DR. G.N. KHAJURIA AND ORS. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 31-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. G.N. KHAJURIA AND ORS. 
v. 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Delhi Development Act, 1957: Sections 7 and 8. 
Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 
C 
1959 - Rule 4. 
Zonal Development Plan-Residential Colony-Lay out plan 
f01----Need to indicate space rese1ved for Nurse1y School and Park. 
Land rese1Ved for Park-Allotment of pmt of land for Nursery 1 
D School--Held not pennissible and hence misuse of power by Auth01ity-Can-
cellation of allotment--Direction for enquily against delinquent officers. 
E 
F 
,G 
A petition filed by the appellants, residents of Sarita Vihar, alleging 
that the Delhi Development Authority, Respondent- 1 allowed Respondent 
No. 2 to open a Nursery School on land which was part of park of the 
locality, was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court on the 
point whether the school in question was in possession of the land in 
violation of the statutory provisions contained in Delhi Development Act, 
1957, it was contended for the appellant-residents that (i) as the land 
allotted to respondent No. 2 was kept reserved for park it could not have 
been allowed to be used for opening the school; (ii) in view of sections 7 
and 8 of the 1957 Act read with rule 4 of the Delhi Development (Master 
Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959 the Development Authority 
was under an obligation to specify in the Zonal Development Plan, loca-
tions and extent of land uses, inter-alia, for parks and schools. 
On behalf of the Development Authority and the school it was 
contended that (i) there was no park at the site of the school; (ii) nursery 
schools are not required to be indicated either in the master plan or the 
zonal development plan as they are not tak.en to be schools stlicto sensu: 
and (iii) uprnoting the school at this stage would cause not only financial 
H 
loss to the respondent but also would hamper the educational progress of 
212 
,. 
G.N. KHAJURIA v. D.D.A. 
213 
the students as well. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In the zonal development plan visualised by section 8 of 
the Delhi Development Act, 1957, land used for nursery school may not be 
indicated, as a distinction is permissible to be made between a high school B 
and a primary school on one hand and nursery school on the other. Even 
so it is necessary that any lay-out for residential colony should indicate 
space reserved not only for nursery school but also for park. This follows 
from what has been stated in Sections 8(2)(a) and S(d) (ii) of the Act and 
Rule 4(3) (g) of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Develop-
C 
ment Plan) Rules, 1959. [215-H; 216-A-B] 
2. Record of the case leaves no doubt that at the site at which the 
school was allowed to be opened there was a park. Therefore, it was not 
open to the Delhi Development Authority to carve out any space meant for 
parts for a nursery school. Consequently, allotment in favour of respondent D 
No. 2 was misuse of power by the Authority. Accordingly, it is a fit case 
where the allotment made should be cancelled. The fact that some structure 
had been put up on the site is not relevant as the same has been done on a 
plot of land allotted in contravention of law. The submission that disloca-
tion from the present site would cause difficulty to the tiny tots, has been 
advanced only to get sympathy from the Court inasmuch as children, for 
whom the nursery school is meant, would travel to any other nearby place 
where such a school would be set up. However, it would be open to the 
respondent to continue to run the school at this site for a period of six 
months to enable it to make alternative arrangements to shift the school, 
so that the children are uot put to any disadvantageous position suddenly. 
[216-G; ff; 217-A-D] 
3. Respondent-Authority is directed to make an enquiry and inform 
the Court within three months as to who are the officers who had made the 
unauthorised allotment and permitted unauthorised construction. There-
E 
F 
after, further orders would be passed. [218-A] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.94 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W.P. No. 3812 of 1992. 
H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
P.P. Rao, Sanjay Bansal, G.K. Bansal and Ajay Jain for the Appel-
B 
c 
lants. 
Arun Jaitley, Ms. Dania Pradhan, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Nav

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.