Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 14.05.2026
Date of decision: 29.05.2026
Uploaded on: 29.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 11283/2024, CM APPL. 46717/2024, CM APPL.
59819/2024, CM APPL. 59822/2024, CM APPL. 10311/2025, CM
APPL. 47356/2025, CM APPL. 11954/2026, CM APPL. 18430/2026,
CM APPL. 26420/2026, CM APPL. 26536/2026, CM APPL.
32355/2026 & CM APPL. 29021/2026
VASANT KUNJ RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
SECTOR B POCKET 1 & ORS. ....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Shreyuss Shankar Joshi, Mr.
Shresth Arya, Mr. Madhav Bhatia,
Anisha Awasthi, Ms. Amisha
Awasthi and Ms. Muskan Aggarwal,
Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S.
Akhtar, Ms. Kushagra Dixit, Advs.
for R-1/L & B
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Devika Mohan, Mr. Aakash
Sehrawat, Mr. Cyril, Mr. Dipanshu
Gaba, and Mr. Dhruv Negi, Advs. for
R-4 to 14.
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC with Mr.
Aditya Verma, Advs. for DDA
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 1 of 113
Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Vikas Chopra, SC with Mr. Neeraj
Kumar, Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advs. for
R-3/MCD
+ W.P.(C) 17433/2025, CM APPL. 72015/2025 & CM APPL.
18403/2026
MASONIC PUBLIC SCHOOL THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vibha Mahajan, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Eshna Kumar, Ms. Mahima, Mr.
M. Poudiuwibou and Mr. Piyush
Tandon, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS VICE
CHAIRMAN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Devika Mohan, Mr. Aakash
Sehrawat, Mr. Cyril and Mr. Dhruv
Negi, Mr. Dipanshu Gaba, Advs. for
R-3.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel
wtih Mr. Fajallu Rehman and Mr.
Vaibhav Tripathi, Advs. for MCD.
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC with Mr.
Aditya Verma, Advs. for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
J U D G M E N T
SHAIL JAIN, J.
1. W.P.(C) No. 11283/2024 , titled ‘Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare
Association, Sector-B, Pocket-1 & Ors. v. Government of National Capital
Territory of Delhi & Ors.’ , has been instituted under Article 226 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 2 of 113
Constitution of India by the Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare Association,
Sector-B, Pocket-1, New Delhi ( "the Petitioner RWA" ), along with certain
individual residents of the said colony, assailing the building sanction plan
th
dated 13 May, 2024, ( "the impugned sanction" ) granted by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( "MCD" ) in favour of M/s R.R. Texknit
LLP ("the Developer" ), for the construction of a Group Housing Society
comprising nine upper floors with a stilt floor and three basement levels
upon land bearing Khasra No. 1230/2 (New) [Old Khasra No.
2797/2026/1675], admeasuring 6 Bighas and 7 Biswas, situated at Sector-B,
Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj Housing Scheme, New Delhi ( "the Subject
Property" ).
2. In the present dispute, the Petitioners have asserted that the area as a
whole was originally developed as a low-rise residential colony under the
Vasant Kunj scheme and that the subject land, located within the residential
pocket and connected through internal roads, could not lawfully be
developed as a high-rise group housing project under the applicable
planning norms and development regulations. The dispute further involves
issues relating to road width and access norms, conformity with surrounding
development, environmental clearances, civic infrastructure, ownership and
acquisition status of the land, and the legality of the sanctions and approvals
granted by the authorities.
3. The Respondents, including the planning and municipal authorities as
well as the private developers, on the other hand, state that the subject land
forms part of an integrated layout plan and that all requisite approvals,
clearances, and sanctions were granted after consideration by the competent
authorities in accordance with the Master Plan for Delhi-2021, the Unified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 3 of 113
Building Bye-Laws-2016, and the Regulations for Enabling the Planned
Development of Privately Owned Lands.
4. It is further relevant to note that a connected writ petition bearing
W.P.(C) No. 17433/2025 , titled Masonic Public School v. Delhi
Development Authority & Ors. , has also been instituted before this Court in
relation to the very same proposed group housing project and the sanctions
and approvals granted in respect thereof. The said petition has been
preferred by Masonic Public School, ( hereinafter referred as “the School ”)
a Senior Secondary School situated within Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi, directly adjoining the Subject Property, which has similarly
assailed the legality and validity of the impugned approvals and sanctions
and raised grievances regarding the consequent impact of the proposed
development upon the surrounding area and existing infrastructure. The
School, inter alia , questions the permissibility of the proposed construction
under the applicable planning framework and raises concerns pertaining to
vehicular access, traffic circulation and congestion, adequacy of civic
infrastructure, and compliance with the governing provisions of the Master
Plan for Delhi-2021 and the allied regulations and bye-laws.
5. Accordingly, the present Petitions have been instituted inter-alia
seeking adjudication on the validity of the impugned sanctions and
approvals, the interpretation and applicability of the governing planning
framework, and the rival claims of the residents, private developers, and
statutory authorities in respect of the subject property.
6. Since it is an admitted position that both the present Petitions emanate
from the same set of sanctions, approvals, layout-related decisions, and
proposed construction activities concerning the subject property situated at
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 4 of 113
Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi; in view of the substantial
overlap in facts, issues involved, parties, and reliefs sought, both the
petitions are interconnected in nature and are accordingly being considered
and adjudicated together by this Court.
BRIEF FACTS:
7. The brief background of facts leading to the filing of W.P. (CIVIL)
NO. 11283/2024 are as follows -
rd
A. On 23 January, 1965, land admeasuring approximately 4,820 bighas
situated in Village Mehrauli, including the Subject Property, was notified
for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
th
Subsequently, on 07 December, 1966, a declaration under Section 6 of
the said Act was issued, which also included the Subject Property.
Pursuant thereto, various awards came to be passed in relation to the
acquired lands situated in the Village Mehrauli.
B. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Subject Property was
specifically covered under the said acquisition proceedings and awards,
and that the land was recorded as Gram Sabha land. According to the
Petitioners, upon urbanisation of Village Mehrauli, the land vested in the
Central Government and, thereafter, vide Notification dated 20th August,
1974 issued under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the
Gram Sabha land was placed at the disposal of the Delhi Development
Authority ( “DDA” ).
C. The Petitioners further assert that the DDA thereafter formulated the
st
“Vasant Kunj Residential Scheme” on 21 December, 1987, for the
planned development of the area, including the Subject Property. While
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 5 of 113
the remaining portions of the scheme were developed and flats were
allotted under DDA’s Self-Financing Scheme, the Subject Property
continued to remain vacant.
D. According to the Petitioners, the original layout plan contemplated
development over the Subject Property in the form of:
a. flats bearing Nos. 1297–1312 and 1393–1424, comprising 48
SFS flats; and
b. green areas, lawns, and parking spaces.
E. The Petitioners state that the Subject Property was always treated as
part of the integrated layout plan of Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj, and
was expected either to be developed in accordance with the original DDA
layout plan and scheme or to remain available as common green/open
space and associated civic infrastructure.
F. It is also pertinent to note that a Resident Welfare Association under
the name and style of “Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare Association,
th
Sector-B, Pocket-1” had been constituted on 09 May, 1994.
G. The Respondents, however, assert that the Subject Property is a
private and unacquired parcel of land situated within Sector-B, Pocket-1,
Vasant Kunj, residential in land use, and owned and possessed by
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 and their predecessors-in-interest. According to
the Respondents, the land was never acquired by the DDA, hence was
th
denotified vide Notification dated 20 August, 1996, and subsequently
remained excluded from the acquisition proceedings and awards
pertaining to the Vasant Kunj Residential Scheme and has continuously
remained under private ownership and possession.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 6 of 113
H. It is further the case of the Respondents that the land originally
belonged to one Shri Ram Dhan, who was declared bhumidar by virtue of
a Judgment and Decree dated 30th July, 1974. Upon his demise, the land
devolved upon his sons, whose names were subsequently mutated in the
revenue records. The Respondents further state that during the years
1978–79, one Kartar Singh instituted a suit for injunction against the
DDA, wherein the DDA undertook not to dispossess him except in
accordance with due process of law.
I. In this regard, the Petitioners allege that Kartar Singh claimed
ownership over the Subject Property on the premise that the land had not
been acquired. Thereafter, in the year 1995, Respondent Nos. 4 to 14
allegedly purchased the Subject Property through a Sale Deed dated 05th
April, 1995, pursuant to which mutation was also recorded in their favour.
J. Insofar as the challenges forming the subject matter of the present
Petitions are concerned, it is an admitted position between the parties that
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 had, in the year 2008, applied to the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi seeking sanction for the construction of a Group
Housing Society over the Subject Property. The said proposal was
initially rejected by the Standing Committee vide decision dated 23rd
December, 2008. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 preferred
an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD, which came to be
th
allowed vide Order dated 07 December, 2012. The said Order was
subsequently upheld by the learned District and Sessions Judge vide
th
Judgment dated 16 July, 2016. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 4 to 14
sought approval under the “Regulations for Enabling the Planned
th
Development of Privately Owned Lands” notified on 04 July, 2018.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 7 of 113
Pursuant thereto, the DDA and MCD processed and approved the layout
plan and construction proposal pertaining to the Subject Property.
