 08.11.2019 has to be vacated to permit DDA to complete the auction that was held on 24.04.2019. I may spell out the reasons for the above conclusion.
23. Firstly, as noted above, there is a strong plea raised by DDA that the plots in questions are residential in terms of the Layout Plan. There is no denial of this proposition or challenge to the Layout Plan or to the Zonal Development Plan raised in the present petition. Clearly the plots are stated as residential plots in the Layout Plan/applicable plans.
W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 13 of 1524. Secondly, in my opinion, there is much delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in filing this petition. The land in question of Village Naharpur was acquired in 1979. In 1982 the area was declared as an urban village under Section 507 of the MCD Act. Much reliance is also placed on an order of a Coordinate Bench of this court passed in 1993 directing certain facilities to be provided. The Layout Plan was passed in 2005. The petitioner has after 35 years of the village being declared as urban area, almost after more than 25 years of the order of the Coordinate Bench of this court passed on 01.09.1993 and 14 years after the Layout Plan was passed chosen to wake up to file the present writ petition claiming that the appropriate facilities have not been provided to the residents of Village Naharpur. DDA has denied this averment listing out the alleged facilities provided in the amended Layout Plan and also provided on the ground. Clearly, the writ is belated and suffers from delay and laches.
25. There is another aspect on delay and latches. The bidding in question took place on 24.04.2019. Letter of Intent was issued on 19.06.2019. In the first week of September, demand notices were issued for the 21 plots whereby the purchasers were asked to deposit balance 75% of the bid amount within 90 days. It is after all these events have taken place that the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition and interim injunction application to challenge the auction. Third party rights have already intervened inasmuch as the action purchasers have parted with valuable consideration prior to passing of the interim order of this court.
26. There is no cogent reason as to why the successful bidders who have made payments should be made to suffer on account of the belated approach of the petitioner in filing of this writ petition.
W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 14 of 1527. Thirdly, a plea is strongly urged that the Layout Plan and the Zonal Development Plan should provide for community hall, park, urinal and lavatory block, multipurpose TRG-cum-work centre, dustbin and area for landless harijans, etc. DDA insists that all necessary facilities have been provided. This is a disputed question of fact. There is, however, no doubt that the plea of the petitioner for additional facilities in the area needs a closer look. However, that issue can be looked into and adjudicated upon in the writ petition. Further, the examination of the pleas of the petitioner does not warrant or require continuation of the interim order.
28. Accordingly, I vacate the interim order dated 08.11.2019.
29. CM No. 48351/2019 filed by the petitioner is dismissed. CM No. 18505/2020 filed by DDA is allowed.
W.P. (C) 11775/2019 Let the respondent/DDA file a detailed counter-affidavit within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
List before the Roster Bench on 14.05.2021.
JAYANT NATH, J MARCH 16, 2021/rb W.P.(C) 11775/2019 Page 15 of 15