rS- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #28-32 + W.P.(C) 376/2009 CHANDER MEENAKSHI Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta with Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Advocate. versus D.D.A. & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for R-1. Mr. M.M. Kalra, Advocate for R-2/I0C. ^.P.(C) 7820/2009 & CM 4108/2009(stay) NAMITA KHATRI , Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta with Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Advocate. versus D.D.A. & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA None for R-2/HPCL. W.P.(C) 7921/2009 SANJAY KUMAR & ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta with Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Advocate. , - versus . n : D.D.A. & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA None for R-2/BPCL. W.P.(C) 8232/2009 & CM 5002/2009(stay) YOGESH PALIWAL Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta with Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Advocate. versus D.D.A. & ORS. Respondents 1/1/. P(C) Nos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 1 of 10 Signing Date:30.08.2024 17:10:59 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified V Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA None for R-2/HPCL. AND W.P.(C) 9875/2009 & CM 8106/2009(stay) PREMIER LPG LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta with Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Advocate. versus D.D.A. & ORS. Respondents Through : Mr. C.S. Chauhan for Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate for R-l/DDA. Mr. R.V. Sinha, CGSC for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 17.01.2011 1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the DDA to grant change of land use ('CLU') permission in respect of the lands owned by each of them for use as petrol pumps. 2. Each of the Petitioners was issued a letter of intent by the concerned oil company viz., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., or the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., pursuant to their applying for allotment of petrol pumps. Pursuant to the said letters of intent, the Petitioners deposited the necessary conversion charges with the Respondent No. 1 DDA for CLU permission. The land was in the meanwhile also leased out to the concerned oil company for the purposes of the petrol pumps . - 3. It is stated that on 27^^ September 2005 the DDA came out with a W.P(C) Nos. 376, 7820, 7921,8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 2 of 10 >5 n If.': Notification No. S.O. 1395(E) containing regulations for establishment of petrol pumps over private land. In terms of Clause 1 of the Regulatioris, petrol pumps were to be permitted on private land which were not either notified for acquisition nor under acquisition in urban areas (including urban extension areas) arid in the Rural Use Zone. The plot size and conditions relating to the width of the road on which the petrol pumps were to be located, were also set out in these regulations ^ The Petitioners state that their applications for CLU permission were considered by a Technical Committee of the DDA in meetings held^on 17'^ July 2006, December 2006 and February 2007. The Petitioners state that while three cases were approved by the Technical Committee, the Petitioners' cases and cases of other similarly situated persons were either deferred or rejected. n r -t 4. In W.P.(C) 376 of 2009 {Chander Meenakshi v. DDA), the DDA by a letter dated 16^*" July 2007 rejected the CLU permission on the groupd: that the Zonal Development Plan (^ZDP') for Zone ^N' in which the.land in question fell, was under preparation. 5. In W.P.(C) 7820 of 2009 {Namiia Khatri v. DDA), the rejection was conveyed by a letter dated 20^*" November 2008 of the DDA on the ground that the proposed petrol puriip site in rural use zone, green belt "is irregular in shape and does not conform to plot size rccommehdation in MPD-2021 and as per Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan, is W.P(C) Nos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 3 of 10 ! f' located in the green belt and therefore, it is rejected.' 6. In W.P.(C) 7921 of 2009 {Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v. DZMl), the Technical Committee of the DDA at the meeting held on lO"^ October 2008 rejected the CLU permission in respect of the Petitioners' land at village Mamurpur, Pio Maniyari, Narela on the ground that the proposal did not conform to the Notification dated 27^ September 2005 and-that the land use on the proposed site as per approved zonal development plan is recreational (District Park). ; - j 7. In W.P.(C) 8232 of 2009 {Yogesh Paliwal v. DDA), the Technical Committee had deferred the decision on the Petitioner's application. 8. In W.P.