K. Aggrieved by the approvals and sanctions granted in favour of
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14, the Petitioners have approached this Court
seeking various reliefs in relation thereto.
“In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or
Direction in the nature of:-
a) CERTIORARI, thereby quashing sanction dated
13.05.2024 [Annexure P- 1] granted by the Respondent No.
3 with respect to the development over the Subject Property
being land situated at Khasra No. 1230/2 (New)
admeasuring 6 Bighas and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-B,
Pocket-1 in Vasant Kunj Housing Scheme, New Delhi;
b) PROHIBITION, thereby restraining Respondent Nos. 1-3
from granting any further Sanction or approval with respect
to any development over the Subject Property, being land
situated at Khasra No. 1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas
and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-B, Pocket-1 in Vasant Kunj
Housing Scheme, New Delhi;
c) CERTIORARI, thereby quashing the Minutes of the 368th
Screening Committee Meeting as approved by the 368th
Screening Committee Meeting dated 22.04.2019, and 370th
Screen Committee Meeting dated 17.06.2019 in respect of
the subject property [Annexure P-2 (Colly)], being land
situated at Khasra No. 1230/2 (New) admeasuring 6 Bighas
and 7 Biswa situated in Sector-B, Pocket-1 in Vasant Kunj
Housing Scheme, New Delhi;
d) PROHIBITION, thereby restraining the Respondents
from permitting or actually raising of any construction on
the subject property contrary to the brochure (Annexure P-
1) and the original layout plan (Annexure P-2)
demonstrated to the public by the Respondents;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 8 of 113
e) MANDAMUS, commanding the Respondent No. 1 – 3 to
restore the Subject Property, in terms of the promise as
made through the brochure (Annexure P-7) and the layout
plan (Annexure P-8) as demonstrated to the public by the
Respondents;
f) CERTIORARI, thereby quashing the order dated
07.12.2012, passed by the Ld. PO, Appellate Tribunal,
MCD allowed the appeal No. 24/AT/MCD/2009 (Annexure
P-3) as well as the final order and judgment dated
16.07.2016 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge in
MCD Appeal No. 04/13 (Annexure P-4);
g) Issue any other writ/order/direction as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.”
L. Additionally, various interlocutory Applications have been filed in
connection with the present proceedings, including CM APPL.
46717/2024 (seeking interim relief), CM APPL. 59819/2024 (for
impleadment), CM APPL. 59822/2024 (seeking directions), CM APPL.
47356/2025 (for placing additional documents on record), and CM APPL.
11954/2026 (seeking modification of Order) in W.P.(C) 11283/2024, as
well as CM APPL. 72015/2025 (seeking interim stay) in W.P.(C)
17433/2025. Amongst the aforesaid applications, this Court considers
CM APPL. 10311/2025, filed in W.P.(C.) 11283/2024 seeking
amendment of the Petition , to be of particular relevance, and the same is
accordingly being considered along with the present Writ Petitions.
8. Furthermore, the connected writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.
17433/2025 , titled ‘Masonic Public School v. Delhi Development Authority
& Ors.’ , has been preferred by Masonic Public School, situated within
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 9 of 113
Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, catering to approximately
2,500 students and employing around 200 teaching and non-teaching staff.
The School directly adjoins the Subject Property, shares a common
boundary wall therewith, and the proposed construction is stated to be
intended to be raised at a distance of merely 8 to 10 feet from the School's
boundary wall.
9. It is relevant to note that the School's grievances with respect to
access and congestion on the sole internal approach road are not of recent
origin. The School had earlier instituted W.P.(C) No. 1797/2016 before this
Court seeking provision of an alternative vehicular access road. The said
petition came to be disposed of on 21st January, 2025, with the Vice-
Chairman, DDA, vide Order dated 30th August, 2024, directing only the
provision of a pedestrian access from Aruna Asaf Ali Marg while retaining
the existing internal road as the sole vehicular approach to the School.
10. The School further places on record certain incidents that have
occurred on account of the congested state of the sole approach road,
including an incident on 19th July, 2023, wherein a girl student using the
internal approach road as a walking route was struck by a vehicle and
sustained multiple grievous injuries, and an incident on 01st May, 2024,
wherein a bomb threat necessitated immediate evacuation of the School
premises, during which ambulances, fire tenders, and emergency response
teams were unable to reach the School promptly on account of restricted
access and congestion on the approach road. Additionally, on 10th October,
2025, the School was constrained to formally communicate to the Central
Board of Secondary Education, ROD (East), its inability to serve as a Board
Examination Centre for the 2026 Board Examinations, citing the noise, dust,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 10 of 113
air pollution, and restricted access arising from the ongoing construction
activity on the adjoining Subject Property. The School thereafter preferred
the present Petition upon becoming aware of the impugned sanctions and
approvals in September 2025, when construction activity was first noticed
on the Subject Property.
11. In addition to the aforesaid set of facts, given below are the specific
grounds taken up by the Petitioners to strengthen their claim-
I. Violation of MPD-2021 and Planned Development Norms
The Petitioners contend that the Subject Property does not satisfy the
minimum 18-metre ROW requirement prescribed under MPD-2021 for
Group Housing projects and that the authorities have wrongly relied
upon wider peripheral roads serving the larger pocket rather than the
roads directly abutting the Subject Property. It is further alleged that the
proposed development is contrary to the original Vasant Kunj layout
scheme and violates the Regulations dated 04th July, 2018 requiring
conformity with the surrounding development pattern. According to the
Petitioners, while the surrounding locality predominantly comprises
low-rise DDA SFS flats of approximately 3–4 storeys, the impugned
project contemplates substantially higher and denser construction,
thereby fundamentally altering the planned character of the colony.
II. Fraudulent Layout Plans and Illegality in the Approval
Process
The Petitioners further contend that misleading and manipulated layout
plans were submitted in order to falsely depict independent access to
the Subject Property and to incorporate existing DDA infrastructure
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 11 of 113
within the proposed project. It is alleged that the impugned approvals
and sanctions were granted arbitrarily, without due application of mind
and in collusion with private developers, rendering the entire approval
process legally unsustainable.
III. Legitimate Expectation, Civic Infrastructure and
Constitutional Concerns
The Petitioners state that residents purchased flats in the locality
relying upon the DDA brochures and sanctioned layout plans
representing the area as a low-density planned residential colony. It is
contended that the subsequent alteration of the colony’s character
violates the doctrines of legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel
and the guarantee of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution. The
Petitioners further submit that the proposed project would adversely
impact the existing civic infrastructure, affect the easementary rights of
residents and materially impair the environmental quality, habitability
and overall residential equilibrium of the locality.
IV. Environmental Violations and Challenge to Earlier Judicial
Orders
The Petitioners further contend that the project has proceeded without
obtaining mandatory environmental clearances and without adequate
environmental assessment in accordance with law. It is additionally
contended that the earlier judicial orders concerning the Subject
Property failed to properly consider the true character of the land and
are therefore to be set aside, on being without jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 12 of 113
12. In addition to the aforesaid set of facts, given below are the specific
grounds taken up by the Respondents to strengthen their claim -
I. Maintainability, Delay and Scope of Writ Jurisdiction
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 contend that the present writ petitions are not
maintainable in view of the alternate statutory remedy available under
Section 347B of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. It is
further contended that the petitions suffer from gross delay and laches,
as the ownership status of the Subject Property, the layout approvals
and the judicial orders dated 07.12.2012 and 16.07.2016 had attained
finality long ago. The respondents also submit that the Petitioners were
not parties to the earlier proceedings and therefore lack locus standi to
assail the same. It is further contended that the Subject Property is a
privately owned and unacquired parcel of land and that disputes
relating to title, acquisition or Gaon Sabha status involve disputed
questions of fact not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
II. Compliance with Planning Norms, Civic Infrastructure and
Statutory Approvals
The respondents maintain that the sanctioned project fully complies
with MPD-2021, the Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016 and the
th
Regulations dated 04 July, 2018 governing privately owned lands.
According to them, the prescribed 18-metre ROW requirement stands
duly satisfied and was consciously examined by the competent
planning authorities while granting approvals. It is further asserted that
the Subject Property has consistently been designated for
residential/group housing use and that the proposed development is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 13 of 113
compatible with the broader planning framework of the Vasant Kunj
Residential Scheme. The respondents also deny any adverse impact
upon civic infrastructure and submit that all requisite permissions,
sanctions and NOCs from the concerned statutory authorities have
already been duly obtained, rendering the allegations regarding absence
of environmental or statutory clearances wholly misconceived.
