Delhi High Court
Mohit Goel And Ors vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 19 August, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6416/2017 & CM APPL. 26577/2017
MOHIT GOEL AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rana Ranjeet Singh, Mr. Vivek
Kumar Singh, Mr. Aditya Shekhar,
Ms. Akanksha Singh, Mr. Ravish
Singh, Advocates
M: 9810162881
E-mail: [email protected]
Versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Avni Singh, PC with Ms. Prapti,
Advocate for R-1
M: 9958018998
Mr. Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel
MCD alongwith Ms. Dimple
Aggarwal and Mr. Himanshu Goel,
Advocates for the Respondent MCD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
% 19.08.2025
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, seeking, inter alia, directions to respondent nos.
2 to 4, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), to comply with their
undertaking dated 28th September, 2011, given before the District Court, Tis
Hazari, Delhi in Suit No. 274/1988 (New No. 1827/2009), titled as “Model
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 1 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
Town Owners and Residents Society (Regd.) Versus Municipal Corporation
of Delhi”, whereby, the MCD had agreed to develop the land facing House
Nos. F-14/31 to F-14/36, Model Town-II, Delhi as an „ornamental park‟.
Since the MCD sought to put the land in question to use as a playground for
the adjoining government school and the old boundary wall existing therein
was sought to be re-constructed, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The facts, as canvassed in the petition, are as follows:
2.1. The petitioners, in the present case, are the owners of the properties
bearing Nos. F-14/31 to F-14/36 facing the land in question, and are
members of the Model Town Owners and Residents Society (Regd.), Model
Town, Delhi (“Residents Society”).
2.2. As per the said sanctioned site plan, three plots were earmarked for
parks/lawns, in front of the „F‟ block of Model Town-II, Delhi, which are
more specifically in front of the houses bearing Nos. F-14/20 to F-14/50.
One of the parks has been converted into a concrete parking by the MCD,
while part of another park has been concretized by constructing stores,
rooms, and offices of the MCD.
2.3. The present case pertains to area marked as park/lawn, which is
situated opposite to the House Nos. F-14/31 to F-14/40, Model Town-II,
Delhi, with a 15-feet wide road in front and a 30-feet wide road at the rear of
the aforementioned houses.
2.4. In the year 1987-1988, the owners/occupants of the aforementioned
houses/properties, including the petitioners, submitted a representation to the
MCD, opposing the conversion of the aforesaid park/lawn into a multi-
storied school building for Municipal Corporation Primary School, Model
Town. In response, the MCD had assured the residents that only a temporary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 2 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
shed for the school would be constructed, and that the permanent structure
was being erected elsewhere.
2.5. However, despite such assurance, construction activities persisted,
pursuant to which, the Residents Society of the area, including,
owners/occupiers of the properties bearing House Nos. F-14/31 to F-14/40,
filed a suit bearing Suit No. 274/1988 (New No. 1827/2009), seeking
perpetual injunction against the MCD to not convert the said lawn/park into
a multi-storied building for the school.
2.6. On 16th September, 2011, the MCD held a meeting in the presence of
Area Councilor, competent officials from the Education Department of the
MCD school and members of the Residents Society. Accordingly, a
unanimous decision dated 23rd September, 2011 was taken, whereby, it was
mutually agreed among the parties that the aforesaid pending suit would be
withdrawn, on the terms and conditions noted in the said decision. Further,
as per the unanimous decision dated 23rd September, 2011, it was resolved
that existing school operating from temporary sheds facing House Nos. F-
14/37 to F-14/41, would be developed as a pucca school, while rest of the
land facing House Nos. F-14/31 to F-14/36, will be developed as an
„ornamental park‟.
2.7. In view of the aforesaid decision and the compromise made amongst
the parties, an application for withdrawal of the Suit No. 274/1988 (New No.
1827/2009) was filed by the plaintiff therein, i.e., Model Town Owners and
Residents Society (Regd.).
2.8. The aforesaid application for withdrawal of the said suit was
considered by the learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and on the
basis of the statements made on behalf of both parties, compromise
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 3 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
application, and MCD‟s decision dated 23rd September, 2011, were taken on
record as Exh. C-1 and Exh. C-2. Accordingly, the said suit was disposed of
vide order dated 28th September, 2011, and the parties were held bound by
the statements made before the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
2.9. Since the year 2011 till March, 2017, the petitioners repeatedly
requested the MCD to develop the rest of the land into an „ornamental park‟,
in terms of the undertaking as recorded in order dated 28th September, 2011.
However, though the MCD constructed the multi-storied school building,
they did not undertake the development and construction of the rest of the
land as an „ornamental park‟.
2.10. Thereafter, on 09th March, 2017, the MCD awarded a work order
bearing W.O. No. EE(M-CLZ)-III/SYS/2016-2017/339 (“work order”), to the
respondent no. 5 for the construction of boundary walls and gates in the
vacant land adjoining the school to be completed within a period of five
months.
2.11. Upon learning that the MCD had erected a board designating the said
land as “SCHOOL LAND”, the petitioners issued a legal demand notice
dated 01st June, 2017 to the MCD, inter alia, calling upon them to
immediately stop the construction of the 6-feet high boundary walls around
the land in question, and further demanding to develop the said land as an
„ornamental park‟.
2.12. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. On behalf of the petitioners, it is submitted as follows:
3.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the MCD, in willfully
and intentionally, disregarding the undertaking given by them before the Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi on 28th September, 2011, by awarding contract toSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 4 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
respondent no. 5 to construct the 6-feet boundary wall and four concrete
staircases in/around the subject park/lawn.
3.2. As per the compromise recorded in the order dated 28th September,
2011, the land in question being shown as park/lawn in the sanctioned site
plan, was to be developed into an „ornamental park‟ facing the subject
houses. The petitioners had purchased the plots facing the land in question
from the DLF Limited on the assurance that the said land would be
developed into a beautiful green ornamental park, among other facilities in
the colony.
3.3. Though, the Layout Scrutiny Committee of the MCD, made a
recommendation for amendment in the layout plan, however, it was
recorded that such approval would be subject to the orders of this Court.
