JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
Rule.
(1) By this common order, I would be disposing of Civil Writ Nos. 5939/2001 and 6013/2001. The first petition i.e. CWP No. 5939/2001 has been filed by Resident Welfare Association of Dwarka Sectors 5 and 12, while CWP No. 6013/2001 has been filed by the Resident Welfare Association of Dwarka Sector No.4.
(2) The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in auctioning commercial plots at Dwarka. The auctions were scheduled on 3.10.2001 and 10.10.2001. The grievance of the petitioners’ Association on behalf of its residents is that respondents had taken out a public notice of the proposed auction of commercial plots in the Hindustan Times” issue dated 3.9.2001. The said notice/advertisement appears at page 30 of the paper book. The petitioners seek quashing of t he said advertisement. Further, quashing of the decision taken by the respondent DDA to have mixed land use of the vacant land along the wall of residential colony of Sectors 4, 5 and 12 of Dwarka is sought.
(3) Notice to show cause was issued on 26.9.2001, which was accepted by Mr. Manmohan on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms. Anusuya Salwan on behalf of respondent No.2. Counsel for the respondents had sought time to obtain instructions. Today Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Senior Architect, Dwarka West Zone has also appeared in Court and has produced for the perusal of the court the Dwarka sub-city land use plan as well as the layout plan.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. B.K.Sinha, assails the decision of the DDA auctioning the plots next to the residential flats of the petitioners for commercial use. He submitted that this was not a case where a single storeyed commercial use was being permitted, commercial use up to four storeyes was being permitted. He submitted that the commercial use of these plots in an area adjacent to the residential flats, would disturb the ecological balance, it would cause lot of congestion and it would disturb the peace of residents by installation of generators, office equipments etc. by the commercial establishments. Mr. Sinha submitted that the residents would be harassed by influx of parking of cars. Besides the road between the petitioners’ flat and the commercial plots being auctioned, was six metres wide. He further submitted that there would be loss of privacy of the residents by the towering commercial/structures. He placed reliance on the Master plan and clause 10 of the Mixed use Regulations. He submitted that at best commercial use could only be permitted up to a single storey in residential areas, if commercial activity was to be permitted.
(5) Before going into the question of whether clause 10 of the of Master plan dealing with Mixed use Regulations as applicable to residential area, would be attracted in this case or not, certain factual aspects pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the Senior Architect Mr. S.K.Aggarwal may be noticed. From the Dwarka “Land Use” plan as shown in Court, the present area where the residential flats and commercial plots are located, falls in the category of “mixed land use”. The first submission of Ms. Salwan is that the provision of Clause 10 of Master Plan is not attracted in the instant case. She urges that the said clause is applicable only where the area is residential, which is sought to be put to commercial or other than residential use. In the Instant case, the area in question itself is “mixed land use”. Hence what was contemplated was a “mixed land use” right from its inception. It is also explained by Mr. Aggarwal that the road in question between the commercial area and the residential flats is of the width of 11.13 meters at most of the places except at the corners the width is reduced to six meters. Here also on perusal of the layout plan, I find that certain kerb space is left in the corners for parking . From perusal of the layout plan, it is clear that generally the width of the road between the commercial plots and residential flats is 11 meters or so. The Senior Architect also states that there is an existing wall at the end of the commercial plots. It is stated that this wall is at the height of 4ftx6 inches and the same wall shall be repaired so as to prevent any access from the commercial plots/area to the road or to the residential flats. The entry of the residential flats would be governed by their own gates.
(6) Accordingly, in this view of the matter the apprehension of the petitioners of any direct influx of the visitors from the commercial establishments to their area is without any basis. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted the desirability of provision of commercial establishment and facilities in the areas proximate to the residential areas as part of the overall development and integrated town planning. The respondents had the option either to provide for commercial plots within the residential areas as “mixed land use” was permitted or in the alternative to make the commercial areas at the periphery of the residential area so that the majority of t he residential flats are not affected by commercial activities. I find merit in the latter approach adopted by respondents. This has made the commercial areas to be located in the periphery. Besides there is a road of 11.35 meters in between.
(7) Considering that the layout plan provided for “mixed land use”, I do not find that the petitioners have any enforceable legal rights in the matter.
It may be noted that the commercial plots in Sector 4 have already been developed and constructions raised. petitioners in so far as they assail, the use of the said plots for commercial purposes have belatedly filed this writ petition No.6013/2001, which would be liable to be dismissed on the additional ground of delay and laches also.
(8) Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard submitted that some of the projections and Balconies of these commercial establishments, are extending on the road. Mr.S.K. Aggarwal submits that it is only sun shade projections which are permitted. In case, any of these are in contravention of the Municipal bye-laws, the same can be looked into on a specific complaint being received. It goes without saying that in case the sun shade projections are found to be in contravention of the bye-laws, the DDA will take necessary action. Respondent No.2 is directed to place on record the reduced versions of the layout and Land use plans.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petitions have no merit and are dismissed.