Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Coming to the report of the Committee it is a detailed report prepared by the Denotification Committee wherein it is recorded that the Committee visited the site, heard the petitioners, had taken figures and photographs upon the physical inspection of the site. The committee in furtherance to the order of the Court dated 7th August, 2002 had held a meeting on 23rd October, 2002 and decided to visit the spot to see for itself the position prevailing at the site. On 26th October, 2002 when they visited the site, Sh. Sandeep Sood, Sh. Joginder Singh and other members of Radhasoami Satsang Beas were present during the inspection. The lay out which was attached to the report as Annexure 1 gave the alignment of the major roads connecting Dwarka Phase-I with Dwarka Phase-II, as well as plot of the petitioners. The committee also considered at some length, the objections of the respondents that the property was being used for a public purpose i.e. for religious purpose and for running a dispensary etc. and as such could easily be denotified. The Committee in its report dealt with this contention as under:-

14. The petitioners seriously contended that the joint survey in terms of the order of the Court was not conducted by the respondents and as such the very purpose of determining the need for acquisition of the land as well as the alignment of the road were not dealt with objectively by the Committee. According to the petitioners on 7th November, 2002 it was decided in the meeting that a joint survey of the land in question be conducted on the next date. However, instead of conducting a joint survey on the next date, the Denotification Committee gave its recommendations and as such there is violation of principles of natural justice as well as the Court orders. There was no direction in the earlier orders of the Court requiring the parties of the Denotification Committee to conduct a joint survey, however, in the order dated 3rd November, 2004 the Court had directed the joint survey of the subject land on 1st December, 2004 at 11.00 a.m. where the parties were directed to remain present at the site. The parties were present at the site for carrying out the direction of the Court and on 7th December, 2004, the Committee noticed that the representatives of the Radhasoami Satsang Beas were basing the dimensions for demarcation of the road under reference on the earlier conceptual plan prepared by the DDA, prior to the acquisition (without any physical survey) and which was for internal office use only and not for execution. In view of this the joint survey could not be carried out despite the fact that the petitioners were informed that the dimensions have to be taken as per approved sector plan of Sector-19, Phase-II and the petitioners would have to surrender the possession of the land. There are different maps placed before us by the authorities. It is the case of the DDA that there has been no change in the alignment of the road. The maps which have been placed on record show that the connectivity of this road to pass through part of the land of the petitioners. It is for the specialised bodies to decide the utility of the area and alignment of the roads and the various facets of development. Such decisions of the authorities would hardly be open to judicial review unless and until they were patently so arbitrary and discriminatory, that the decisions of the authorities would ex facie be perverse. In the maps filed by the respondents as annexure R1/3 to their affidavit it has been shown that the area has been developed and the 60 meter wide road, which is the connecting road to the two phases, would pass through the part of the land of the petitioners and presently the road is blocked at the boundary wall of the petitioners. The plans put on record by the petitioner is of the year 1995 which according to the respondents is only an office plan and it was never intended to give effect to the said plan. Even as per the petitioner the plans were changed in the year 2002 and till 2000 the same planned was treated to be the correct plan in relation to the development of different sectors of Dwarka. It is a settled principle of law that the plans could be modified or changed by the authorities in accordance with law in the larger public interest. It is not always true to say that the appropriate government would be bound by the initial plans, irrespective of the fact that there is a need for amending or modifying the plans for greater need of the society. The plans can be subjected to appropriate changes and such an act would not make the action of the respondents as arbitrary or malafide.