Thus, it is clear that all amendments and proposals were forwarded to the
Standing Committee and were approved by the Standing Committee, while
the present writ petition is pending consideration.
3.4. The subject park/lawn has never been converted or sanctioned in
favour of the Municipal Corporation Primary School in question and the
land has never been converted to be used for any other purpose except as a
lawn/park.
3.5. Petitioners have made various representations to the MCD to plan a
comprehensive landscape plan by removing the boundary wall around the
site in question, however, no action has been taken in that regard. Even
otherwise, as per the MCD Rules, a lawn/park/garden cannot have a
concrete wall of more than 3-feet, however, in the present case, the MCD is
constructing walls measuring 6-feet around the land in question.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 5 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
3.6. Moreover, despite the clear direction of the Civil Court, the MCD has
violated the terms of their undertaking given before the Civil Court and have
not converted the land in question into an „ornamental park‟. Furthermore,
the MCD has started concretizing the said vacant land and building
playground for the adjoining school, which is posing risk to the community
living around the said area.
3.7. Such irregular action of MCD in floating the tender and awarding a
work order is violative of the undertaking given before the Civil Court and
amounts to contempt of Court. The MCD, in blatant disregard of the said
undertaking and the order recording the compromise, awarded work order
dated 09th March, 2017, issued by the office of the Executive Engineer of
MCD to respondent no. 5, for concretization of the complete park in
question and for construction of a boundary wall exceeding 6-feet in height,
along with a gate and four staircases of 15 metres each on all sides of the
land in question.
3.8. Such construction by the MCD will hamper the living standard of the
occupants/owners of the properties in front of the land in question and they
shall not be in a position to live in their own buildings due to high rise wall
and concretization of the vacant portion of the land in question. Additionally,
petitioners are the directly affected parties, as their fundamental rights under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and their legal rights qua the
enjoyment of fresh air, sunlight, and unobstructed open surroundings, are
violated due to the proposed construction of a high-rise concrete structure in
the form of boundary walls and staircases, in front of their houses.
4. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, it is submitted
as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 6 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
4.1. The present petition is misconceived and not maintainable as the same
is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”), which cannot be
entertained in a writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the petitioners have no locus
to file the present petition, since the plaintiff in the Civil Suit, i.e., Model
Town Owners and Residents Society, has not raised any grievance to the use
of land in question, as the playground for the school in question.
4.2. As per the Prayer Clauses, the present petition pertains to alleged
violation of the undertaking given by the MCD on 28 th September, 2011
before the Civil Court. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable, as
the correct course of action for the petitioners was to file an appropriate
application in the Suit No. 274/1988 (New No. 1827/2009), for violation of
the order passed in the said suit.
4.3. The compromise between the MCD and the plaintiff in the suit was
recorded by the Civil Court on 28th September, 2011, whereas, the present
petition has been filed in July, 2017, i.e., nearly six years later and is, thus,
barred by delay and laches.
4.4. The file noting dated 23rd September, 2011 by the Assistant Engineer
of the Engineering Department, MCD, as relied upon by the petitioners and
termed as a unanimous decision, was only a „proposal‟, which was never
approved by the higher authorities and therefore, the same had not resulted
in a „decision‟ of the MCD. Additionally, the Assistant Engineer of the
Engineering Department, MCD had made an inadvertent statement before
the Civil Court on 28th September, 2011, in terms of the file noting dated 23rd
September, 2011, however, the land in question belonged to the Education
Department, MCD.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 7 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
4.5. It is a settled law that a file noting is binding only when it reaches the
final decision-making authority in the concerned Department of the MCD,
and subsequently, the same is approved by the concerned Department, which
in the present case is the Education Department, MCD. Therefore, the said
file noting dated 23rd September, 2011 does not confer any enforceable rights
to the petitioners.
4.6. The Standing Committee of MCD, by way of a Resolution No. 33
dated 19th August, 2020, had also clarified and amended the layout plan of
the Model Town by earmarking the said area for the school. The said
amendment in the layout Plan of the Model Town has not been challenged
and has attained finality. Thus, the MCD has removed the discrepancy in the
layout plan making it clear that the land in question is meant for the said
school and therefore, the petitioners cannot insist upon the MCD for
developing an „ornamental park‟, as the same would be contrary to law.
4.7. As per the Register of Immovable Property maintained by the Land
and Estate Department, the land/plot in question admeasuring 4458 sq.
yards, is owned by the MCD and was allotted to the Education Department
for Municipal Corporation School vide Entry dated 21st May, 1969.
4.8. Even otherwise, the said school has existed on the land in question for
decades. Originally functioning from tents and single-storey sheds, the
school was later rebuilt on a portion measuring 1560 sq. yards, while the
remaining portion of 2898 sq. yards was retained for use as a playground.
Additionally, the boundary wall, originally built around the entire plot, was
in dilapidated condition and was reconstructed in the year 2017.
4.9. As per the layout plan of the area in question, the land use of the
entire plot admeasuring 4458 sq. yards was earlier shown as „lawn‟,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 8 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
however, the land use was subsequently changed to „school‟, in terms of the
records maintained by the Land and Estate Department, MCD. The lay out
plan has also been amended to show use of the land in question for school.
4.10. The petitioners, in the present petition, have not been able to show as
to how they have been affected by use of the land in question vested in the
Education Department, MCD, as a playground for the school. Therefore,
there exists no genuine grievance of the petitioners, since there is no
obstruction to light and air by usage of the land in question as a playground
for the school.
4.11. The real intention of the petitioners behind filing the present petition
is the commercial interest arising out of the shops being run by the
owners/occupiers of the properties in the area in question.
