ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus and directions for setting aside the allotment of 6023.26 sq.meters of land by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3. Petitioner also seeks directions for withdrawal of the permission given by the DDA to respondent No.3 for running a DAV school on the said land in Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi. Petitioner also seeks directions for demolition of the existing structures and restoration of the land as per the master and zonal development plan.
2. The petitioner’s case as eloquently put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner may be briefly noted:
(i) The petitioner (two in number) are residents of SFS flats, Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV. Petitioner claims that he land between flat No.316 to 405 has been used by children of the said flat owners as a play ground and by the residents as a park. This space originally measured approximately 7000 sq.meters. It is stated that in the Zonal master plan the user of this space had been indicated as a primary school.
(ii) Mr. Narula has taken me through the provisions of the master plan to submit that the recommended land for allotment to a primary school is 0.08 hectares i.e. approximately 800 meters. In the instant case, 814 sq.meters are stated to have been allotted to M/s. Mohan Memorial Educational Society, respondent No.4 herein. On a protect by the residents, the then Lt. Governor directed that the user of the space shall be for a children’s park. In the year 1993, even though one primary school of M/s. Mohan Memorial Educational Society had come into being the DDA again allotted 3011.53 sq. mtrs of land to M/s. DAV College Management Committee for a middle school. Besides adjacent land admeasuring 3011.53 meter, was sought to be given on temporary basis on payment of nominal ground rent.
(iii) During the years 1993-94, DAV College Management Committee raised a double storeyed building and started running the school.
3. Petitioners further submit that since the last one month respondent No.3 has started raising another building in the open space and the said construction is unauthorised and illegal and in violation of the master plan. It is the raising of this additional building which has brought the petitioners to this court in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Dr. G.N.Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority and others wherein the Supreme Court directed cancellation of an allotment where a nursery school was sought to be made on the space meant for a park. The structures already put in, it was held, would not make any differences and the allotment was still liable to be cancelled.
4. I am unable to accept the pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The present case is clearly distinguishable from Dr. G.N.Khajuria and others Vs. DDA and others (Supra). In the cited case, the land admittedly meant for a park had been put for use as a school. While in the instant case, it is not disputed that the only allocation of the land as per master and zonal development plan was given as a primary school. Petitioner’s argument appears to be that once primary school requiring 800 sq. meters had come into existence, not further land could be allocated for a school considering the user by the residents and orders of previous Lt. Governor. Reliance is placed on a communication by the former Lt. Governor, who wrote to his successor Lt. Governor on the representation of the residents. It was stated that he had allocated the land for children’s park. However, petitioner cannot say that the prescribed procedure in terms of Section 11(A) of Delhi Development Act had been followed.
5. Ms. Anusuya Salwan Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the user of the land as per the master plan was for a primary school. It was certainly not for a park. DDA cannot be faulted for having sanctioned another middle school. Besides, learned counsel submits that pursuant to the sanctions given as far back in 1993, the school come into existence and has been so run for a long period. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the respondent that even as per the petitioner’s own averments, the Resident Welfare Association of the area, had instituted civil suits for injunction against the construction of the school building and user as a school. The injunction was declined by the learned Civil Judge. An appeal against that order was also dismissed by the District Judge on 26.2.1994. In the said suit, it was specifically claimed that the open space was earmarked for a park. The Additional District Judge had dismissed the application holding that the land had bene lawfully allotted and there was no change of user of the site. There is yet another suit filed by the residents bearing Suit No.1124/95 titled Dr.S.C. Shukla and others Vs. DDA and another. Petitioner’s averments in the petition are that injunction has been sought against the DDA and the DAV College Trust. The averment in the next para refers to injunction in the said suit against M/s. Mohan Memorial Education Society. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to clarify this position.
Be it may, the net position which emerges is that there was an injunction sought even in the second suit, which was granted and the appeal had been preferred by the DAV College Trust and Management Society in FAO (OS) No.145/95. This being the situation without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. I find that the issues sought to be raised in the present writ petition are directly and substantially also the issues as have been raised in the two suits referred to in the writ petition. In my view, the entertainment of this writ petition would result in multiplicity of proceeding, besides being an abuse of the legal process. Admittedly the Residents Welfare Association and some other residents have already challenged the allotment in favor of the said educational societies and the alleged conversion of land from use as school to play ground for use as a park. Petitioners cannot be permitted belatedly to assail and raise issues which are directly and substantially the same as in the pending suits.
6. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on this short ground. The writ petition is otherwise devoid of merit and is dismissed. It would be open for the petitioner, if so, wishes to seek impleadment in the said proceedings in accordance with law.