9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of statutory provisions in permitting a nursery school to open in a park, interpretation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Delhi Development Act, misuse of power by Delhi Development Authority (DDA), cancellation of allotment in favor of respondent No.2. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the dispute concerning the establishment of a nursery school in a park in Sarita Vihar, allegedly in violation of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The primary issue at hand is whether the school's location contravenes the statutory provisions outlined in Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. The appellants contend that the school's establishment in the park breaches the Act's regulations, while the DDA argues that the school's operation should not be disrupted due to financial investments and educational implications. Upon examining Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, which pertain to the preparation of master plans and zonal development plans, the court notes the obligation of the Development Authority to designate land uses for various purposes, including schools and open spaces. The appellants argue that the land allotted for the nursery school was originally reserved for a park, emphasizing the Authority's failure to adhere to the prescribed land-use allocations. The court delves into the interpretation of zonal development plans, highlighting the distinction between high schools, primary schools, and nursery schools. While acknowledging that nursery schools may not be explicitly indicated in the plans, the court emphasizes the necessity of reserving space for both nursery schools and parks in residential colonies like Sarita Vihar. The absence of park reservation in the layout plan of Sarita Vihar raises concerns about the legality of the school's location. Subsequent investigations reveal that the land allotted for the nursery school was indeed part of a park, leading the court to conclude that the DDA's allocation was an abuse of power. Consequently, the court orders the cancellation of the allotment in favor of respondent No.2, emphasizing that the construction of permanent structures on unlawfully allocated land does not justify the violation of statutory provisions. In a broader context, the court expresses concerns about unauthorized constructions and illegal allotments, emphasizing the need to hold accountable the officers responsible for such actions. The judgment calls for an inquiry by respondent No.1 to identify officers involved in unauthorized allotments and constructions, highlighting the importance of enforcing accountability to deter future misconduct. In conclusion, the court allows the appeal, directing the cancellation of the allotment to respondent No.2 and granting a six-month period for the school's relocation. The judgment underscores the significance of upholding statutory provisions, addressing misuse of power, and ensuring accountability within statutory bodies to prevent unlawful acts.
|
