A
B
DR. G.N. KHAJURIA AND ORS.
v.
D.D.A. AND ORS.
MARCH 18, 1996
fK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Delhi Development Autholity-Development Plan-Area eannarked for
pwk-Allotment to sclwoi-Cliallenge by residents-Supreme Court's direc-
tion for dismantling and vacation of school-Person responsible for deviation
C and illegal a//otment-Fi.xatio11 of respo11sibility--{;onduct of enqui1y-
Report-Co11duct of superficial enquiry deprecated-Person responsible
ma11aging and camouflaging the auth01ity-After getti11g the plan approved
i11troducing the allotment of site to school-Plan ultimately approved by Lt.
Govc11101--In such circunistances directions issued to close the reporl.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 2.
IN
Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 1995.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.94 of the Delhi High Court
F
in C.W.P. No. 3812 of 1992.
G.K. Bansal for the Appellants .
. T.D. Jain for the Respondents.
Gopal Subramaniam and Ms. lndu Malhotra for the D.D.A.
D.V. Sehgal, Pradeep Kr., Ms. Naina Kijriwal and Ms. Anil Kaliyar
for the Respondent No. 2.
G
The Order of the Court was delivered :
Time for vacating the school and dismantling the same as per the
judgment of this Court, as prayed for, is extended till 30th April, 1996.
Though Shri D.S. Meshram, Chief Planner, Town and Country Plan-
H ning Organisation, Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and
522
\
\
11 ! I
DR. G.N. KHAJURIA v. D.D.A
523
Employment has submitted the report dated November 17, 1995. Unfor- A
lunately, he has not adverted to the impact of the order of this Court nor
he brought to bear up the subject in that perspective. He has conducted
only superficial enquiry and stated only what is apparent and nothing more.
He should have subjected the enquiry to in depth scrutiny but failed to do
that. His report is like that of a clerk putting up the note and nothing more. B
However, we have carefully gone through the record annexed to the report.
From the record, it is clear that originally the area was earmarked for the
park and there was no indication that it was intended !<' be allotted to any
third agency in the land earmarked for the park. In fact, the Vice-Chairman
also had pointed out time and again in that behalf. He had also issued
notice to have the school vacated and the park preserved. Though notice C
pursuant thereto was given, no follow up action was, persued. Resultantly,
the residents had to take up tlie matter and ultimately succeeded in getting
the order from this Court.
We tried to scan the person responsible for deviation and illegal
allotment but it is difficult in the circumstances to pin point the actual D
.,.
person responsible in that behalf. He had skillfully managed and had
camouflaged to have the authority after getting the plan approved intro-
ducing the allotment of the site to the school. Since the plan was approved
ultimately by the Lt. Governor, it went under the carpet of official action.
He has escaped from the clutches of law. Therefore, nothing can be done
in the circumstances Report is accordingly closed.
T.N.A.
Lex