5. This Court notes that vide order dated 20th November, 2017, the
parties had been directed to maintain status quo with respect to the
construction in the subject park/lawn. However, subsequently vide order
dated 11th December, 2017, on the basis of the affidavit dated 25 th
November, 2017 filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 – NDMC, this Court
had noted that the subject park/lawn forms part of a school, i.e., Municipal
Corporation Primary School, Model Town and a boundary wall with gates
had come to be constructed around the open piece of land, which is the
subject matter of the present petition. Thus, it was directed that the status
quo order dated 20th November, 2017 was not required to be continued. The
order dated 11th December, 2017, reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
As per the affidavit that has come to be filed on behalf of
respondent no.2-North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the subject
land is forming part of Municipal Corporation Middle School andSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 9 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
only a boundary wall with gates has come to be constructed
around the open piece of land, which is subject matter of the
petition. Ld. counsel for the petitioner concedes that the wall and
the gates have already been installed. In view thereof, continuance
of the order dated 20.11.2017 any further is not required at this
stage. It is ordered accordingly.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. Additionally, by way of the order dated 17th October, 2023, this Court
noted the suggestion regarding a possible resolution to the present dispute,
for development of the park as a green space, which could be used by the
students studying in the school as a playground for a few hours daily, and be
open to public as well, for rest of the time.
7. However, when the matter was listed on 05th December, 2023, counsel
appearing for the MCD submitted that the suggestion as noted in the
previous order by the Court, was not acceptable to the MCD, as the land in
question had been earmarked as a primary school in the layout plan of the
locality. Additionally, it was noted that the MCD had filed an application
before the Civil Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 274/1988 (New
No. 1827/2009), titled as “Model Town Owners and Residents Society
(Regd.) Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi”, for recall of the
compromise order dated 28th September, 2011. Thus, order dated 5th
December, 2023, reads as under:
“1. Mr. Sunil Goel, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi [“MCD”], states that the suggestion of the
Court in order dated 17.10.2023 is not acceptable to MCD because
the area which, according to the petitioner, has been earmarked as
a park has, in fact, been earmarked as a primary school in the
layout plan of the locality.
2. Mr. Goel further states that MCD has filed an application before
the learned Trial Court for recall of the order dated 28.09.2011,
referred to in prayer „A‟ of the present writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 10 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
3. In order to enable MCD to place the necessary documents on
record, list on 10.04.2024.
4. MCD will also produce the physical copy of the concerned layout
plan before the Court on the next date of hearing.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. From the facts on record, it transpires that on a plot measuring 4458
sq. yards opposite House Nos. F-14/31 to F-14/40, Model Town, a Municipal
Corporation Primary School, has been running since last many decades. The
said land, which is vested with the MCD, was allotted to the Education
Department of the MCD vide Entry dated 21st May, 1969, as per the records
maintained by the Land and Estate Department of the MCD.
9. The school was initially run from tents and single storey sheds.
Subsequently, on an area measuring 1560 sq. yards, a school building was
constructed, while the remaining vacant land measuring 2898 sq. yards, was
put to use as a playground for the said school. A boundary wall was already
existing bounding the entire plot, but since this boundary wall had become
dilapidated, a work order was issued in the year 2017 for re-construction of
the boundary wall.
10. It has come to the fore that as per the layout plan of 1965, the land in
question was shown as „lawn‟. However, subsequently, vide Resolution No.
1485 dated 30th November, 1988 of the Standing Committee, the land use
was changed from „lawn‟ to „school‟. Thus, it is to be noted that in its
written statement in the suit proceedings, the MCD has clearly brought forth
the fact that as per Resolution passed by the Standing Committee in the year
1988, the site in question, which was earlier earmarked for park, had been
approved for location of primary school building, and land use had been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 11 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
changed accordingly. The relevant extract from the written statement filed
by the MCD in the suit proceedings, as aforesaid, is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
8. That the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the present site. As
per Master plan and Zonal Development plan all the existing Schools
in the Model Town have been retained in their present sites. The
present school is running at present site since 1959 in a pre-fabricated
structure, which is now being replaced by permanent School Bldg; It is
further submitted that as per resolution bearing No. 1485 passed by the
Standing Committee on 30.11.88 the site in Block F.14 which was
earlier earmarked for Park has been approved for location of
permanent primary School Bldg. and the land use has changed
accordingly. In view of the resolution now the land use of the present
site is for the utilisation for permanent School Bldg. for running a
existing school as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Since there was discrepancy in the layout plan of the area and the
actual use of the land in question for school, this fact was noted by the MCD
during the pendency of the present writ petition. Thus, the Layout Scrutiny
Committee of the MCD considered the said fact, and vide Item No. 19/20
dated 29th May, 2019, it recommended the amendment of the layout plan
showing the area as „school‟, instead of „lawn‟. The said proposal was
thereafter placed before the Standing Committee, MCD, which approved the
said modification in the layout plan of Model Town, by earmarking the site
in question for primary school, subject to any order passed by this Court.
The recommendation of the Layout Scrutiny Committee and approval by the
Standing Committee, as contained in the Resolution No. 33 dated 19th
August, 2020 of the Standing Committee of MCD, is reproduced as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 12 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 13 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 14 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
12. Thus, it is seen that the layout plan was amended in order to bring the
same in consonance with the land use, which already stood approved for use
for school. As regards the authority of the MCD with regard to layout plans
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 15 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
of an area, reference may be made to Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act“), which reads as under:
“313. Lay-out Plans.–(1) Before utilising, selling or otherwise dealing
with any land under section 312, the owner thereof shall send to the
Commissioner a written application with a lay-out plan of the land
showing the following particulars, namely:–
(a) the plots into which the land is proposed to be divided for the erection
of buildings thereon and the purpose or purposes for which such
buildings are to be used;
(b) the reservation or allotment of any site for any street, open space,
park, recreation ground, school, market or any other public purpose;
(c) the intended level, direction and width of street or streets;
(d) the regular line of street or streets;
(e) the arrangements to be made for leveling, paving, metalling, flagging,
channelling, severing, draining, conserving and lighting street or streets.
(2) The provisions of this Act and the bye-laws made thereunder as to
width of the public streets and the height of buildings abutting thereon,
shall apply in the case of streets referred to in sub-section (1) and all the
particulars referred to in that sub-section shall be subject to the sanction
of the Standing Committee.
(3) Within sixty days after the receipt of any application under sub-
section (1) the Standing Committee shall either accord sanction to the
lay-out plan on such conditions as it may think fit or disallow it or ask
for further information with respect to it.