III. Denial of Legitimate Expectation and Allegations of Mala
Fides
The respondents deny the Petitioners’ claims founded upon legitimate
expectation, promissory estoppel and alleged alteration of the character
of the colony, contending that the original brochure and layout plan
themselves contemplated residential/group housing use of the Subject
Property. It is further alleged that the Petitioners have approached this
Court with unclean hands despite the existence of widespread
unauthorised constructions and encroachments within the colony and
are merely seeking to obstruct a lawful and duly sanctioned
development project.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Submissions on behalf of Vasant Kunj Sector-B, Pocket-1 Residents’
Welfare Association (RWA) (Petitioner)
13. At the threshold, the Respondents have raised a preliminary objection
to the maintainability of the present Writ Petition on the ground that an
efficacious alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner under Section 347-
B of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ("DMC Act").
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 14 of 113
14. Learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner opposes the said objection
vehemently and submits that the same is devoid of merit and is liable to be
rejected for the reasons that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar. He
relies upon the judgment rendered in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks , (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. , (2003) 2 SCC 107, contending that the existence of an
alternate remedy does not constitute an absolute or inviolable bar to the
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. While relying upon the judgment rendered in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v.
E&TOCAA, reported as (2023) 109 GSTR 402, the learned Senior Counsel
has submitted that a distinction exists between the “maintainability” and the
“entertainability” of a writ petition. It is contended that the present Writ
Petition is maintainable, as it falls squarely within the recognised exceptions
to the rule of alternate remedy. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the
proposed construction directly imperils the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India of more than 5,000
residents of the colony and that there has been a gross violation of the
principles of natural justice, inasmuch as specific queries raised by the
Building Planning Committee (“BPC”) were allegedly never addressed and
yet the sanction was mechanically granted. Lastly, it has also been
contended in the aforesaid regard that the impugned orders are wholly
without jurisdiction, having been passed in flagrant violation of the Master
Plan for Delhi, 2021 (“MPD-2021”), the Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016
(“UBBL-2016”), and the Private Land Policy.
16. Learned Senior counsel further contends that Section 347-B of the
DMC Act provides a remedy only against limited classes of orders passed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 15 of 113
under the DMC Act. The Appellate Tribunal for MCD ("ATMCD") is a
court of limited and circumscribed jurisdiction. The present Petition
specifically and inextricably challenges both the impugned Sanction dated
13.05.2024 passed by the MCD, and the 368th Screening Committee
Minutes dated 22.04.2019 passed by the DDA under the Private Land
Policy, which form the very basis and foundation of the impugned Sanction.
He goes on to submit that the first prayer is entirely dependent upon and a
direct consequence of later prayer. The ATMCD has no jurisdiction
whatsoever to set aside, nullify, or adjudicate upon the correctness of
Minutes passed by the DDA under the Private Land Policy, a regulation
under which the DDA, and not the MCD, acts. The challenge to the DDA's
Minutes can only be raised before this Court.
17. Furthermore, learned Senior counsel contends that the impugned
Sanction is a composite decision resulting from the integrated and
interlocked actions of the MCD, DDA, and other authorities. MCD has itself
admitted in its Counter Affidavit that it acted merely as an implementing
agency of the decisions taken by the DDA. The MCD's Building Plan
Committee Minutes dated 21.03.2024 expressly refer to and rely upon the
clarifications obtained from the DDA's Technical Committee, and it is only
on that basis that the Sanction was approved. In support of his contentions,
the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in TN Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite
Industries (India) Ltd. , (2019) 19 SCC 479, contending that composite
orders can only be challenged by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Hence, Section 347-B of the DMC Act, which
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 16 of 113
addresses only MCD orders, cannot remedy the illegality and arbitrariness
embedded in this integrated decision-making process.
18. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that in addition to the challenge
to the sanction plan, the Petitioner also seeks reliefs including restoration of
the Disputed Property in conformity with the original DDA Brochure and
Vasant Kunj Scheme, reliefs that are entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the
ATMCD under Section 347-B of the DMC Act. Such reliefs, grounded in
the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the fundamental rights of the
residents, can only be granted by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While continuing his
arguments, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that the area in
question stood denotified on 20.08.1996, thereby divesting the DDA of
jurisdiction. Upon denotification, all building-control powers vested in the
MCD. Accordingly, any appeal under Section 31-C of the DDA Act would
be incompetent.
19. As to the issue raised by the Respondent that another Writ seeking
identical reliefs was filed before this court in which no relief was granted to
the Petitioner and the same was dismissed; the learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the very Writ being W.P.(C) No. 352/2025 was filed
by an individual resident who was not a member of the RWA Executive
Committee, who filed that petition after the filing of the present Writ
Petition, without disclosing the pendency of the present proceedings. The
Single Judge dismissed that petition primarily on the grounds of forum
hunting and concealment of material facts, specifically the non-disclosure of
the present pending Writ Petition; and prematurity, inasmuch as the CEC
had not yet given its finding on the Morphological Ridge character of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 17 of 113
land. He goes on to submit that both grounds are entirely inapplicable to the
present Writ Petition. Furthermore, he added that the order dated 07.02.2025
in LPA No. 92/2025 which was preferred against the dismissal of W.P.(C)
No. 352/2025 , expressly preserved the present proceedings and directed that
the decision of the Expert Appraisal Committee would be subsumed in the
other prayers of the writ petition filed by the RWA and that appropriate
directions be passed by the Learned Single Judge in seisin of the said writ
petition.
20. Learned Senior counsel also submits that there has been no inordinate
or unexplained delay on the part of the Petitioner. The Petitioner became
aware of the illegal and fraudulent obtaining of the sanction plan by
Respondents No. 4 to 14 only recently, when ground-levelling activities
commenced with the evident intent to begin construction. The necessary
documents were obtained only through the RTI reply dated 24.07.2024
(Application No. PIO/EE(B)/HO/RTI/D.270).
21. As to the locus of the Petitioner, the learned counsel submits that the
Petitioner RWA is responsible for the welfare and well-being of the
residents of the colony. The proposed construction of a high-rise Group
Housing Society in the midst of the colony will directly and adversely affect
many rights of the residents including but not limited to the ingress and
egress of residents, the easementary rights of residents residing in the
immediate vicinity of the Disputed Property, the structural and
environmental safety of the surrounding buildings and the fundamental
rights of over 5,000 residents under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 18 of 113
22. After contesting and arguing the matter on maintainability and locus
of the Petitioner, the learned Senior counsel shifted to argue on the merits
and substance of the Writ. The primary and most assertive contention being
that the land owners were never nor could have ever been the rightful
owners of the subject property upon which the Respondents were carrying
on construction.
23. Learned Senior counsel contends that the claim of Respondents No. 4
to 14 to title over the disputed property is legally untenable as their Sale
Deed dated 05.04.1995 traces title through an order of the Revenue
Assistant dated 30.07.1974 , purportedly declaring one Sh. Ram Dhan as
Bhumidhar. This order is a nullity for the following reasons that Section 4
and Section 6 notifications under the Land Acquisition Act had been issued
in 1965 and 1966 respectively, vesting the land in the State for acquisition
purposes, upon urbanisation of Village Mehrauli in 1966, revenue
authorities had ceased to exercise any jurisdiction under the DLR Act he
added. Learned Senior counsel further contends that the Gram Sabha had
been dissolved and its assets vested in the Central Government under
Section 150 of the DLR Act and all the Gaon Sabha lands of 48 villages
including Mehrauli had been placed at the DDA's disposal by Notification
No. SO 2190 dated 20.08.1974.
24. In addition, the learned Senior counsel submits that once Section 4
and Section 6 notifications under the Land Acquisition Act have been issued
in respect of a property, any decree or order passed by a Revenue Court in
respect of that property is without jurisdiction and a nullity in law. He also
submits that this was admitted by the Vice-Chairman, DDA himself in his
affidavit dated 20.10.2014, wherein he acknowledged that Section 4 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 19 of 113
Section 6 notifications had been issued and that the property was Gram
Sabha land, and that title was being claimed solely on the basis of the
Revenue Court order, which order has not even been produced before this
Court.
25. The further contention was that during the pendency of the present
Writ Petition, it has emerged conclusively that the Disputed Property falls
within the Morphological Ridge Area of Delhi. The Central Empowered
Committee (CEC), vide its Report No. 25/2025 dated 14.05.2025, has
definitively held at Para 15 that:
" the majority of the 'subject land' falls within the
'Morphological Area'. Hence, the submission of Shri Rajiv
Ranjan...that the 'subject land' falls within the
Morphological Ridge Area is correct."
26. The aforesaid finding of CEC was arrived at by reference to the E-
Vanlekh portal of the Forest Department, GNCTD, the only objective basis
for determination of Morphological Ridge status. In support of his
contention, the learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of this
Court in Ashok Kumar Tanwar v. Union of India & Ors. , W.P.(C) No.
