Rajinder Singh & Anr v/s UOI & Ors praying, inter
alia, for quashing of notification of land use change
from district park to residential for the Tehkhand
project was listed for second hearing today. The
respondents had not filed replies as per the order of
03.05.06 and also did not produce the record. They
have to file replies by 25.05.06 and the petitioners
to file response by 29.05.06. The matter is listed for
30.05.06.
Delhi Govt had again not bothered to appear and Anupam
submitted copy of affidavit with proof of service that
he had filed after the order of 03.05.06. The court
has noted that DDA counsel will ensure appearance of
Delhi Govt at next hearing. Counsel for MCD claimed
limited role in the petition and wanted to know if the
order for only MoUD and DDA to file reply in one week
continued. It was clarified that all respondents have
to file reply by 25.05.06. I think counsel for MoUD,
Respondent No.1, did not make any submission. Counsel
for DDA, Respondent No.4, had begun -- with the
admission that they were not able to locate my
objection. I was not carrying the receipt but the
number was mentioned in the petition and they conceded
they were not saying I had not filed it. Their stand
was that even though they (had lost my objection and)
not given me hearing, their land use change decision
was without prejudice to anyone. (They also said I
file many objections and had been given hearing by
MPD-2021 Board and something to the effect that my
objection to the Tehkhand Public Notice was
irrelevant).
A very interesting submission by the Respondents was
that the DLF-Indiabulls 450 cr bid has not been
confirmed by the DDA.
This was made when Lordship had started dictating
order for reply in a week starting with that reason
for short date was that delay would complicate matters
with third party rights. Lordship has noted in his
order that as of now the highest bid is not confirmed
and if the matter is heard before the bid is confirmed
there will no third party rights.
The petition is at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/p/tehkhand
Text of the order passed at first hearing on
03.05.2006 is reproduced in this post.
Rajinder Singh & Gita Dewan Verma
=====
Text of order dt 03.05.2006
Present:
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Adv. for petitioner
Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA/R-4
Mr. Arun Kumar Arul. Adv. for UOI/R-1
Mr Vikas Dudeja, Adv. for Mr. Rajiv Dawar, Adv. for
MCD/R-3
WP(C) No.6824-25/2006
1. Inter alia, it is alleged that in response to the
public notice dated 31.8.2005 inviting objections or
suggestions, petitioner submitted a detailed response
indicating her objections to the proposed change of
the master plan/zonal development plan and objected to
the change of land use from recreational (district
park) to residential.
2. It is asserted that mandate of Rule 9 of the Delhi
Development Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan
Rules 1959 was violated. Petitioner was not intimated
a date of personal hearing. It is also asserted that
while finalizing the change of land use, objection
filed by the petitioner was not even considered as
required by law.
3. Issue notice. Counsel as above accept notice for
respondents No.1, 3 and 4.
4. Dasti notice be taken out for service of respondent
No.2, returnable for `8.5.2006.
5. In the meanwhile, respondents No.1 and 4 are
directed to file their response within a week from
today. Record pertaining to the issuance and
publication of the public notice dated 31.8.2005,
objections received, orders passed and final
notification dated 23.2.2006 shall be produced in
court on the next date of hearing
6. It is made clear that any further action by DDA
pertaining to acceptance of the bids for the land in
dispute would be subject to further orders in the writ
petition.
7. Copy of the order be supplied dasti to Counsel for
the parties
May 3, 2006
Sd/-
Pradeep Nandrajog, J
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
alia, for quashing of notification of land use change
from district park to residential for the Tehkhand
project was listed for second hearing today. The
respondents had not filed replies as per the order of
03.05.06 and also did not produce the record. They
have to file replies by 25.05.06 and the petitioners
to file response by 29.05.06. The matter is listed for
30.05.06.
Delhi Govt had again not bothered to appear and Anupam
submitted copy of affidavit with proof of service that
he had filed after the order of 03.05.06. The court
has noted that DDA counsel will ensure appearance of
Delhi Govt at next hearing. Counsel for MCD claimed
limited role in the petition and wanted to know if the
order for only MoUD and DDA to file reply in one week
continued. It was clarified that all respondents have
to file reply by 25.05.06. I think counsel for MoUD,
Respondent No.1, did not make any submission. Counsel
for DDA, Respondent No.4, had begun -- with the
admission that they were not able to locate my
objection. I was not carrying the receipt but the
number was mentioned in the petition and they conceded
they were not saying I had not filed it. Their stand
was that even though they (had lost my objection and)
not given me hearing, their land use change decision
was without prejudice to anyone. (They also said I
file many objections and had been given hearing by
MPD-2021 Board and something to the effect that my
objection to the Tehkhand Public Notice was
irrelevant).
A very interesting submission by the Respondents was
that the DLF-Indiabulls 450 cr bid has not been
confirmed by the DDA.
This was made when Lordship had started dictating
order for reply in a week starting with that reason
for short date was that delay would complicate matters
with third party rights. Lordship has noted in his
order that as of now the highest bid is not confirmed
and if the matter is heard before the bid is confirmed
there will no third party rights.
The petition is at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/p/tehkhand
Text of the order passed at first hearing on
03.05.2006 is reproduced in this post.
Rajinder Singh & Gita Dewan Verma
=====
Text of order dt 03.05.2006
Present:
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Adv. for petitioner
Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA/R-4
Mr. Arun Kumar Arul. Adv. for UOI/R-1
Mr Vikas Dudeja, Adv. for Mr. Rajiv Dawar, Adv. for
MCD/R-3
WP(C) No.6824-25/2006
1. Inter alia, it is alleged that in response to the
public notice dated 31.8.2005 inviting objections or
suggestions, petitioner submitted a detailed response
indicating her objections to the proposed change of
the master plan/zonal development plan and objected to
the change of land use from recreational (district
park) to residential.
2. It is asserted that mandate of Rule 9 of the Delhi
Development Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan
Rules 1959 was violated. Petitioner was not intimated
a date of personal hearing. It is also asserted that
while finalizing the change of land use, objection
filed by the petitioner was not even considered as
required by law.
3. Issue notice. Counsel as above accept notice for
respondents No.1, 3 and 4.
4. Dasti notice be taken out for service of respondent
No.2, returnable for `8.5.2006.
5. In the meanwhile, respondents No.1 and 4 are
directed to file their response within a week from
today. Record pertaining to the issuance and
publication of the public notice dated 31.8.2005,
objections received, orders passed and final
notification dated 23.2.2006 shall be produced in
court on the next date of hearing
6. It is made clear that any further action by DDA
pertaining to acceptance of the bids for the land in
dispute would be subject to further orders in the writ
petition.
7. Copy of the order be supplied dasti to Counsel for
the parties
May 3, 2006
Sd/-
Pradeep Nandrajog, J
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com