MANAV MANDIR MISSION TRUST vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024-09-11 Information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 27 August 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 11 September 2024 + W.P.(C) 2256/2024 MANAV MANDIR MISSION TRUST …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhijit Mittal, Mr. Anukalp Jain, Ms. Saivya Singh, Mr. Pulkit Khanduja, Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Ms. Harshita Sukhija and Ms. Palak Jain, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..Respondents Through: Ms.Manika Arora, CGSC with Mr.Subhrodeep Saha and Ms.Priya Mishra, GP and Ms.Archana Kumari, GP for R-1/UOI. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Advs. for GNCTD/L&B & LAC (SE) Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel with Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik and Mr. Rony John, Advs. for DDA. Mr. Varun Chandiok, Mr.Alok Kumar, Mr.Anubhi Goyal, Advocates for MCD/R-4. Mr. Udit Malik, ASC for GNCTD with Mr.Vishal Chanda, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T REVIEW PETITION. 313/2024 IN W.P.(C) 2256/2024
1. The Petitioner Trust” has moved this Court filing the instant petition under Order XLVII read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [CPC] besides Chapter XXV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 seeking review of the judgment dated 02.07.2024 passed by this Court.

2. Learned counsels for the respondents viz., DDA, GNCTD & MCD are present on advance notice.

3. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/petitioner Trust, has alluded to the paragraphs (18) to (24) of the judgment dated 02.07.2024 passed by this Court and it is vehemently urged that the finding recorded by the Court is erroneous insofar as it has overlooked that the petitioner Trust is entitled to continue as a society covered under ZDP-20101 and entitled to be issued a regularisation certificate by the respondent No.2/DDA2 in terms of DDA”s own notification dated 01.05.2008.

4. It is submitted that since there is no evidence that there has been any change of circumstances since the date of notification of ZDP-2010, the petitioner Trust is entitled to continue with its institutional activities from subject land which does not form part of the notified

1 Zonal Development Plan 2 Delhi Development Authority

Ridge/Regional Park/Developed Park/River Bed/Gram Sabha land or public land.

5. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant paragraphs in the judgment delivered by this Court, which contain the pleas that were advanced and dealt with by this Court. First things first, it was argued that the mere withdrawal of the writ petition No. 7660/2014 as recorded in the order of the Supreme Court, did not preclude the petitioner Trust from claiming regularisation in respect of the user of subject land. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 02.07.2024 read as under:

9. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Trust submitted that the petitioner is not an encroacher rather it is a bonafide purchaser and in rightful possession and occupation of the subject premises. Learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to several documents including Land Acquisition Award No.15/92-93 dated 19.06.1992, Interim Order dated 30.03.1994 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2556 of 1990 and Memo of Possession dated 21.04.2006 to buttress the plea that the subject premises was admittedly intentionally left out of the land acquisition proceedings by the respondents and the subject premises continues to be in uninterrupted possession of the petitioner Trust. It was contended that the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to act contrary to their stated policy and the factual position obtained from the records and the land in question. It was further submitted that the advertisement dated 01.05.2008 cannot be given the colour of a legislation and that the subject premises is fully eligible to be regularised as per Clause 13 of the Zonal Development Plan for Zone O” which is the actual piece of legislation. It was also urged that the formal application for Denotification, and Regularisation of the subject premises submitted by the Petitioner Trust to the respondents has not yet been rejected and is presumably still under consideration. Adding another twist to the matter, learned Senior Counsel also urged that as per the Zonal Development Plan for River Yamuna/ River Front, Zone O”, the subject premises does not even fall under Zone O”, hence the letter dated 03 .08 .2023 should be quashed.
10. Per contra, Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2/DDA controverted the aforesaid submissions by bringing the attention of this Court to Clause 9.2.2 (vi) and Clause 7.2 of the ZDP for Zone O” that includes Village Badarpur Khadar under the list of urban villages in River Yamuna falling under the scope of the ZDP. She urged that the petitioner has no locus standi to prefer the present petition since possession of the subject premises is still with the petitioners and no case of imminent threat of dispossession has been made out by the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner has unauthorisedly encroached on public land and is creating a hindrance to the Yamuna rejuvenation projects being undertaken by the respondents under the abovementioned orders of the Supreme Court, the NGT as well as this Court for the purpose of restoring the ecological balance of the Yamuna floodplains. 11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2/DDA also contended that the apex court in Civil Appeal titled DDA vs. Manav Mandir Mission Trust, bearing C.A. No. 1835/2022, vide its Order dated 07.03.2022 has already held that the Judgment dated 27.04.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition bearing no. WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014, that is being relied upon by the petitioner, is unsustainable in law in view of the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (supra), and accordingly, the acquisition was upheld by the apex court. She vehemently urged that the present petition should be dismissed with heavy costs because by way of the present petition, the petitioner Trust is seeking the same interim reliefs on the same grounds that it sought in a priorly instituted Writ Petition bearing no. WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014 which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by the apex court in C.A. No. 1835/2022. 12. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Trust opposed the said contentions on behalf of the DDA and submitted that the doctrine of Res Judicata does not apply to the present case since the Supreme Court did not pass any judgment in the first set of proceedings, and rather the petitioner had withdrawn the WP. (C) No. 7660 of 2014, therefore it cannot be said that a finality has been arrived at with regard to the issues involved in the present matter.
13. Ms. Monika Arora, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5/Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) contended that the possession of the subject premises was not taken under the land acquisition proceedings due to unsettled disputes regarding the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner in lieu of the acquisition and the same has been observed in the Judgment dated 27.04.2015 passed by this Court in. WP. (C) No. 7660 of
2014. Furthermore, it was contended that as per the Land Acquisition Award No.15/92-93 dated 19.06.1992, the correct area of Khasra No. 57 was stated to be 20 Bighas – 7 Biswa and the same was acquired leaving out a portion admeasuring 3 Bighas- 7 Biswa, whereat the subject premises is situated. Lastly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the power to de-notify the subject premises rests exclusively with the Hon”ble Lt. Governor under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 18943.
3Act of 1894 4 Master Development Plan

6. Ex facie, this Court is not impressed with the contention that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. This Court in its judgment dated 02.07.2024 has considered such pleas countenanced on behalf of the petitioner Trust and the same came to be specifically rejected. At the cost of repetition, the subject land falls under the River Bed” category and there is no denying the fact that in terms of the Zonal Development Plan of Zone O” provided under the MDP-20214, the issue of regularisation of the subject land in terms and conditions of advertisement No. F20 (19) 96-MP dated 01.05.2008 is not applicable.

7. Thus, since it has been specifically held that the claim of the Petitioner Trust for being regularised as a religious institution is not sustainable, therefore, the plea to possess, occupy and use the subject property despite falling in river zone/bed” for such religious and charitable provisions cannot be sustained in law.

8. Accordingly, the sum result is that the present review petition stands dismissed.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 sa