3339/2011, and on DDA v. Kenneth Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. , Civil Appeal No. 5370/2016, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
contending that land falling outside the demarcated notified ridge but
bearing similar morphological features must be afforded the same protection
as notified ridge land. No construction can be undertaken on such land
without first obtaining clearance from the Ridge Management Board and the
permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the CEC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 20 of 113
27. In continuation to the above said contention, learned Senior counsel
submits that the Private Land Policy, 2018 under which the DDA's
Screening Committee purported to act itself excludes Ridge Areas from its
th
application by virtue of Clause 3.2.4 thereof. The Minutes of the 368
Screening Committee dated 22.04.2019 are therefore wholly without
jurisdiction on this fundamental ground alone, as the Disputed Property,
being Morphological Ridge, falls beyond the scope of the Private Land
Policy. He further adds that the order dated 12.08.2025 of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in I.A. Nos. 159062/2025 & 159063/2025 in W.P.(C) No.
202/1995 cannot be construed as a judicial endorsement of the impugned
Sanction Plan, for the reasons that the clearance granted by the CEC in its
Report No. 25/2025 is expressly conditional upon compliance with all
statutory permissions. Further, it is stated that the Environmental Clearance
dated 13.01.2025 granted by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change (MoEFCC) specifically stipulates at Condition 1.1 that it is " subject
to the outcome of court cases in Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble NGT and
Central Empowered Committee" and further requires the Project Proponent
to seek clarification from the Ridge Management Board and, if applicable,
obtain an NOC therefrom, and that the present Writ Petition is pending
before this Court and the Environmental Clearance is itself made subject to
its outcome. The Hon’ble Supreme Court's conditional order is therefore not
a blanket endorsement but is itself qualified by the very statutory clearances
that remain sub-judice he emphasized.
28. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that sanctions granted by the
authorities could not have been granted as clause 4.4.3(B)(ii) of the Master
Plan of Delhi, 2021 mandates that a plot proposed for Group Housing must
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 21 of 113
be facing a road with a minimum Right of Way ("ROW") of 18 metres. The
th
368 Screening Committee Minutes themselves expressly record that the
Disputed Property is surrounded by 13-metre ROW roads on all three sides.
The Respondents have sought to circumvent this mandatory requirement by
taking the position that since the broader Sector-B, Pocket-1 is approached
through a 24-metre ROW road, the entire pocket qualifies for Group
Housing. This reasoning is manifestly fallacious and contrary to the express
text of the MPD 2021, which requires the specific plot for which Group
Housing is sought to be facing an 18-metre ROW and not merely the wider
pocket or sector of which it forms a part. The application for Group Housing
was being processed solely in respect of the Disputed Property, and the
surrounding pocket was not the subject of the application he added. In the
circumstances, the Respondents' attempt to project compliance by reference
to approach roads of a larger pocket is illegal and mala fide .
29. It was further argued by the Senior counsel that the Standard
Operating Procedure prescribed by the DDA for grant of permission for
planned development of privately owned land under the Private Land Policy
mandates, at Clause (xiv), that the applicant must produce " Documentary
proof for activities/uses existing on privately owned land existing prior to
MPD-1962 ." No such documents have been produced by Respondents No. 4
to 14, either before the DDA or before this Court. The impugned Minutes
are therefore, defective and without jurisdiction on this ground as well. He
also submits that Clause 8.2(a) of the UBBL 2016 independently mandates
that any building shall abut a street or a space connected from the street by a
hard-surface approach road having a width of at least 18 metres. The
Disputed Property, accessible only through 13-metre internal colony roads,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 22 of 113
fails to satisfy this requirement as well. The DDA's Technical Committee
letter dated 10.01.2020, which provided a blanket clearance stating that the
subject property is an integrated part of Sector-B, Pocket-1 and that there
shall be no restriction on height, is directly contrary to both MPD 2021 and
UBBL 2016. It is well-settled that in the event of a conflict between the
UBBL 2016 and the MPD 2021, the Master Plan shall prevail.
30. Furthermore, learned Senior counsel argued that Clause 5.5 of the
Private Land Policy mandates that land parcels with already approved
schemes must be developed in conformity with the surrounding
development. Clauses 4.1 and 4.4 similarly mandate that all development
activity must conform to the existing development on the majority of
adjacent and surrounding plots. The Disputed Property is situated in the
midst of DDA SFS residential buildings uniformly not exceeding 3–4
storeys (approximately 12 metres) in height. The impugned Sanction,
however, permits the construction of three towers of approximately 30–33
metres in height nearly three times the height of the surrounding structures.
This is in blatant violation of Clause 5.5 and Clauses 4.1 and 4.4 of the
Private Land Policy. Learned Counsel additionally submits that the DDA
has itself admitted in its Counter Affidavit that the development control
norms shall be as per clause 5.5 and that the statutory provisions of Para 5.5
shall be complied with. The impugned Sanction, in permitting 33-metre
towers amidst 12-metre buildings, is even contrary to the DDA's own
admissions.
31. As to the sanctions granted by MCD, learned Senior counsel for the
Petitioner submits that MCD has granted the impugned Sanction under
Section 336 of the DMC Act without first obtaining the approval of a layout
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 23 of 113
plan as mandatorily required under Sections 312/313 of the DMC Act. The
approval of a layout plan under Section 312 is a sine qua non for the grant of
any sanction under Section 336, therefore the impugned Sanction is void for
non-compliance with this fundamental statutory prerequisite he adds.
32. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Clause 11-A of the MPD
2021 prescribes a mandatory procedure for any modification to an existing
approved layout plan. The Disputed Property sought to be incorporated into
the existing layout plan of Sector-B, Pocket-1 amounts to a modification of
that plan. No procedure as required under Clause 11-A was followed. The
DDA had no authority to unilaterally declare the Disputed Property as an
integrated part of the Sector-B, Pocket-1 layout plan without following this
prescribed procedure.
33. It is also the contention of the Petitioner that the Building Planning
Committee of MCD, vide its minutes/letter dated 01.10.2018, raised specific
queries regarding the permissible height of the proposed building, the
boundary wall requirement, and the minimum road width mandated under
MPD 2021. These queries were never satisfactorily addressed. Despite the
pendency of these unresolved queries, the MCD postponed grant of sanction
vide its minutes dated 23.10.2019, seeking clarifications from the DDA. The
DDA's Technical Committee, vide letter dated 10.01.2020, provided a
generic and legally erroneous response, holding that there is no restriction
on height directly contrary to Clause 5.5 of the Private Land Policy and
MPD 2021. Notwithstanding these unresolved issues, the impugned
Sanction was granted vide the Building Plan Committee Minutes dated
21.03.2024 in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 24 of 113
provisions of MPD 2021 were selectively applied to suit the Respondents'
requirements, while other binding provisions were ignored and violated.
34. The learned Senior counsel also alleged that fraud and
misrepresentation of material facts was committed on the part of
Respondents No. 4 to 14 while obtaining NOCs and approvals from the Fire
Department, GNCTD, and other statutory authorities.
35. Learned Senior counsel while concluding his arguments submits that
the impugned Sanction Plan itself expressly conditions commencement of
construction upon the prior obtaining of Environmental Clearance from the
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority/State Expert Appraisal
Committee ("SEIA/SEAC"). Despite this express condition, and without
obtaining the requisite Environmental Clearance, Respondents No. 4 to 14
have already commenced construction activities including the felling of trees
and digging of foundations. The permits and approvals annexed to the
Respondents' own Counter Affidavit conspicuously do not include any
Environmental Clearance from SEIA/SEAC, confirming this admitted
violation.
36. Lastly, the ld. Senior counsel submitted that Respondent No. 2 (DDA)
had, through its Vasant Kunj Self-Financing Scheme Brochure of 1987,
made specific public representations to the allottees that the disputed
Property would be used either for the construction of 48 SFS flats for the
benefit of residents of the colony, or as a green park with lawns and parking
spaces. He further contends that the Petitioner and all allottees opted to
purchase and take possession of their flats in the colony in reliance upon and
on the basis of these representations and the promised layout plan.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 25 of 113
37. Learned Senior Counsel further presses that the DDA is bound by the
doctrine of legitimate expectation and is estopped from permitting the
disputed property to be used in a manner entirely contrary to the public
representations made in its Scheme. The impugned action of the DDA in
allowing a private developer to construct a high-rise Group Housing Society
at the heart of the colony, directly contradicting the Scheme's promises,
constitutes an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the proposed construction
consisting of three towers of approximately 33 metres in height, surrounded
by residential buildings of only 12 metres, serviced by 13-metre roads will
irreversibly impair the quality of life, safety, access, light, ventilation, and
environment of the 5,000-odd residents of the colony. This constitutes a
direct violation of the right to life and the right to a safe and healthy living
environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Submissions on Behalf of Masonic Public School
38. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner School that the impugned
approvals granted by Respondent No. 2/DDA and the sanction dated
13.05.2024 granted by Respondent No. 3/MCD are contrary to the
provisions of MPD-2021 and the “Regulations for Enabling the Planned
Development of Privately Owned Lands, 2018”, and are therefore liable to
be set aside. It is submitted that the subject land has been integrated into the
approved layout plan without proper consideration of the surrounding
development, existing infrastructure, carrying capacity of the area and
statutory planning requirements. It is further submitted that the approvals are
contrary to Regulations 4.2, 4.4 and 5.5 of the 2018 Regulations, which
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 26 of 113
mandate that development on privately owned land integrated within an
existing DDA scheme must conform to the surrounding development and
available infrastructure.