(C) 9875 of 2009 {Premier LPG Ltd. v. DDA), the DDA. vide its letter dated 15^*^ February 2008 informed the Petitioner that there was no provision for grant of NOC for setting up of auto dispensing station on private land. By a further letter dated 19^*^ November 2008 the DDA informed the Petitioner that its request had been examined by the Planning Department and could not be acceded to and since there was .no policy for dealing with cases of auto LPG dispensing station under the MPD-2021. 9. The main plank of the submissions of Mr. S.K. Rurigta, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that similarly placed applicants W.P{C} Nos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 4 of 10 1 1> had earlier approached this Court with a batch of writ petitions which came to be disposed of by an order dated May 2008. According to Mr. Rungta, the rejection by the DDA of those cases was also on account of the provisions of the MPD-2021. However, this Court founds that the cases of three applicants, who had been granted the CLU permission, were no different from the Petitioners before it. Consequently a direction was issued to the Technical Committee "to reconsider the cases of all these Petitioners in pari materia with the cases of other three parties who were accorded approval under the said regulation to run the petrol pump." It is stated that when the above directions were not complied with, contempt petitions were filed in this th Court against the DDA by the said writ petitioners. Thereafter on. 6, March 2009 the Technical Committee held a meeting and granted the CLU permission to many of those petitioners and in terms oUthe Regulation dated 27^'' September 2005. The consequent compliance was reported to this Court on 27^^ May 2009 and the writ petitions were disposed of in tenns thereof. It is submitted that inasmuch as those Petitioners were identically situated and the DDA chose to accept the judgment of this Court and complied with its order, the present Petitioners cannot be treated differently. It is submitted that in terms of Section 57(l)(f) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 ('DD Act'), the DDA was empowered to make regulations to permit contravention of the Master Plan norms and the Regulation dated 27^'' September 2005., therefore had to be viewed in that light. Referring to certain responses W.P(C)Nos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 5 of 10 • , "I received to applications made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is submitted that the said Regulations would continue to have the force of the law since they have not been withdrawn even after corning into force of the MPD-2021 on 7^^ February 2007. It is submitted that the cases of other similarly situated applicants, to whom CLU permission was granted pursuant to the orders of this Court, were also initially rejected on account of the MPP-2021 provisions. Their cases were tb considered in light of the -Regulations dated 27 September 2005. Therefore, the stand of the DDA that the said Regulations stood superseded by the MPD-2021 was erroneous! : 10. Appearing for the DDA Mr. Ajay Verma, learned counsel points out that after the MPD-2021, there is no 'rural area' in Delhi. Consequently, the question of conversion of private land in a rural area for . use: as . a petrol pump did not arise in terms of the MPD-2021. It is submitted cases of many of these Petitioners the land fell in a 'green belt' in terms of approved ZDP. It is submitted that where there was a ZDP dated 26n May 2006 which classified the land in question as a green/belt, permission to set up a petrol pump was refused by the Techttical Committee. It is submitted that in the present cases even in terms of the Regulations dated 27^*^ September 2005, the Petitioners did hot qualify for grant of CLU permission. As regards the orders passed by this Couit in earlier batch of writ petitions, it is stated that there can no comparison with those cases since they were covered by the Regulations dated ;27-| W.P(CjNos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 6 of 10 •»- K O- September 2005. 11. Mr. Verma submits that under the MPD-2001 notified on 1®' August 1990, there was no provision for setting up of petrol pumps in riiral use zone. Subsequently Regulations dated 27^*^ September 2005 v/ere notified. The said Regulations now stands superseded by the provisions of the MPD-2021 notified on 7'*^ February 2007. Fuel stations are permissible on Master Plan/ZDP roads and shall not be permitted in the absence of approved ZDP of the concerned area. Therefore, all applications have to be considered in terms of the approved ZDP,; .and the approved lay-out plan, if any, for the area in question, In terms-of the approved ZDPs under MPD-2021, all areas were 'hrbanized'. It Is submitted that as and when the Petitioners make a fresh application for CLU permission it will be considered in terms of MPD-2021 and the concerned ZDP and lay-out plan. . 