Matching Fragments
(c) that as per the Resolution, land was to be acquired for
„community facilities‟ which would include widening of a
W.P.(C) No.8859/2011 & connected matters page 7 of 65
road ; and it is a specious argument when the respondent says
that a „road‟ is not a „community facility‟ or that by its very
nature, a road is different from a park, community centre, local
shopping centre, school or other open spaces; since it matters
little to the owner as to what use the land is put to once it is
taken away from the owner.
xxxxxx
Details of community facilities
provided
Area Area Area Defici
requir provided required -ency
-ed as/Redu-
as (sic) ced
Master Standar-
Plan d
1.Higher Secondary School ___ ___ ___ ___
2.Primary School 0.24 Hect. 0.18 Hect. ___ ___
3.Nursery School ___ ___ ___ ___
W.P.(C) No.8859/2011 & connected matters page 12 of 65
4.Parks & Open Spaces 0.60 Hect. 0.33 Hect. 0.08 Hect. ___
5.Local Shopping 0.06 " 0.10 " 0.06 " ___
6.Community Hall 0.015 " ___
E.S.S. etc. 0.045 "
Health Centre 0.09 " 0.015 " 0.03 "
7.Community facility use
Total community facilities
30. The first precedent cited by the petitioner is the case of Pt. Chet Ram
Vashist (supra) where the question was whether the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi is entitled to sanction a plan for building activities with the
condition that open spaces for parks and schools be „transferred‟ to the
corporation free-of-cost. In this case the standing committee of the
corporation had passed the following resolution permitting building
activities in the colony in question :
"2. .... Resolved that building activity in those parts of
Ganga Ram Vatika be allowed where the services have
already been completed subject to the condition that the
open spaces for parks and schools be transferred to the
Corporation free-of-cost...."
"5. ... There is no provision in this chapter or any
other provision in the Act which provides that any space
reserved for any open space or park shall vest in the
Corporation. Even a private street can be declared to be a
public on the request of owners of the building and then
only it vests in the Corporation. In absence of any
provision, therefore, in the Act the open space left for
school or park in a private colony cannot vest in the
Corporation. That is why in England whenever a private
colony is developed or a private person leaves an open
space or park to be used for public purpose he is required
to issue what is termed as „Blight Notice‟ to the local body
to get the land transferred in its favour on payment of
compensation. Section 313 which empowers the
Commissioner to sanction a lay-out plan, does not
contemplate vesting of the land earmarked for a public
W.P.(C) No.8859/2011 & connected matters page 27 of 65
purpose to vest in the Corporation or to be transferred to
it. The requirement in law of requiring an owner to
reserve any site for any street, open space, park,
recreation ground, school, market or any other public
purposes is not the same as to claim that the open space or
park so earmarked shall vest in the Corporation or stand
transferred to it. Even a plain reading of sub-section (5)
indicates that the land which is subject-matter of a lay-out
plan cannot be dealt with by the owner except in
conformity with the order of the Standing Committee. In
other words the section imposes a bar on exercise of
power by the owner in respect of land covered by the lay-
out plan. But it does not create any right or interest of the
Corporation in the land so specified. The Resolution of the
Standing Committee, therefore, that the area specified in
the lay-out plan for the park and school shall vest in the
Corporation free-of-cost, was not in accordance with law.