39. It is submitted that while the surrounding DDA SFS flats comprise
only 3–4 floors, sanction has been granted for construction of multi-storeyed
towers having 9–10 floors, thereby violating the requirement of conformity
with surrounding development. It is further submitted that the subject plot
abuts a road having a width of approximately 10.66 metres, whereas Clause
4.4.3(B)(ii) of MPD-2021 prescribes a minimum 18 metre ROW for Group
Housing projects. According to the Petitioner, while the Respondents treated
the subject land as part of an “integrated layout” for the purposes of
satisfying road width requirements, MPD-2021 norms relating to FAR,
height and density were simultaneously applied so as to confer undue benefit
upon the private Respondents.
40. It is further submitted that no proper Traffic Impact Assessment,
infrastructure assessment or study regarding the carrying capacity of the area
was undertaken prior to grant of approvals, despite the requirements under
MPD-2021 and 2018 Regulations. It is submitted that neither the Petitioner
School nor the surrounding occupants were considered while approving the
project and no effective measures were planned to address the already
saturated infrastructure of the locality.
41. According to the Petitioner School, it is already facing severe
congestion issues on its sole vehicular access road, which is also proposed to
be used for ingress and egress to the project site. The said road, stated to be
approximately 10–11 metres wide, is already burdened by movement of
around 2,500 students, 200 staff members, school buses and private vehicles
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 27 of 113
during school hours. It is submitted that the proposed construction activity
and additional vehicular movement would further aggravate congestion,
create serious safety concerns for students and staff, and adversely impact
emergency access to the school premises. Reliance is also placed on the
bomb threat incident dated 01.05.2024, during which emergency services
allegedly faced difficulty in accessing the School owing to congestion and
restricted access.
42. It is additionally submitted that the Traffic Assessment Report relied
upon by the Respondents is fundamentally flawed, as the traffic survey was
conducted during summer vacations when nearby schools were closed and,
consequently, the actual traffic conditions around the Petitioner School were
never properly assessed.
43. It is also submitted that the Petitioner School falls within a notified
“ Silence Zone ” and that the large-scale construction activity immediately
adjoining the school boundary wall would expose students to dust, vibration,
excessive noise, heavy machinery, labour movement and construction
traffic, thereby adversely affecting the functioning of the School and
infringing the students’ right to study in a safe, healthy and noise-free
environment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
44. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
Environmental Clearance and supporting reports were obtained on the basis
of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. In particular, it is
submitted that the Petitioner School was shown in the environmental
documents as being located 400–500 metres away from the project site,
whereas in reality the School directly adjoins the project land and shares a
common boundary wall therewith. It is further submitted that the impact of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 28 of 113
construction activity, labour deployment, vehicular movement and noise
levels on the functioning and safety of the School was not properly disclosed
before the authorities.
45. It is further submitted that the present petition has been instituted
independently by the Petitioner School for protection of its own rights and
concerns relating to safety, congestion, infrastructure and functioning of the
School, and not in collusion with the RWA or its members. It is submitted
that the Petitioner School has been agitating issues relating to access roads
and congestion since 1999 and had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court in
W.P.(C.) No. 1797/2016 seeking an alternative access road on account of
the already congested internal roads of the colony.
46. It is also submitted that the pendency of proceedings before the NGT
or the availability of remedies under Section 347B of the DMC Act does not
bar maintainability of the present writ petition, particularly when the present
challenge also pertains to approvals and decisions taken by Respondent No.
2/DDA, which are not amenable to challenge before the MCD Appellate
Tribunal.
47. Lastly, reliance is placed by the Petitioner upon the judgments of
Anirudh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. , reported as
(2015) 7 SCC 779, and I.H. Sekar v. Principal Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu , reported as 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 18160.
Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos. 4-14
48. The Respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of the present writ petition , contending that the reliefs sought
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 29 of 113
are either barred by statutory remedies, consequential in nature, or otherwise
not maintainable in writ jurisdiction.
49. In the aforesaid regard, the Respondents further contend that the writ
court cannot sit in appeal over decisions of expert bodies and executive
authorities, including MCD, DDA, DPCC, CEC, AAI, Delhi Fire Services,
Delhi Jal Board and the Land Acquisition Collector, all of whom examined
the project in accordance with applicable regulations. It is submitted that the
ADM (LA), GNCTD confirmed that the subject land is free from
acquisition, and that the sanction was granted after due consideration by the
DDA Screening Committee, Technical Committee and the Building Plan
Committee of MCD.
50. It is further contended that the Petitioners had an efficacious
alternative remedy under Section 347B of the DMC Act before the ATMCD
and therefore invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
impermissible. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in RWA v. Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (NGO)
& Ors. , W.P.(C) No. 14193/2024 , as well as the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in Diwan Chand Aggarwal & Ors. v. DDA & Ors. ,
LPA No. 7/2021 .
51. It is then submitted that prayer clause (a) of the present Petition,
seeking quashing of the sanction dated 13th May, 2024 granted by MCD, is
appealable under Section 347B of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The
Respondents further contend that an identical challenge was dismissed on
maintainability in W.P.(C) No. 352/2025 vide Order dated 20th January,
2025, which was affirmed in LPA No. 92/2025 vide Judgment dated 07th
February, 2025. Prayer clauses (b), (c), (d), and (e), according to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 30 of 113
Respondents, are merely consequential to prayer clause (a) and therefore
cannot survive independently. In relation to prayer clause (c), it is
additionally contended that the Minutes of the 368th Screening Committee
Meeting dated 22nd April, 2019 and the 370th Screening Committee
Meeting dated 17th June, 2019 are independently appealable under Section
347B of the DMC Act and Section 31C of the Delhi Development Act.
52. In respect of prayer clause (e), Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 contend that
the subject land is privately owned land belonging to Respondent No. 4 and
that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have no proprietary concern therein. It is
submitted that the DDA brochure applies only to DDA land and cannot be
enforced against privately owned land.
53. As regards prayer clause (f), seeking quashing of the order dated
07.12.2012 passed by the ATMCD in Appeal No. 24/AT/MCD/2009 and
the judgment dated 16.07.2016 passed by the learned District & Sessions
Judge, the Respondents submit that the said judicial orders have attained
finality and are therefore not open to challenge. It is further submitted that
the Petitioners were never parties to the said proceedings, whereas the
affected parties, namely MCD and DDA, accepted the same. According to
the Respondents, the said orders merely directed consideration of the
application for sanction of the layout plan and did not prejudice any third-
party rights.
54. The Respondents further contend that the prayers in the present
petition are substantially identical to those raised in W.P.(C) No. 352/2025.
Prayer (d), seeking restraint against construction, corresponds to prayer No.
1 therein; prayer (b), seeking restraint against further sanctions or approvals,
corresponds to prayer No. 2; prayer (a), seeking quashing of the sanction
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 31 of 113
dated 13.05.2024, corresponds to prayer No. 3; and prayer (c), seeking
quashing of the 368th and 370th Screening Committee Minutes, corresponds
to prayer No. 4 in the said writ petition.
55. The Respondents have also placed on record a chronology of
proceedings initiated by the Petitioner RWA and its members against
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14. In August 2024, the present writ petition was filed
challenging the sanction plan granted by MCD. On 10.09.2024, CM Appl.
Nos. 52907/2024 and 52908/2024 in Contempt Case No. 1149/2022 titled
Bhuvneen Kandhari v. C.S. Singh & Ors. were filed alleging illegal cutting
of trees, which applications were disposed of vide Order dated 06th
December, 2024 as no violation of any Court order was alleged. On 13th
September, 2024, O.A. No. 1171/2024 was filed before the NGT alleging
absence of Environmental Clearance and felling of trees, which was
dismissed vide Order dated 17.02.2025.
56. In November 2024, Rajeev Ranjan, then President of the RWA, filed
Case No. 1587 before the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) constituted
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court alleging that the subject land formed part of a
morphological ridge. The CEC thereafter submitted its Report dated 14th
May, 2025 permitting construction, which was forwarded to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. In January 2025, residents of the RWA filed W.P.(C) No.
352/2025 titled Colonel Ajay Yadav & Anr. v. GNCTD & Ors . , contending
that construction could not proceed as the subject land formed part of a
morphological ridge. The said petition was dismissed vide Order dated 20th
January, 2025, on the ground that none of the prayers were maintainable,
and the challenge thereto in LPA No. 92/2025 was dismissed vide Judgment
dated 07th February, 2025. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Order
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 32 of 113
dated 12th August, 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 , dismissed the
applications filed by Rajeev Ranjan and accepted the applications filed by
Texknit in terms of the CEC Report dated 14th May, 2025, thereby
permitting construction in accordance with law.
57. On the Petitioners’ objection that the subject land falls within a
morphological ridge, the Respondents submit that the present Petition
contains no such pleading. It is further contended that the CEC, being the
competent authority in such matters, vide Report dated 14th May, 2025
permitted Respondent No. 4 to undertake construction subject to conditions,
which Report was accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
12th August, 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 . The Respondents further
contend that the same plea already stands rejected in W.P.(C) No. 352/2025
and LPA No. 92/2025 .
58. On the allegation of a change in the DDA layout plan, the
Respondents deny any such change and state that both the land allotted to
the Petitioner Society and the private land of the Respondents form part of
the integrated layout plan of Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj. It is reiterated
that the subject plot forms an integral part of the pocket, having access
through 24-meter R/W on the northern and western sides, 45-meter R/W on
the eastern side, and 75-meter R/W on the southern side, and therefore the
entire pocket qualifies for Group Housing under MPD-2021 and the Zonal
Development Plan, and is therefore “Residential Group Housing Complex.”
It is submitted that the proposal underwent due scrutiny by the BPC, DDA
Screening Committee and Technical Committee before sanction was
granted. It is further contended that even assuming there was any change in
the layout plan, the remedy would lie before the ATMCD under Section 31-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 33 of 113
C of the Delhi Development Act. Reliance is placed upon Paardarshita
Public Welfare Foundation (NGO) v. MCD & Ors. , W.P.(C) No.
14193/2024 decided on 05.11.2024, and Diwan Chand Aggarwal & Ors. v.
DDA & Ors. , LPA No. 7/2021 decided on 08.01.2021.
59. In relation to the challenge to the DDA Screening Committee
Minutes, the Respondents reiterate that the erstwhile owners’ application for
sanction was initially placed before the BPC, MCD on 01.10.2018 and
deferred for clarifications from DDA. The proposal was thereafter approved
in the 368th Screening Committee Meeting dated 22.04.2019. The matter
was again considered by the BPC in meetings dated 22.10.2019 and
23.10.2019, following which DDA clarified all issues through the Minutes
of the 11th Technical Committee Meeting dated 23.12.2019. Thereafter,
MCD sanctioned the building plan on 13.05.2024 after receipt of all
requisite approvals and clarifications.
60. On the objection regarding the height and number of floors in the
proposed Group Housing Project, the Respondents submit that all requisite
statutory permissions, including approvals from the Airports Authority of
India (“ AAI ”) and Delhi Fire Services, have been obtained. It is further
submitted that under Rules 1.2, 1.5 and 1.6 of the 2018 Regulations, the
Building Bye-Laws prevail, and neither MPD-2021 nor the Unified Building
Bye-Laws impose any restriction on the proposed height. Reliance is placed
upon paragraph 10 of MCD’s Counter Affidavit, wherein it is stated that
clarifications regarding permissible height and floors were specifically
sought from DDA before sanction. DDA’s Technical Committee clarified
that under MPD 2021 there is no restriction on height for Group Housing
projects, subject to requisite clearances from AAI, Fire Department and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 34 of 113
other statutory authorities. DDA has affirmed the same position in its
Counter Affidavit and placed the relevant agenda and minutes on record.
61. It is further submitted by Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 that the Petitioners
have repeatedly made baseless and malicious attempts to tarnish the image
of the project despite Respondent No. 4 being the lawful owner of the
subject land and having obtained all requisite permissions and NOCs in
accordance with law. According to the Respondents, the sanctions and
approvals accorded to Respondent No. 4 have consistently withstood
judicial scrutiny across multiple forums. Reliance is placed upon the
dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 352/2025 and LPA No. 92/2025 , dismissal of
proceedings before the NGT, the CEC Report dated 14.05.2025 permitting
construction, and the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 permitting construction in
accordance with due process of law.
62. In regard to the genesis of right, title and interest of Respondent No.
4, it is submitted that the subject land remained private land even after
urbanisation in 1966 as it was never acquired. The land was declared private
bhumidari land vide Judgment and Decree dated 30th July, 1974 in
favour of Ram Dhan. Upon his death, Mr. Kartar Singh became the
bhumidhar. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 purchased the land from
Kartar Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 05th April, 1995, and mutation
was effected in their favour. Respondent No. 4 subsequently purchased the
land from Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 vide registered Sale Deed dated 18th
April, 2024, thereby deriving title over the subject land.
63. The Respondents also contend that the disputed questions of title and
fact by seeking to challenge Orders dated 30th July, 1974, 07th December,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 35 of 113
2012 and 16th July, 2016, can only be adjudicated by a competent civil court
upon evidence and not in writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon Shalini
Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 , State of
Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 , and R.S. Juneja v.
MCD W.P. (C.) 6863/2009, Delhi High Court . It is further submitted that
judicial orders passed by competent courts are not amenable to certiorari
under Article 226.
64. According to the Respondents, the Petitioners are rank strangers to the
proceedings culminating in the orders dated 30th July, 1974, 07th
December, 2012 and 16th July, 2016, and therefore lack locus standi to
challenge the same. It is also contended that the foundational Sale Deed
dated 18.04.2024 in favour of Respondent No. 4 has not been challenged,
and therefore no effective relief can be granted.
65. It is additionally contended that t he necessary parties, including Ram
Dhan or his legal heirs, have not been impleaded despite challenges being
raised to the order dated 30th July, 1974. Reliance is placed upon Prem
Porwal v. Jagdish Chandra. SLP(C.) No. 16483/2015, Supreme Court. The
Respondents also allege suppression of material facts, multiplicity of
proceedings, impermissible enlargement of the scope of the writ petition
through amendment applications and attempts to seek discovery of
documents from a private party in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted
that relief cannot be sought in respect of documents not properly placed on
record.
66. The Respondents further raise objections of delay and laches,
contending that the Petitioner RWA has existed since the 1980s and never
objected to the mutation entries or the possession of Respondent Nos. 5 to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 36 of 113
14 for decades. It is submitted that the Petitioners are therefore barred from
raising claims of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel. Reliance is
placed upon DLF Universal v. Greater Kailash II Welfare Association
LPA 2633/2005, Delhi High Court .
67. The Respondents further contend that Clause 5.5 of the Regulations
for Enabling the Planned Development of Privately Owned Land, 2018 has
been misconstrued by the Petitioners. According to the Respondents, the
provision must be read with Clauses 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5, which require
conformity with surrounding development, and since the surrounding
development is residential group housing, the proposed project is fully
compliant.
68. Lastly, on the issue of jurisdiction of revenue courts, the Respondents
contend that the order dated 30th July, 1974, declaring bhumidari rights was
validly passed by a competent revenue court in accordance with the then
prevailing law as recognised in Hatti v. Sunder Singh ( 1970 )2 SCC 841 ,
Umed Singh v. GNCTD,(1997) SCC OnLine Del 842 and Narain Singh v.
Mohinder Singh (2008) It is submitted that even though the legal position
was later revisited in Mohinder Singh v. Narayan Singh ,(2023) 9 SCC
757 , orders validly passed under the then prevailing law cannot subsequently
be treated as void, reliance being placed upon GNCTD v. K.L. Rathi Steels
.,(2023) 9 SCC 757 .
69. Accordingly, the Respondents submit that the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed both on maintainability and on merits.
Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No.3/MCD
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 37 of 113
70. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, submitted that the present writ petition proceeds on a
complete misconception of the statutory scheme governing planned
development under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
71. Learned counsel submitted that under the statutory framework, there
exists a clear distinction between amendment of the Master Plan and
amendment/modification of a layout plan. It was argued that where the land
use itself is sought to be altered, such as from residential to commercial, the
procedure contemplated under the Delhi Development Act including public
notice and objections becomes mandatory. However, where the issue
concerns planning, development controls and layout regulation within an
existing permissible land use, the competent planning authority is
empowered to take decisions independently in accordance with law.
72. Learned counsel submitted that the subject land forms part of a
residential pocket and the proposal in question pertains to group
housing/residential development. Therefore, according to learned counsel,
there was no alteration of land use requiring any modification of the Master
Plan under Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act. The decision
impugned in the present petition was stated to be one concerning layout
planning and development regulation within the existing planning
framework.
73. Learned counsel further submitted that the decision regarding sanction
and planning approval was not taken arbitrarily or mechanically but after
due consideration by expert statutory bodies including the Technical
Committee, Screening Committee and the competent authorities under the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 38 of 113
DDA and MCD. It was contended that the Building Plan Committee of
MCD comprises senior engineers and technical experts and the planning
decision in question was arrived at after consideration at multiple levels.
74. Learned counsel submitted that courts exercising jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily ought not to interfere with
technical and planning decisions taken by specialized statutory authorities
possessing domain expertise, unless the decision is shown to be patently
arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statute.
75. It was further submitted that the “ Regulations for Enabling the
Planned Development of Privately Owned Lands, 2018 ” framed under
Section 57 of the Delhi Development Act specifically contemplate
development of privately owned pockets of land which had remained
undeveloped or left out within larger planned areas. According to learned
counsel, the objective of the policy was to ensure planned utilization of such
parcels rather than permitting them to remain unused indefinitely.