(4) Such sanction shall be refused:–
(a) if the particulars shown in the lay-out plan would conflict with any
arrangements which have been made or which are in the opinion of the
Standing Committee likely to be made for carrying out any general
scheme of development of Delhi whether contained in the master plan or
a zonal development plan prepared for Delhi or not; or
(b) if the said lay-out plan does not conform to the provisions of this Act
and bye-laws made thereunder; or
(c) if any street proposed in the plan is not designed so as to connect at
one end with a street which is already open.
(5) No person shall utilise, sell or otherwise deal with any land or lay-out
or make any new street without or otherwise than in conformity with the
orders of the Standing Committee and if further information is asked for,
no step shall be taken to utilise, sell or otherwise deal with the land or to
lay-out or make the street until orders have been passed upon receipt of
such information:
Provided that the passing of such orders shall not be in any case delayed
for more than sixty days after the Standing Committee has received theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 16 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
information which it considers necessary to enable it to deal with the
said application.
(6) The lay-out plan referred to earlier in this section shall, if so required
by the Standing Committee, be prepared by a licensed town planner.
xxx xxx xxx”
13. As per Clause 3(11) under the head „Sanction of Plans‟ in Chapter
17.0 of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 (“MPD 2021”), layout plans shall be
approved by the local bodies and authority in their areas of jurisdiction. The
said Clause 3(11) in Chapter 17.0 of MPD 2021, reads as under:
“SANCTION OF PLANS
3(11) Layout Plans/Site Plans and Building plans shall be approved by
the Local Bodies and Authority in their areas of jurisdiction.”
14. As per Chapter 17.0 of the MPD 2021, Clause 2(4), layout plan is
defined as under:
“2(4) Layout Plan means a Plan indicating configuration and sizes of all
Use Premises. Each Use Zone may have one or more than one Layout
Plan depending upon the extensiveness of the area under the specific Use
Zones and vice-versa. A layout plan shall have at least two use premises
(apart from Recreational, utilities and transportation) and a minimum
area of 1 Ha. below which it shall be termed as site plan or sub division
plan.
Layout Plan will indicate the location of all proposed and existing roads
with their widths, dimensions of plots along with building lines and
setbacks, location of drains, public facilities and services and electric
lines etc, statement indicating the total area of the site, area under roads,
open spaces for parks, playground, recreational spaces and other public
places, as required by specific sections of the development code.”
15. Perusal of the aforesaid definition of layout plan as given in the MPD
2021, shows that layout plan connotes a plan which indicates the details of
the „Use Premises‟. „Use Premises‟ has been defined in Clause 2(7) of
Chapter 17.0 of MPD 2021, in the following manner:
“2(7) Use Premises means one of the many sub divisions of a Use Zone,
designated in an approved layout plan, for a specific Use. Land use of a
premise has to be determined on the basis of an approved layout plan.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 17 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
16. Thus, as per the aforesaid definition, „Use Premises‟ is one of the
many sub divisions of a „Use Zone‟, which are designated in an approved
layout plan for a specific use. „Use Zone‟ has been defined in Clause 2(6) of
Chapter 17.0 of MPD 2021, as follows:
“2(6) Use Zone means an area for any one of the Specified Use Category
of the urban functions as provided for in Clause 4.0.”
17. Accordingly, a layout plan would indicate the „Use Premises‟
showcasing the „Use Zone‟ of an area, which specifies its land use for a
specific purpose, as marked in a layout plan. The various „Use Zone‟ which
are allowed/designated for any specified area, are given in Clause 4 of
Chapter 17.0 of MPD 2021. The Model Town area, where the land in
question exists, is a residential area. As per the said Clause 4 of Chapter 17.0
of MPD 2021, „Use Premises‟ for areas earmarked for residential purposes,
permits „Use Zone‟, which include primary school/middle school. Thus, as
long as the layout plan is in conformity with the „Use Zone‟ as indicated for
any „Use Premises‟, as specified in the MPD 2021, the same would be valid.
Further, it is to be noted that as per MPD 2021, public utilities are permitted
in all „Use Zone‟.
18. Thus, in the present case, the area in question being a residential area,
where primary/middle school is permissible, amendment in the layout plan
to show the use of the land in question, in conformity with its actual land
use, is in accordance with law. It is clear that as per the scheme of the DMC
Act and the MPD 2021, layout plan is within the domain of the MCD.
Amendment in the layout plan of the area, in terms of the „Use Zone‟ as
prescribed in the Master Plan for a specified area, would not entail any
violation of the Master Plan.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 18 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
19. Thus, this Court in the case of Resident Welfare Association Guru
Nanak Pura Versus MCD & Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 399, has held as
under:
“xxx xxx xxx
8. The only challenge by the petitioner to the Resolution dated
13th November, 2002 is on the ground that the same changes the
land use from park to plotted residential development. However
from the affidavits of the respondent no. 2 DDA and the respondent
no. 1 MCD, what emerges is that the land use prescribed of the
entire area is residential. However the respondent no. 1 MCD in
the Layout Plan earlier sanctioned carved out a park where vide
subsequent Resolution the residential plots were carved out. The
counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any material
that the prescribed land use of the area is as of a park only. Once
the prescribed land use as per the Zonal Development Plan and the
Master Plan is residential, no error capable of interference is
found in the Resolution dated 13th November, 2002 sanctioning
residential plots where earlier a park existed.
9. Layout Plans are sanctioned by the respondent no. 1 MCD in
exercise of powers under Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957. Any person aggrieved from order according
sanction, under Section 347 B (1) (a) has the remedy of appeal to the
Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition is not maintainable for this
reason also.
There is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. No order as
to costs.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. A layout plan can be amended and modified, as long as the said
amended and modified layout plan is in conformity with the Master Plan.
Holding that so long as the layout plan conforms to Master Plan Norms,
Court cannot substitute its own opinion as to what principle or policy would
best serve the object of the Master Plan, the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Rohit Dhupar and Ors. Versus Lt. Governor and Ors., 2009
SCC OnLine Del 487, has held as follows:
“1. The five petitioners are residents of New Friends Colony and have
filed the present Public Interest Litigation for quashing and setting asideSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 19 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
allotment of 500 sq. mts. of land to the New Friends Colony Temple
Society (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 5, for short) by the
Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short).
