JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus stopping further works on the new projects/schemes and to quash construction of shopping mall and putting the same into auction and also for issuance a further direction calling for stopping of all projects scheme in Mehrauli-Mahipalpur area in DDA Sports Complex and International Hotel Complex, Vasant Vihar complex, Horticulture development and environmental reserve as per Master Plan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the statements made in the additional affidavit filed by him particularly pertaining to the draft Master Plan / Zonal Plan of Zone ‘J’ and ‘F’ including Sultangarhi Mega-Housing (‘F’ in Annexure P/1), Sports Complex and Liver Institute South of D-2, Vasant Kunj (‘B’ in Annexure-P/1), Air Conditioned Mandi (‘C’ in Annexure P/1) and Vasant Kunj, Sector-D, Pocket-6 flats. Same contentions are also made in respect of ‘F’ Zone projects, in the said affidavit to which our attention was also drawn.
3. However, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the reply filed to the aforesaid projects in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the DDA has brought to our notice contents of the reply to the additional affidavit filed specifically as against the aforesaid projects at Zones ‘J’ and ‘F’. Delhi Development Authority has stated that the change of land user of the land relating to Sultanpuri Mega Housing has already notified by the Government of India under notification dated 29th January, 2004. Since the said notification was notified and published changing the land user, there cannot be any grievance raised by the petitioner in respect of these aforesaid changes of land user without challenging the legality of the said notification dated 29th January, 2004, which is not under challenge in this writ petition.
4. So far as the land user of the area where DDA Sports Complex and Government of NCT of Delhi Hospital/Institute are situated, the same has already been approved as is being shown in Annexure R-A1 and annexed to the aforesaid affidavit. Layout plan was approved in the meeting held on 19.7.2007. Permission for construction of APMC at Mandi at Andheria Morh has never been given by the DDA and that the said matter was examined and it was found that the proposal for development of Farmers market at Andheria More, Mehrauli was submitted in DDA by APMC vide letter dated 6th May, 2003 seeking approval/permission for development of the market, in response to which the DDA vide letter dated 18.6.2003 informed the ACMM in the following manner:
The site which has been proposed for Farmers Market at Andheria More, Mehrauli falls in the Regional Park, where as per the MPD 2001 and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no construction/permanent structure is permitted. In view of the above, the proposal for development of Farmers market can not be acceded to.
5. The APMC was also requested to approach the Ridge Management Board in respect of the reference falls in Ridge/Regional Park, which was also a matter of concern for the petitioner. It is, therefore, established from the records that the DDA did not give any permission for construction of APMC Mandi at Andheria More.
6. So far as the Layout Plan of Sector D-6, Vasant Kunj is concerned, it is stated by the DDA that it has been taken up in conformity of the Land User Plan.
7. It is also explained that in sub zone F-13, about 315 Hectares of area was proposed to be utilized for various urban uses and subsequently as per the orders of EPCA in October, 1999, 223 Hectares area was proposed to be kept “Green”. Reference is made to the order of the Supreme Court in August, 1997 whereby the Supreme Court allowed construction in 92 Hectares of area, where DDA had disposed of Institutional and commercial plots as per the approved Layout plan. Copy of the said Layout Plan is annexed as Annexure RA-3.
8. So far as shopping mall is concerned, the orders of the Supreme Court dated 19th August, 2007 in respect of construction of shopping mall is referred to and annexed as Annexure RA-4 in the affidavit.
9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the allegations of the petitioner have been taken notice of. Subsequently, on 18th July, 2007, following order was passed:
New Master Plan, 2021 has been published by the Delhi Development Authority.
A draft Zonal Plan for planning Zone ‘J’ was prepared and published by the Delhi Development Authority and objections were invited. It is pointed out that the last date for receiving such objection has expired. However, violations pointed out by the petitioner and the instances mentioned in this petition, could be brought to the notice of the Delhi Development Authority by the petitioner by filing a representation within two weeks from today. The concerned authority/Delhi Development Authority will hear the petitioner on the aforesaid violations/representation and necessary order shall be passed by the said authority.
While finalizing the Zonal Plan, which is prepared, objections and contentions of the petitioner shall be noted and considered. Suitable orders shall be passed.
An action taken report shall be filed by the Delhi Development Authority before the next date.
Renotify on 24th October, 2007.
10. Pursuant to the said order, the DDA has now filed an additional affidavit, wherein it has stated that the petitioner was given a hearing and his objections were taken note of. It is stated in para 5 as:
that draft Zonal Development Plan for Zone ‘J’ which was notified for inviting objections/suggestions in 2006 is not being processed further since MPD 2021 came into force with effect from 7.2.07 and all the draft Zonal Development Plans are to be synchronized as per the provisions of the Master plan 2021 including zone ‘J’ ‘F’ and ‘G’. All these zones will be notified for inviting objections/suggestions from the public, and all the earlier objections/suggestions received under MPD 2001 will also be included along with the new objections/suggestions received under MPD 2021.
11. If the petitioner has any further grievance, it is open for him to file objections/ suggestions as against the same. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the present petition. In terms of this order and earlier orders, the petition stands disposed of.