76. Learned counsel submitted that once the petitioners themselves
contend that the subject land is Government/DDA land, the rigours
applicable to privately owned lands under the 2018 Regulations regarding
development controls, road width, height restrictions and related conditions
would not even arise in the manner sought to be projected by the petitioners.
77. It was further argued that the allegations of fraud advanced by the
petitioners are wholly misconceived and unsupported by any cogent
material. Learned counsel submitted that the sanctioning authority processed
the applications on the basis of registered sale deeds and title documents
placed on record and there existed no material before the Corporation
suggesting fabrication or sham transactions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 39 of 113
78. Learned counsel emphasized that registered documents carry a
statutory presumption of genuineness and sanctity and cannot casually be
treated as sham or fraudulent merely on the basis of bald allegations in writ
proceedings. It was argued that serious allegations regarding fraud in sale
transactions require clear pleadings and substantive evidence and cannot be
adjudicated merely on the basis of averments in an interlocutory application.
79. Learned counsel further submitted that even assuming the petitioners
allege that sanction was obtained by misrepresentation or fraudulent
disclosure, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act itself provides a specific
statutory mechanism under Section 338 of the Act. Reference was made to
Section 338 of the DMC Act to contend that where sanction has been
obtained on the basis of material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement,
the Commissioner is empowered to cancel such sanction by a reasoned
written order. It was therefore submitted that the petitioners have an
efficacious statutory remedy even qua their allegations of fraud and
consequently invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction is wholly
unwarranted.
80. Learned counsel further submitted that Clause 1.6 of the applicable
Regulations specifically provides that any issue relating to interpretation of
the Regulations is required to be referred to the competent authority/DDA
for necessary clarification and directions. It was therefore argued that
disputes concerning applicability of the 2018 Policy, development controls,
road width, permissible height and related technical planning norms ought to
be left to the specialized statutory authorities and not adjudicated by the
Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 40 of 113
81. Learned counsel also dealt with the objection raised by the petitioners
regarding environmental clearance and submitted that the sanction granted
was conditional in nature and subject to procurement of all other statutory
approvals including environmental clearance. It was argued that such
conditional sanctions are common in planning matters and the mere
pendency of environmental clearance at a particular stage does not ipso facto
invalidate the sanction process.
Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No.2/DDA
82. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Development
Authority adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of MCD and further
invited attention to the counter affidavit filed by DDA, particularly
paragraph C(b) and C(c), to contend that the subject plot forms an integral
part of Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj and therefore the entire pocket
along with the subject plot qualifies as a group housing pocket under the
applicable planning framework.
83. Learned counsel submitted that the stand of DDA consistently has
been that the development norms applicable to the subject land are governed
by the surrounding integrated development of the area. It was submitted that
the entire pocket is bounded by 24 metres, 45 metre and 75 metre right-of-
way roads and the development control norms applicable to the subject land
are therefore regulated by Clause 5.5 of the “ Regulations for Enabling the
Planned Development of Privately Owned Lands ”. According to learned
counsel, the planning approvals granted in the present case are entirely
consistent with the aforesaid regulatory framework.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 41 of 113
84. Learned counsel also addressed the issue raised by the petitioners
regarding pedestrian access to the Masonic Public School and invited
attention to paragraph 11 of the relevant pleadings. It was submitted that the
issue had already been considered in earlier proceedings before this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 1797/2016 titled M/s Northern India Masonic Charitable
Society v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.
85. Learned counsel submitted that in the aforesaid proceedings, this
Court by judgment dated 21.01.2025 had already directed creation of a
pedestrian passage for school children and that during pendency of the said
proceedings, the Vice Chairman, DDA had passed a detailed speaking order
dated 30.08.2024 directing construction of pedestrian access from Aruna
Asaf Ali Road to the Masonic Public School through the waterbody area.
86. It was therefore submitted that the grievance sought to be raised in the
present writ petition regarding pedestrian accessibility already stands
addressed by the competent authorities pursuant to judicial directions and
cannot constitute a surviving ground for interference with the sanction
granted in favour of the private respondents.
87. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the challenge raised by the
petitioners essentially seeks judicial review of technical planning decisions
taken by expert statutory authorities in accordance with the applicable
Regulations and Master Plan norms. According to learned counsel, no case
of arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of any statutory provision has been
made out warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 42 of 113
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
I. Whether the Petitioner RWA, the individual resident Petitioners in
W.P.(C.) No. 11283/2024, and the Petitioner School in W.P.(C.) No.
17433/2025 possess the requisite locus standi to maintain the present
writ petitions?
II. Whether CM APPL. 10311/2025 seeking amendment of the writ
petition is liable to be allowed, and if so, to what effect?
III. Whether the approvals and sanctions granted in favour of
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14, are contrary to standing laws including
sanction dated 13.05.2024, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957, the Delhi Development Act, 1957, MPD-2021, Unified Building
Bye-Laws, 2016, and the applicable planning regulations, thereby
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India?
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
88. This court has heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of MCD,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of DDA, as well as the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 14, and has carefully
perused the pleadings, documents placed on record and the judgments relied
upon by the respective parties.
89. First and foremost, the issue which arises for consideration before this
Court is whether the Petitioners have the requisite locus standi to contest the
present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 43 of 113
90. This Court has considered the preliminary objection as to locus standi
raised by the Respondents on various grounds. It is well settled that
maintainability under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not
depend upon a proprietary interest in the subject matter, a person directly
and prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority may
maintain proceedings even in absence of such a specific interest, particularly
where the impugned activity is alleged to violate the governing planning
framework and raises issues bearing upon public interest and the rule of law.
The Petitioner School satisfies this threshold on the face of the record. It
directly adjoins the Subject Property along a shared boundary wall, shares
the sole motorable vehicular access road a fact not disputed by the
Respondents and expressly acknowledged in DDA's own order dated
30.08.2024 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 1797/2016 , and further operates as an
educational institution entitled to silence zone protection under Rule 3(5) of
the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. As admitted, this
institution caters to approximately 2,500 students whose safety, health and
educational environment are prima facie directly implicated by the proposed
high-density construction immediately adjoining the School boundary. The
prejudice asserted is therefore neither remote nor generalised but connected
and institution-specific.
91. As regards to the allegation of proxy litigation as alleged by the
Respondents herein, it is established as per the records, to the satisfaction of
the Court that the School was admittedly not a party to W.P.(C.) No.
11283/2024 , and the uncontroverted position is that it became aware of the
impugned approvals only in September 2025 upon noticing construction
activity at site a circumstance inconsistent with any inference of prior
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 44 of 113
collusion. Further, the grievances urged by the School including the silence
zone protection claim, the concern regarding the sole access road, and the
allegation that the School's location was misrepresented before the SEAC
are institution-specific grievances unavailable to, and not urged by, the
RWA Petitioners, thereby disclosing an independent and distinct cause of
action. Mere overlap in certain legal grounds arising from the same
impugned approvals does not render an independently aggrieved party's
petition a proxy proceeding. For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary
objection as to locus standi does not merit acceptance and is accordingly
rejected.
92. Now, turning to the locus standi of the Petitioner RWA and the
individual resident Petitioners in W.P.(C.) No. 11283/2024 , the
Respondents contend that the Petitioners, being strangers to the title of the
Subject Property, lack any legally cognisable interest to question the
impugned sanctions and approvals. The Petitioner RWA is stated to
represent residents of Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj, within which the
Subject Property is situated, while the individual Petitioners are residents of
the colony who assert that they purchased their flats under DDA’s Self-
Financing Scheme in the backdrop of the sanctioned layout plan and
planning framework then prevailing. It is their case that the Subject Property
is accessible through the internal road network of the colony and that the
proposed development is likely to have a bearing on the existing civic
infrastructure, internal circulation and residential environment of the area.
93. The Petitioners further contend that the impugned approvals constitute
a departure from the originally contemplated development pattern of the
colony and that such change directly affects the residents of the surrounding
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 45 of 113
area. At this stage, the concerns raised with regard to access, ingress and
egress, traffic movement and the impact upon the surrounding residential
environment cannot be said to be wholly remote or unconnected with the
subject matter of challenge.
94. Equally, the mere fact that the Petitioners were not parties to the
proceedings culminating in the orders dated 07.12.2012 and 16.07.2016
would not, by itself, preclude them from independently raising their
grievances in appropriate proceedings, particularly when they assert that
they were neither impleaded nor heard therein. The allegations regarding
construction being done de-hors the standing regulations also do not, prima
facie, bear any direct nexus to the legality of the approvals presently under
challenge. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to reject the
claim of locus standi of the Petitioner RWA and the individual resident
Petitioners at the threshold.
95. Having answered Issue No. 1 in favour of the Petitioners herein, this
Court shall now proceed to examine Issue No. 2, namely, whether CM
APPL. 10311/2025 seeking amendment of the Writ petition 11283/2024
is liable to be allowed , and if so, to what effect.