It is alleged in the Petition that this 500 sq.mts. is part of a land
earmarked for a park and the allotment, therefore, is contrary to the
Master Plan of Delhi, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as MPD 2001, for
short). It was submitted that land use from park to any other use cannot
be changed without complying with the provisions of Section 11A of the
Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as DD Act, for
short).
xxx xxx xxx
11. As per the counter affidavit filed by DDA, it is clear that the area
out of which 500 sq.mts. of land has been allotted to respondent No. 5
in the earlier Lay Out Plan was identified for land use as “Multi
Purpose Community Usage”. The land, therefore, could be used for
different usages under the MPD-2001, permitted under the heading
“Multi Purpose Community Usage”. The affidavits of DDA and MCD
state that 500 sq.mts. of land allotted to respondent No. 5 formed part
of land that had been earmarked in the Lay Out Plan for use as
community centre, nursery school, common services etc. in the Lay Out
Plan. The Lay Out Plan was subsequently amended and 500 sq.mts.
was earmarked for residence of service personnel and balance 1500 sq.
mtrs. was to be developed as a green area. Therefore, we accept the
contention of DDA and MCD that allotment of land to respondent No.
5 did not entail amendment or change in MPD, 2001 or ZDP. It only
entailed amendment in the Lay Out Plan and change in use from
nursery school/community centre/other activities falling under the
broad category „Multi Purpose Community Usage‟. This modification
in the Lay Out Plan for use of land for purpose of residence of service
personnel resulted in only amendment of the Lay Out Plan and not an
amendment or modification of the ZDP.
12. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners
that Lay Out Plan can be modified or amended only after following the
prescribed procedure for amendment of the MPD 2001 and ZDP as
prescribed under the DD Act. The Lay Out Plan can be amended and
modified without following the procedure u/s 11A of the DD Act, as
long as amended and modified lay out plans are in conformity with the
ZDP and the MPD. Section 11A of the DD Act, quoted above, deals with
amendment of the ZDP and MPD, 2001 and not amendment or
modification of the lay out plans. This has been the consistent view of this
Court as is clear from the judgments of Division Benches of this court
in B-1, Vasant Kunj Resident Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi and others, 2003 (1) AD (Delhi) 727 and Shanti Devi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 20 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
Gupta and others v. Delhi Development Authority, 54 (1994) DLT 620
Delhi. In Star Residents Society (Regd.) and Ors. v. Delhi Development
Authority, 2004 (77) DRJ (Delhi) 599, it was observed that:
29. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision Shanti
Devi Gupta, v. DDA, AIR 1994 Delhi 299, vide para 16 held
that the Delhi Development Act, 1957 in general and Section
9 of the said Act in particular, only refer to the Master Plan
and Zonal Development Plan and not the lay out plan. The
lay out plan was held to be a sort of working drawings
prepared by the DDA. Any departure from the lay out plan
was held as not to be equated with the violation of the
Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan which are
statutory.
30. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the
decision, Smt. Maya Devi v. UOI, 65 (1997) DLT 405 held
that a lay out plan could be administratively modified by the
Delhi Development Authority without resorting to the
process of modification envisaged to a Master Plan and a
Zonal Development Plan as per the mandate of Section 11A
of the Delhi Development Act. In para 11 it was observed:–
“If this is the situation, in that eventuality there is only
a lay out plan of the area in question. A careful scrutiny
of the provisions of the Act reveals that Chapter 3A
deals with the modification of Master Plan. Section
HA(i) to (iv) deals with the modification of the said
plan. There is no other provision in the entire act which
deals with the modification of the lay out plan. It
implies thereby that the lay out plan can be modified by
the Vice Chairman of the DDA.”
31. Another Division Bench of this Court, in the
decision, Triveni Educational & Social Welfare Society v. DDA
& Another, 76 (1998) DLT 329 : 1998 (47) DRJ 249 (DB) took
a view similar to the one taken by a learned single Judge of this
Court in Mayadevi’s judgment. Another Division Bench of this
Court, in the judgment reported as 87 (2000) DLT 603, B.U
Block Residents Welfare Association v. DDA held:–
“9…………….In any case, we find no breach or violation
of MPT-2001 or the 2DP. It cannot be disputed that if
there is a change in the lay out plan, no approval or
sanction of the Central Government is required.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 21 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
13. Similar view has been taken in the case of Vasant Kunj RWA (supra).
It has been held that Lay Out Plans can be amended and changed
without reference to Section 11A of the Act. It was observed:
“7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the
opinion that although layout plan can be changed where for no
permission in terms of section 11A of the Delhi Development
Authority Act is required but there cannot be further any doubt
whatsoever that the sufficient area should be left out as green
area.”
14. In U.P. Samaj Cooperative House Building Society Ltd v. Delhi
Development Authority and Ors., 116 (2005) DLT 247 : 2005 (79) DRJ
77, the court observed:
“23. Town planning is a legislative activity. Under Delhi
Development Act, 1957, Master Plan has the force of law. Lay out
plan is prepared keeping in view the development control norms
stipulated under the Master Plan. So long as the lay out conforms
to Master Plan norms, Court cannot substitute its own opinion as
to what principle or policy would best serve the object of the
Master Plan.”
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the decision
in G.N. Khajuria v. Delhi Development Authority and another, AIR 1996
SC 253. In the said case, the land use prescribed in the Lay Out Plan for
the area in question was „park‟. The park was sought to be converted
into a nursery school. The contention of the private party and DDA was
that nursery schools are not required to be indicated either in the MPD
or ZDP, unlike locations of high school and primary schools as they are
not taken to be schools stricto sensu but are akin to recreational places.
