[mpisgmedia] Tehkhand (final order)

Text of final order in Rajinder Singh & Anr v/s UOI &
Ors

(NB: The notification was issued by MoUD, not DDA, and
the policy proposal also originated from the MoUD,
GNCTD & MCD, all of whom are represented on the
Authority of the DDA and none of whom filed
counter-affidavits; and dates were: public notice by
DDA Secy 31.08.05, my objection 29.09.05, final
notification by MoUD 23.02.06; other issues of the
petitions remain open, ie, we can approach the court
afresh after the speaking order by the Board for
Enquiry & Hearing)

=========
Item No.6
% 30.5.2006
Present: Mr. Anupam Lal Dass for the petitioner
Mr. Rajiv Bansal for the DDA
Mr. Arun Kumar Atal for R-1/UOI

+WP(C) No.6824-25/06

1. Mr.Anupam Lal Dass, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the substantive provisions
of the DDA, particularly Sections 11(A1), 3 & Section
6 were disregarded, in that the DDA did not consider
the objections and representations of petitioner No.2,
filed on 31.08.2005 protesting against the proposed
modifications.

2. The present petition has questioned a Notification
dated 23.2.2006 issued by the Respondent Authority
(hereinafter referred to as "DDA") by modifying the
land use for 3.6 hectares of land in Village Tehkhand.
The originally notified use was recreational (District
Park); it was changed to "residential".

3. Mr. Dass also submitted that compensatory land use
has not been indicated and there were certain other
violations of existing law and notifications issued by
the Central Ground Water Aboard Authorities etc. He
submitted therefore that apart from the procedural
violations the Notification is in contravention of
certain statutory provisions, mentioned in the
objections.

4. Mr. Bansal states that the objections of the
petitioner were misplaced and were not on the record
of the authorities. He, however, sought to justify the
action independently and submitted that the change or
modification was in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above factual matrix it is apparent
that the second petitioner's objections and
representation were not considered by the DDA while
issuing the impugned Notification, even though
admittedly the objections were furnished within the
time granted. I am, therefore, of the opinion that
without entering into the debate as to the correctness
or otherwise, of the modifications, the DDA ought to
consider the objection/ representation dated
29.9.2005, (a copy of which has been produced along
with the writ petition). The relevant authority of the
DDA namely, the Board in terms of Rule 8 of the Delhi
Development Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan
Rules, 1959, is accordingly directed to consider the
objections.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and
having regard to the petitioner's objections, which
were not considered by the DDA, the respondent is also
directed to grant opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner no.2, who had preferred the objections. The
entire process of granting hearing, considering
objections and issuing appropriate speaking order
shall be completed within a period of two weeks from
today. The order shall be communicated directly to the
Objector viz. Petitioner no.2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in
the interregnum till the decision of the DDA is taken,
no further action should be taken upon the impugned
Notification. This was opposed by the learned counsel
for the respondent. It is needless to say that any
action that DDA takes would be subject to the final
decision issued pursuant to the speaking order.

8. Subject to the above directions, all rights and
contentions on the merits of the case are kept open.

9. The Petition is disposed off. Order dasti.

30.5.2006
mlb

sd/-
S.Ravindra Bhat, J

=========



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Partial thread listing: