WP(C) No. 6453/2004 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: April 29, 2009 + WP(C) No.6453/2004 & C.M. No. 682/2006 FEDERATION OF G-17 AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Raj Panjwani and Ms. Sonia Singhani, Advocates. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for Respondent DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R 29.04.2009 1. The present writ petition which is in the nature of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has had a long history. The scope of the writ petition came to be expanded from time to time and at some stage the amendment to the petition was also allowed and an amended writ petition was filed. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition today is that a District park in G-17 Zone had been illegally diverted for setting up a PVC Market. Subsequently, the PVC Market was shut down and shifted to Tikri Kalan. However, the occupants of the PVC Market refused to vacate the park. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the Court’s attention to an area map of G-17 Zone (Annexure-9 at page 42) and submitted that the area reserved for various parks in G-17 Zone had shrunk as also the occupants of the PVC Market had illegally refused to vacate the District park and continued to occupy a substantial WP(C) No. 6453/2004 Page 2 of 3 part of the same. It was thus, contended that a strip of land which was adjacent to the District park, where the Delhi Development Authority (in short ‘DDA’) intended setting up of a service centre should be reserved for the park, in view of the fact that not only the areas reserved for the parks had shrunk but also the District park in question continued to be occupied/encroached upon by the occupants of the PVC Market despite the PVC Market having been shifted to Tikri Kalan. 3. The counsel appearing for DDA submitted that no service centre was proposed to be set up on the land adjacent to the District park and the same was proposed to be used for public facilities and semi public facilities as per Master Plan for Development 2021. The counsel for the petitioner has fairly confined his grievance in the present writ petition to the adjacent land to the District park being allotted for a service centre. Since the DDA does not propose to set up a service centre at all on the said piece of land, the grievance of the petitioner as also the petition have become infructuous on this count. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise other issues with regard to lack of adequate sports facilities such as absence of sports centre, the gradual reduction in the areas meant for parks in Zone G-17 as also the grievance of unauthorized construction and occupation of the District park in Zone G-17 despite the PVC Market having been shifted to Tikri Kalan by way of a substantive petition and taking recourse to and availing of appropriate remedies in law. WP(C) No. 6453/2004 Page 3 of 3 The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of what is stated hereinabove. The pending application also stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J APRIL 29, 2009 sb