It was accordingly submitted that establishment of a nursery school in a
park does not require amendment of ZDP and it is only modification of
the Lay Out Plan. This contention was not accepted by the Supreme
Court as after amendment of the Lay Out Plan no area was earmarked
for park and thus the Lay Out Plan was not in conformity with the MPD,
under which parks are required. Thus, the amended Lay Out Plan was
not in conformity with the MPD. The Supreme Court, however, agreed
with the learned counsel for the private respondents that ZDP need not
visualize and specify land use for a nursery school as there is a
distinction between a high school and a primary school on the one hand
and a nursery school on the other hand. The decision went against the
respondents therein for no land was earmarked for a park in the
revised/amended Lay Out Plan and the area earmarked for park was
converted to a different use. It was observed as under:–
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 22 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
“We would agree with Shri Jaitley that in the zonal development
plan visualized by Section 8 of the Act, land used for nursery
school may not be indicated, as a distinction is permissible to be
made between a high school and a primary school on one hand and
nursery school on the other. Even so, we are of the firm view that
any lay-out for residential colony, like that of Sarita Vihar, has to
indicate space reserved, not only for nursery school, but for park.
This follows from what has been stated in Sections 8(2)(a) and
8(d)(ii) of the Act and Rule 4(3)(g) of the aforesaid Rules. We have
thought it fit to mention about this aspect because in the lay-out
plan of Sarita Vihar, as put on record, we find no mention about
reservation of space for park. This is simply inconceivable to us.”
16. There is a park earmarked in the Lay Out Plan of the New Friends
Colony. It is not alleged that the area earmarked as a park in the Lay
Out Plan is contrary to the ZDP or MPD 2001. 1500 sq.mts. of land out
of 2000 sq.mts. earlier earmarked for “Multi Purpose Community
Usage” in the Lay Out Plan has now been converted into a park
instead of a nursery school, dobhi ghat, etc. In view of the above, we do
not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. Considering the law as discussed aforesaid, it is clear that the
amendment in the layout plan by the MCD, is within the domain of its
authority, and the same is in conformity with the Master Plan. The MCD has
merely undertaken steps to bring the layout plan at par with the actual user
of the land to which it has been put for a long time, i.e., MCD School.
22. It is undisputed that the land in question vests with the MCD, and as
per the facts on record, the said land was allotted to the Education
Department, MCD in the year 1969 for running a school. It is also
undisputed that a school on the land in question was being run in temporary
structures viz. tents and sheds. Subsequently, a school building has been
constructed which got completed in the year 2015. Thus, it is apparent that a
school has been in existence and running from the land in question sinceSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 23 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
many decades. The submissions of the MCD, in this regard, in affidavit
dated 25th November, 2017 filed by Assistant Director (Education),
Education Department, are reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
3. I say that as per the information which could be gathered from the
offices of Land and Estate Deptt and the CTP and from the Municipal
school which is being run from the plot in question is that:
(i) the land parcel / plot measuring 4458 sq. yards (= 3728.88 sq. mtrs)
is owned by the MCD and was allotted to Education Deptt. for
Municipal Corporation Middle School vide Entry dated 21.5.1969, as
per the Register of Immovable Property maintained by the Land &
Estate Deptt. (copy annexed as Annexure R-2). Copy of Map of 1969
provided by the Land & Estate Deptt is annexed as Annexure R-3,
which clearly shows that this land parcel / plot measuring 4458 sq.
yards opposite House No.F- 14/31 to F-14/40, Model Town was partly
constructed as school building and the remaining land was being used
as a play ground for the school students.
(ii) A municipal school by the name of Municipal Corporation Middle
School has been running on this land parcel since last many decades;
subsequently the status of the school was changed to Primary School
due to change in policy in 1972 and its name was changed to Municipal
Corporation Primary Co-Ed School at present; the school was initially
being run from tents as well as several single storey classrooms/sheds
spread along the perimeter of the plot with play ground in the middle;
later on classrooms were razed and school building was constructed on
some portion while remaining portion remained vacant for use as
playground; subsequently the school building was reconstructed on
portion measuring 1560 sq yard as the earlier building had become
dilapidated with passage of time and was completed in 2015 while
portion measuring 2898 sq yard remained vacant for use as
playground; there was always a boundary wall of the entire plot but this
boundary wall had also become dilapidated, fallen and demolished with
passage of time and anti-social miscreants started loitering in the open
area meant for the playground and bushes came up and residents of the
area starting throwing garbage there and as a result this vacant portion
measuring 2898 sq yards ceased to be used by the school students and
hence in 2017 the Work Order has been issued by the Works Division of
North DMC to reconstruct the Boundary wall so that school students
can use it for physical activities; that earlier as well as now the height
of the brick boundary wall is 5 foot and above it grills of about 3 ft high
have been affixed; a small gate has been constructed in the wall of the
school building dividing the school building and the playground. Copy
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 24 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
of letter dated 22.1.2016 written by Dy. Director, Education, Civil Lines
Zone to the Executive Engineer requesting for constructing boundary
wall is annexed as Annexure R-4, copy of letter dated 9.2.2016 written by
Executive Engineer to Dy. Director, Education, Civil Lines zone is
annexed as Annexure R-5.
(iii) Thus the parcel of land measuring 2898 sq yards in front of House
no. F-14/31 to F-14/36, Model Town-II, New Delhi is to be used as
playground for the students of the aforesaid Municipal school.
(iv) as per the layout plan of 1965 of this area as procured from the
office of CTP, the land use of the entire plot measuring 4458 sq. yards
is shown as ‘lawn’; however the land use was subsequently changed to
‘school’ as per the record maintained by the Land and Estate Deptt., as
pointed out above ……
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. Once the existence and running of a government school, i.e., MCD
School, is established and the land vests with the MCD, the MCD is within
its authority to put the land to use in accordance with the user of the land.
This Court finds justification in the use of the land appurtenant to the school,
being part of one big plot, as playground for the school children. The
necessity of a playground for use of the school children cannot be
underscored, as the same is an essential and fundamental requirement for
overall growth of the children. Taking part in sports activities is an integral
part of education, which cannot be overlooked.
24. It is apparent that a decision has been taken by the MCD to use the
land in question as a school, which has been used for such purpose for a
long time. As noted above, land use of the land in question has already been
changed from „lawn‟ to „school‟ by the Standing Committee vide its
Resolution No. 1485 dated 30th November, 1988. Further, vide its Resolution
No. 33 dated 19th August, 2020, the Standing Committee has already
approved the modification of the lay out plan of Model Town, bySignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 25 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
earmarking the site in question for primary school. In this regard, it is to be
noted that the Courts ordinarily do not interfere in policy decisions, unless
said policy can be faulted on the grounds of malafide, unreasonableness,
arbitrariness or unfairness. Thus, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others Versus Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and Another, 2008 SCC OnLine
SC 479, it has been held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
13. Cabinet’s decision was taken nearly eight years back and appears to
be operative. That being so there is no scope for directing
reconsideration as was done in Ram Milan case, though learned counsel
for the respondents prayed that such a direction should be given. As
rightly contended by learned counsel for the State, in matters of policy
decisions, the scope of interference is extremely limited. The policy
decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which
policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from
different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion
by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is
not shown, courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will
not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the
executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the
Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible
from that of the Government.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. Likewise, holding that public authorities must have liberty and
freedom in framing the policies and it is not possible for the Courts to
consider competing claims and to conclude which way the balance tilts, the
Supreme Court in the case of Federation Haj PTOs of India Versus Union
of India, (2020) 18 SCC 527, has held as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
18. Going by the aforesaid considerations, the respondent has carved out
the categories of HGOs on the parameters of experience as well as
financial strength of HGOs. Such a decision is based on policy
considerations. It cannot be said that this decision is manifestly arbitrary
or unreasonable. It is settled law that policy decisions of the executive
are best left to it and a court cannot be propelled into the uncharteredSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 26 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
ocean of government policy (see Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of
India [Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788] ).
Public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing the
policies. It is well-accepted principle that in complex social, economic
and commercial matters, decisions have to be taken by governmental
authorities keeping in view several factors and it is not possible for the
courts to consider competing claims and to conclude which way the
balance tilts. Courts are ill-equipped to substitute their decisions. It is
not within the realm of the courts to go into the issue as to whether
there could have been a better policy and on that parameters direct the
executive to formulate, change, vary and/or modify the policy which
appears better to the court. Such an exercise is impermissible in policy
matters. In Bennett Coleman case [Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of
India, (1972) 2 SCC 788] , the Court explained this principle in the
following manner : (SCC p. 834, para 125)
“125. … The argument of the petitioners that Government should
have accorded greater priority to the import of newsprint to supply
the need of all newspaper proprietor to the maximum extent is a
matter relating to the policy of import and this Court cannot be
propelled into the unchartered ocean of governmental policy.”
19. The scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters. It is
only when a particular policy decision is found to be against a statute
or it offends any of the provisions of the Constitution or it is manifestly
arbitrary, capricious or mala fide, the Court would interfere with such
policy decisions. No such case is made out. On the contrary, views of the
petitioners have not only been considered but accommodated to the
extent possible and permissible. We may, at this junction, recall the
following observations from the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary
Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] : (SCC p.
42, para 16)
“16. … The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the
policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-
making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate
the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness
and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any
drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will
not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on
the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy,
but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to
effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate
are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should
be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 27 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular
provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal
infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the
regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the
provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the
limitation imposed by the Constitution.”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. The petitioners have been unable to show any legal or vested right
with them for use of the land in question as an „ornamental park‟, by
disregarding the need for a playground for school children. This is especially
so, when a huge park measuring 100 acres by the name “Shalimar Garden”
exists within 30 meters from the school site in question. Besides, use of the
land in question as a „playground‟, would not affect the fresh air and
sunlight to the houses of the petitioners. The submissions in this regard
made on behalf of MCD in its affidavit dated 25th November, 2017 filed by
Assistant Director (Education), Education Department, are reproduced as
under:
“xxx xxx xxx
4. I say and submit that there is a big park known as „Shalimar Garden‟
spread over many acres of land which is hardly about 30 meters from
the school site in question, with just a road dividing the school site and
the said „Shalimar Garden‟, as can be seen from the plan filed at page
43 of the Petition. Thus, fresh air is amply available to the residents of
this area. Moreover, the height of the boundary wall now constructed is
only about 5 ft (and not 6 ft as alleged by petitioner) and the same is of
brick (and not of concrete as alleged by petitioner) and grill of about 3
ft high have been affixed on top of the boundary wall. The work of
plastering of the boundary wall has been stopped due to the pendency of
present case. The latest photographs of the site / boundary wall clicked
on 24.11.2017 are annexed as Annexure R-6 (colly).
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 28 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
27. Further, the site plan of the area in question shows existence of
various parks, for use and enjoyment of the residents. Therefore, the
petitioners have not been able to establish that their necessity for green areas
in their residential locality is being neglected or disregarded in any manner.
The site plan on record before this Court, is reproduced as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 29 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
28. This Court notes that the basis for filing the present writ petition is the
claim of the petitioners for use of the open land in front of their houses as an
„ornamental park‟, on the basis of a compromise order dated 28 th September,
2011, while the MCD intends to use the same, as playground for school
children of the adjoining government school.
29. It is to be noted that the Residents Society of the area, had earlier filed
a suit in the District Court praying for development of the land in question
as an „ornamental park‟ in the year 1988, since on part of the land where
previously the school was being run from temporary tents, a building was
sought to be constructed by the MCD for running the school. During the
pendency of the said suit, the construction of the school building was stayed.
Subsequently, the Residents Society approached the MCD with the proposal
that they would withdraw the suit so that MCD could carry out construction
of the school building, provided rest of the land will be developed as an
„ornamental park‟. Thus, a purported decision dated 23 rd September, 2011
was taken, in the following manner:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 30 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
30. On account of the meeting dated 16th September, 2011, as aforesaid,
which took place in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Line
Zone, a joint application was filed in the said suit for withdrawal of the suit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 31 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
on the basis of compromise between the parties. Thus, statements on behalf
of MCD and the Residents Society, were recorded in the following manner:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 32 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
31. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid, the suit filed on behalf of
the Residents Society was disposed of vide order dated 28th September,
2011, in the following manner:
32. As regards the contention of the petitioners qua the aforesaid consent
order dated 28th September, 2011, it is to be noted that the purported
decision forming the basis of the consent order, was made on the basis of a
discussion at the zonal level with the Residents Society. However, the said
decision which was taken at the zonal level, was not approved by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 33 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
competent authority viz. the Commissioner, MCD or the Standing
Committee or the Corporation. Any decision regarding use of land or change
in the layout plan is considered by the Layout Scrutiny Committee of the
MCD, after which approval of the Standing Committee/Corporation is
required, before the same attains the character of a final determination in
that regard. Therefore, any official of the MCD on his own accord cannot
take decisions pertaining to any land use. Any statement by any officer made
without any authority cannot be considered to be the stance or decision of
the MCD, so as to bind the MCD. In this regard, this Court notes the
affidavit dated 08th January, 2020 filed by Deputy Commissioner of the
MCD, wherein, it has been stated as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
