JUDGMENT
P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) This petition has been brought seeking writ of prohibition restraining respondents from using plot in question for any purpose other than setting up a primary school.
(2) The petitioner is a house building cooperative society and retired government officials are members of this society and this society had been allotted a piece of land measuring 257.1 Bighas located in village Bahpur vide agreements dated 29.5.64 and dated 2.1.67, for a total consideration of Rs. 8,71,770.10 for allotting plots to the members of the society for the purpose of constructing residential houses. A layout plan was got approved from thes-M.C.D., Respondent No. 4 and the plot in question which is 2 acre of land was earmarked for setting up a primary school. It appears that this particular plot has been transferred to the Commissioner of Police for setting up a police station.
(3) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, is that this layout plan has been prepared in accordance with the Zonal Dev. Plan already notified by the D.D.A. u/S. 8 of the Delhi Dev. Act (‘the Act’) and there cannot take place any modification of the said plan unless and until the procedure laid down in the statute is followed. It is not disputed by the respondent-DDA that the procedure laid down in the Act has not been followed in the present case for changing the user of the said plot. The Zonal Dev. Plan, copy of which has been filed on the record, shows that the area F. 2 contains the land which has been allotted to the petitioner including the plot in question. The legend (?) of the Zonal Development Plan, which has come into force on 28.1273 after being revised although originally the plan was issued in 5.3.65 in respect of this Zone, clearly shows that no police station was sought to be provided in this particular P. 2 Zone. If that is so, it is not understandable how the D.D.A. or the other respondents could on their own without following the procedure laid down in the Act change the user of any particular land falling in that Zone. This Zonal Dev, Plan clearly shows that a primary school had been earmarked in this Zone. So, it is evident that the layout plan approved by the M.C.D. was in consonance with the Zonal Dev. Plan. In case the respondents had desired that public interest required that a particular plot out of the land allotted to the petitioner was needed for setting up a police station which is also a public amenity, the respondents could have taken resort to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act which reads as follows : (—)
(4) An elaborate procedure has been laid down by the statute for modification of the Zonal Dev. Plan. The respondents could not on their own without following the procedure prescribed in the Act modify the Zonal Dev. Plan by changing the user of a particular plot which is not in consonance with the existing Zonal Dev. Plan.
(5) In Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa , the provisions of Bangalore Dev. Act came up for consideration. The plan approved under the said statute contemplated setting up a public park and the same was sought to be converted into a private nursing home. The Supreme Court held that no such conversion is permissible in law unless the provisions of the statute are complied with for modification of the plan. This judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
(6) On this short ground, I allow the writ petition, make the rule absolute and prohibit the respondents from putting to use this particular plot of land for any purpose other than for setting up a primary school. However, the respondents are at liberty to modify the Zonal Dev. Plan in accordance with S 11-A of the Act if they so desire.