PT. CHET RAM VASHIST (DEAD) BY LRS. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 26-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Order modified

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PT. CHET RAM V ASHIST (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI 
OCTOBER 26, 1994 
B 
[R.M. SAHAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-Section 313-Whether 
Corporation has power to vest open spaces reserved for parks and schools 
in a private colony in itself-Lay out plan submitted for approval-Open 
spaces reserved for public purpose for parks and schools-Approval 
C 
granted subject to the condition that open spaces should be transferred to 
Corporation free of cost-Held, condition is illegal and invalid-No such 
power conferred by the Act. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Words and Phrases-Transfer of ownership and transfer of right of 
management-Meaning of-Difference between. 
Constitution of India-Article 142-Substantial justice-Order of the 
High Court liable to be set aside-However, in the facts and circumstances 
of the case order altered 
The appellant got the lay out plan of a colony being developed by 
him approved by the Corporation. The plan proposed installation of 
tube wells in two plots of the colony for supply of water as at the 
re1evant time there was no municipal supply available. When 
Municipal supply reached the colony, the appellant sought to connect 
the colony to the water supply main and applied for removal of 
restrictions from building activity. The Standing Committee of the 
Corporation in November 1964 considered the application of the 
appellant for rem'lval of restrictions and resolved that building activity 
may be allowed in the colony "subject to the condition that the open 
spaces for parks and schools be transferred to the Corporation free of 
cost." The Corporation laid down a further condition that the two plots 
resP-rved for installation of tube well should be reserved as green parks. 
Against the conditions imposed by the Corporation for transfer of 
open spaces free of cost to it and for reservation of the two plots as 
parks, the appellant filed a suit for declaration and mandatory 
injunctions in November 1965. The Trial Court held that though the 
condition relating to reservation of the two plots for the purpose of an 
open park is valid, the condition relating to transfer of sites for schools 
and parks to the Corporation free of cost was invalid. 
180 
C. R. VASHIST v. M. C. D. 
181 
Both the appellant as well as Corporation appealed against the A 
trial court's order. Appeal preferred by the Corporation was dismissed. 
In respect of the appeal preferred by the appellant, the Court held that 
though the appellant was entitled to the relief of injunction, the 
appellant had no cause of action as the standing committee, which was 
the final authority to accord permission for building activity, had 
rejected the plan of the appellant. 
B 
On appeal, the High Court held that the condition imposed on the 
appellant for transfer of sites for schools and parks free of cost did not 
amount of transfer of ownership but merely transfer of right of 
management. 
On appeal, this court while declining to interfere with the order of 
the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 
c 
HELD : 1.1. There is no provision in the Delhi Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1957 which provides that any space reserved for any 
open space or park shall vest in the Corporation. In absence of any D 
provision, therefore, in the Act the open space left for school or park in 
a private colony cannot vest in the Corporation. The resolution of the 
Standing Committee, therefore, that the area specified in the lay out 
plan for the park and school shall vest in the Corporation free of cost, 
was not in accordance with law. (188-G, 189-C) 
1.2. Public purpose is, no doubt, a very important consideration 
and private interest has to be sacrificed for the welfare of the society. 
But when the appellant was willing to reserve the two plots for park 
and school then he was not acting against public interest. This cannot 
be stretched to create a right and title in favour of a local body which 
E 
at the most may be entitled to manage and supervise only. (188-B) 
F 
3. Sub-section (3) of Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal 
Corporation Act, 1957 empowers the Standing Committee to accord 
sanction to the lay out plan on such conditions as it may think fit. The 
expression, such conditions has to be understood so as to advance the 
objective of the provision and the purpose for which it has been G 
enacted. The Corporation has been given the right to examine that the 
lay out 

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