5. That it is seen from the file noting dated 23.9.2011 made by the Asst.
Engineer (filed as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition) that a meeting
took place on 16.9.2011 in MCD’ office wherein a proposal was mooted
that the land portion (referred to as park therein) facing F-14/31 to F-
14/36 Model Town-II, Delhi may be developed as an ornamental park.
It is to be emphasized that this noting by the Asst. Engineer was only a
‘proposal’, which was never approved by the higher authorities, and the
same does not amount to a ‘decision’ of the Corporation and is thus not
binding on the Corporation. Since developing municipal school’s land
as an ornamental park amount to change of land use, the same
required approval of the Competent Authority, which never happened
in this case. A further perusal of the said noting shows that the
DC(CLZ) had made a note “Plaintiff discuss” and the note/proposal of
the Asst. Engineer was not approved by the DC. Thereafter, there is no
further progress on this subject. Hence, the proposal to develop the
school land in question as an ornamental park remained a proposal
and the same was never approved by competent authority. It appears
that based on said proposal/Noting, the Asst Engineer inadvertently, as
well as the plaintiff made a statement in the Suit No.1827/2009 (Page
40 of writ petition) before the court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari on
28.9.2011 (i.e. immediately after 5 days of Asst. Engineer’s Noting dt.
23.9.2011) and the said suit was accordingly disposed off as
compromised on 28.9.2011 (page 39). The fact remains that the said
land is owned by Education Deptt for the purpose of school and isSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 34 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
meant for playground of the school for the welfare of the children and
the same cannot be developed / converted into an ornamental park for
the general public.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
33. This Court also notes that the office noting pertaining to the proposal
for using the area in question as an „ornamental park‟, was in complete
contradiction to the Resolution No. 1485 of the Standing Committee of the
year 1988 for approving the use of the land in question as a „school‟ and
changing the land use accordingly.
34. As noted above, the said proposal was never approved by the
competent authority. Besides, the file noting in question does not confer any
enforceable right upon the petitioners. It is a settled law that noting in file
culminate into executable or binding rights, only when due approvals are
taken in order to reach at a final decision, which is communicated to the
person concerned. In the present case, neither any final decision in the form
of approval by the competent authority was taken, nor, any official
communication in that regard after due approval from the competent
authority, was made. Thus, in the case of Union of India and Another
Versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1031, it has been
held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
34. In Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 705 : (2009)
5 SCC (Civ) 707], this Court considered the provisions of Articles 77(2),
77(3) and 166(2) of the Constitution and held that : (SCC p. 726, para
42)
“42. … unless an order is expressed in the name of the President
or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by
the Rules, the same cannot be treated as an order on behalf of the
Government.”
35. The Court further held : (Shanti Sports Club case [(2009) 15 SCC
705 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 707] , SCC pp. 726-27, para 43)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 35 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
“43. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter
and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by
the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such
noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if
the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the
merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be
termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and
acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1)
and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a
decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the
parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or
the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the
manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or
even a decision recorded in the file can always be
reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot
take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of
the power of judicial review.”
36. Similarly, while dealing with the issue, this Court in Sethi Auto
Service Station v. DDA [(2009) 1 SCC 180] held : (SCC pp. 185-86, para
14)
“14. It is trite to state that notings in a departmental file do not
have the sanction of law to be an effective order. A noting by an
officer is an expression of his viewpoint on the subject. It is no
more than an opinion by an officer for internal use and
consideration of the other officials of the department and for the
benefit of the final decision-making authority. Needless to add
that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings
in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights
of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making
authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order
is communicated to the person concerned.”
(emphasis in original)
37. In Jasbir Singh Chhabra v. State of Punjab [(2010) 4 SCC 192] , this
Court held : (SCC p. 209, para 35)
“35. … However, the final decision is required to be taken by the
designated authority keeping in view the larger public interest.
The notings recorded in the files cannot be made basis for
recording a finding that the ultimate decision taken by the
Government is tainted by mala fides or is influenced by
extraneous considerations.”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 36 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
35. Similarly, holding that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting
and cannot be treated as a decision of the government/authority, the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Another Versus
Sunil Kumar Vaish and Others, 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1094, has held as
follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and
nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the
particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, can such noting be
treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent
authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter
under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the
Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order
in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2).
The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order
affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of
the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in
the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even
a decision recorded in the file can always be
reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take
cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of
judicial review. (See State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh [AIR 1961
SC 493], Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 395], State of
Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar [(1987) 3 SCC 34 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 442]
, Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan [(1993) 2 SCC 84], Sethi Auto
Service Station v. DDA [(2009) 1 SCC 180] and Shanti Sports
Club v. Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 705 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 707].)
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
36. Therefore, any purported consent order on the basis of some
purported decision taken without any dominion, or without approval of the
competent authority, cannot be taken as a refuge by the petitioners. This
Court finds no justification in the prayer of the petitioners to use the parcel
of land meant for „playground‟ for school students of MCD school, as an
„ornamental park‟ for the public. There are already many parks nearby
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 37 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34
within the vicinity, including, a 100 acres park, for the petitioners to use and
enjoy. This Court is of the view that the requirement of the said parcel of
land for the school students as a playground is indispensable for their
physical development and growth. No error is found in the decision of the
MCD.
37. Considering the detailed discussion hereinabove, no merit is found in
the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with
the pending application, is dismissed.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
AUGUST 19, 2025
AK/KR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6416/2017 Page 38 of 38
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:19.08.2025
20:57:34