12. The above submissions have been considered. This Court is unabld to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that in terms of Section 57(l)(f), the DDA was empowered to make regulations to permit user of land in contravention of the Master Vhn .QX ZDP or lay-out plan. Section 57(l)(f) reads as under: "57 - Power to make regulations. (1) The authority with the > previous approval of the Central Government, may, by ^ notification in the Official Gazette make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, to carry out the" W.P(C) Nos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 7 of 10 [C purposes of this Act, and without prejudice to the generality of this power, such regulations may provide for— (a) to (e) (f) the terms and conditions subject to which user of lands . and buildings in contravention of plans may be continued" ' 13. The above provision permits the Central Government to make regulations for continuation of the user of land which may be in contravention of the plans but subject to certain terms and conditions. It does not permit the user of lands in contravention of the plan after coming into the force of the Master Plan or the ZDP. There cannot be a regulation that authorizes a contravention of the Master plan or ZDP; There is merit in the contention of Mr. Verma for the DDA that Section 57(l)(f) of the DD Act has to be read in conformity with the proviso; to Section 14 thereof which envisages a situation where a user of the land was continuing from a time prior to the coming into force of the ftrst Master Plan for Delhi. A regulation in terms of Section 57(l)(f) DD Act can at best permit "continuation" of such use. It cannot possibly pemiit a change of land use. The relevant permission for change of lafid use is Section llA which envisages an elaborate procedure for the said purpose. : 14. The Regulations dated 27^^ September 2005 could not have possibly continued after coming into force of the MPD-2021 with effect from ;7 February 2007 particularly when it has been made clear in MPD-2dM W.P(C) Nos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 8 of 10 n n 17 that the use^of land for petrol pumps will have to be in accordance with the approved ZDP. As far as the Petitioners' cases are concerned, prior to . coming into force of the MPD-2021, there was in respect of some of the areas where the Petitioners' lands are situated, the ZDP dated 26'" May 2006 which categorized the area as a greenbelt or in a recreational (District Park). In certain other cases, the plot area or the shape of the tV» plot did not conform to the Regulations dated 27 September 2005. Therefore, the Technical Committee did not approve their cases. It, was found that even on an application of the Regulations dated 27''' September 2005, none of the Petitioners' cases could be approved. , 15. It is not, therefore possible to accept the subniission that Petitioners' cases are als.o covered by the order dated 2D' May 2008 of this Conil .in the earlier batch of petitions and, therefore, the CLU permissions have, to be automatically granted to the Petitioners as well. With the MPD-202J having coming into force on 4"^ February 2007 the ZDPs relevant to . some of the areas having already been notified, it is not possible for ; this Court to issue a mandamus to the DDA to ignore the norms specife.d therein for the setting up . of petrol pumps and direct it to consider the Petitioners' cases in light ,of the Regulations dated 27 Septeinber 2005. 16. It was stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that..:the Technical Committee in some of the cases rejected the applications;TG.f CLU permission on the basis of the draft ZDP which had not beeii W.P(C) Nos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 9 of 10 V rc* Ai notified. It must be remembered that the DDA is the planning agency which prepares the ZDPs for approval. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Technical Committee of the DDA, while considering the applications for CLU permission, cannot overlook the fact that certain areas have been categorized as green belt areas in the draft ZDP. This Court is unable to find impugned decision of the Technical Comrnittee:, DDA in each of these cases to be arbitrary or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court. 17. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for-the DDA, it will be open to the Petitioners to apply afresh for CTU permission which will then be considered by the DDA in accordance with the prevalent MPD-2021 norms, in accordance with law, with expedition. 18. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. The pending applications also stand dismissed. All interims order? stand vacated. S. MURALIDHAR, J. JANUARY 17, 2011 akg \N.P[C) Nos. 376, 7820, 7921, 8232 & 9875 of2009 Page 10 of 10