96. The said application has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioners
under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the writ petition by incorporation of
additional pleadings and prayers pertaining to the alleged vesting of the
subject land in the Gaon Sabha/Central Government/DDA and the legality
of the order dated 30.07.1974 passed by the Revenue Assistant declaring
one Sh. Ram Dhan as Bhumidhar of the subject property. The Petitioners
further seek incorporation of averments alleging that the said order was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 46 of 113
without jurisdiction, void ab initio and collusive in nature, and consequently
seek addition of a prayer for declaration that the said order is non-est and
unenforceable in law.
97. The amendment is opposed by Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 , inter alia , on
the ground that the proposed amendment fundamentally alters the scope and
character of the writ proceedings, seeks to reopen questions pertaining to
title, vesting and ownership after several decades, introduces issues which
were admittedly within the Petitioners’ knowledge even at the time of filing
of the writ petition and would seriously prejudice vested rights accrued in
favour of subsequent purchasers who were not parties to the alleged revenue
proceedings of 1974.
98. It is further contended that the proposed controversy necessarily
involves disputed questions of title and proprietary rights which are
incapable of adjudication in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
99. Before adverting to the merits of the amendment application, it
becomes necessary to examine the nature and scope of the original writ
proceedings. A perusal of the writ petition demonstrates that the principal
challenge therein was directed against the sanction dated 13.05.2024
granted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of the proposed
group housing project over the subject property, the screening committee
approvals, and the consequential planning and development permissions
granted by the statutory authorities. The original controversy, therefore,
substantially arose in the context of planning norms, legality of sanctions,
road width requirements, environmental concerns, conformity with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 47 of 113
Master Plan and the legality of the approvals granted by the planning
authorities.
100. By way of the present amendment, however, the Petitioners now seek
to introduce extensive pleadings challenging the very root of title claimed by
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 and their predecessors-in-interest. The Petitioners
further seek to contend that the land stood vested in the Gaon Sabha/Central
Government/DDA, that the order dated 30.07.1974 passed by the Revenue
Assistant was wholly without jurisdiction and that all subsequent
transactions flowing therefrom are consequently unsustainable. The
Petitioners further seek a substantive declaratory prayer assailing the said
revenue order itself.
101. The law governing amendment of pleadings is well settled. Though
courts ordinarily adopt a liberal approach while considering applications for
amendment, such discretion is neither automatic nor unrestricted. The
amendment must be necessary for determining the real controversy between
the parties and must not result in fundamentally altering the nature of the
proceedings or causing serious prejudice to accrued rights of the opposite
party.
102. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt.
Ltd., (2022) 11 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprehensively
summarised the principles governing amendment of pleadings and held that
while amendments necessary for effective adjudication should ordinarily be
allowed, the Court must refuse amendments which fundamentally change
the nature of proceedings, reopen settled issues, or cause serious prejudice
incapable of compensation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 48 of 113
103. Tested on the aforesaid principles, this Court is unable to persuade
itself to allow the present amendment.
104. It is significant that the Petitioners themselves admit that the facts
sought to be introduced by way of amendment were always within their
knowledge. The foundation of the proposed amendment rests upon the
notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in
the years 1965 and 1966, the alleged vesting of Gaon Sabha land upon
urbanisation of Village Mehrauli in 1966, the notification dated 20.08.1974
placing Gaon Sabha land at the disposal of DDA, and the order dated
30.07.1974 passed by the Revenue Assistant. All these events are historical
facts dating back several decades and are not based upon any subsequent
discovery or newly emerged material.
105. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to what prevented them
from raising these pleas at the time of institution of the writ petition itself.
The amendment application does not disclose the emergence of any fresh
circumstance or subsequent event necessitating incorporation of the
proposed pleadings. Rather, the Petitioners seek to introduce an altogether
expanded challenge on the basis of material admittedly available to them
from the very inception.
106. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha &
Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 409, held that one of the primary considerations while
deciding amendment applications is whether the applicant acted with due
diligence and whether the amendment is sought at a belated stage despite
prior knowledge of the relevant facts. The relevant paragraph of the
judgement reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 49 of 113
" 10 . By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment)
Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), Parliament inter alia inserted a
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as
under:
'Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court
comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.'
It is couched in a mandatory form. The court’s jurisdiction
to allow such an application is taken away unless the
conditions precedent therefor are satisfied viz. it must come
to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties
could not have raised the matter before the commencement
of the trial.
[........]
19 . It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether
such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute
between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the
amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court.
It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The
court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus,
unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found
to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to
allow the amendment of the plaint.”
107. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present amendment
suffers from precisely such infirmity. The Petitioners, despite full
knowledge of the factual basis now sought to be introduced, chose not to
frame the original writ petition on the basis of title or vesting. Having
consciously instituted the writ petition challenging sanctions and approvals
granted by the planning authorities, the Petitioners cannot now be permitted
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 50 of 113
to substantially enlarge the scope of proceedings by converting the dispute
into one concerning the legality of a revenue order passed more than five
decades ago and the consequential validity of proprietary claims arising
therefrom.
108. Equally significant herein is the nature of the controversy sought to be
introduced. The proposed amendment directly impinges upon questions
relating to title, ownership, vesting and proprietary rights over immovable
property. Once the Petitioners seek a declaration that the order dated
30.07.1974 was void ab initio and that the land vested in the
Government/DDA, the controversy necessarily travels beyond the realm of
planning permissions and enters into adjudication of competing proprietary
claims.
109. Such questions cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly where
determination of rights would require examination of historical revenue
records, acquisition proceedings, vesting notifications, title documents,
succession, mutations and competing factual assertions spanning several
decades.
110. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh , (1993) Supp (1) SCC 306,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that disputed questions relating to title
and ownership of immovable property are ordinarily unsuited for
adjudication in writ jurisdiction.
111. The proposed amendment would therefore inevitably transform the
present proceedings from a challenge to planning sanctions into a
substantive adjudication concerning title and vesting of land. Such
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 51 of 113
enlargement of the controversy cannot be said to be merely ancillary or
explanatory in nature.
112. This Court also finds considerable merit in the submission advanced
on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 that permitting the amendment at this
stage would seriously prejudice vested and accrued rights of third parties.
113. The record demonstrates that the land was allegedly purchased by
Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 through registered sale deeds executed in the year
1995 from persons claiming title through the revenue order dated
30.07.1974, then it was purchased by Respondent No. 4 from Respondents
5-14 in the year 2024. It is also not disputed that the original parties to the
said revenue proceedings, including the persons directly affected by the
order dated 30.07.1974, are no longer alive and are not parties to the present
writ proceedings.
114. The consequences of permitting the proposed amendment would
therefore be far-reaching. The Petitioners seek, in effect, to reopen the very
foundation of title upon which subsequent transactions and proprietary
claims have rested for several decades. Such adjudication would directly
affect the rights of subsequent purchasers claiming through bone-fide
registered conveyances and long-standing revenue entries.
115. In Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram , (1978) 2 SCC 91, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that though procedural laws should ordinarily be
construed liberally, amendments cannot be permitted where they result in
serious prejudice to the opposite side or seek to unsettle rights which have
accrued over time.
116. The prejudice in the present case is not merely procedural. The
amendment seeks to cast uncertainty upon long-standing proprietary claims
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 52 of 113
and transactions emanating from a revenue order passed in the year 1974.
More importantly, the original persons directly connected with those
proceedings are no longer before this Court. Permitting adjudication of such
issues in collateral writ proceedings at the instance of persons who were
admittedly not parties to the earlier proceedings would seriously prejudice
parties who have subsequently acquired rights on the basis of registered
instruments and settled revenue records.
117. Moreover, the Petitioners have sought to contend that an order
without jurisdiction can be challenged at any stage. There can be no quarrel
with the settled proposition that a void order can, in an appropriate case, be
questioned even in collateral proceedings. However, that principle does not
ipso facto compel this Court to permit amendment of pleadings in every case
irrespective of the nature of proceedings, the conduct of parties, the delay
involved, and the consequences flowing therefrom.
118. Even assuming the Petitioners are entitled to question the legality of
the order dated 30.07.1974, the question still remains whether such
adjudication can appropriately be undertaken in the present writ proceedings
instituted primarily against planning sanctions and approvals. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the answer must be in the negative.
119. The proposed amendment would necessarily require this Court to
undertake examination of intricate factual and legal issues concerning
acquisition proceedings, vesting of Gaon Sabha land, applicability of the
Delhi Land Reforms Act, legality and effect of the revenue order dated
30.07.1974, continuity of possession, succession, mutations and the validity
of subsequent conveyances. Such adjudication is wholly foreign to the
limited controversy originally raised in the writ petition and cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 53 of 113
appropriately be converted into the principal subject matter of these
proceedings by way of amendment.
120. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that writ jurisdiction is
essentially discretionary and equitable in nature. A party seeking equitable
relief must approach the Court with due diligence and within a reasonable
framework of the controversy originally pleaded. Permitting the present
amendment would substantially alter the complexion of the proceedings and
reopen issues which have remained unquestioned for decades despite being
within the Petitioners’ knowledge throughout.
121. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the proposed
amendment is neither necessary for adjudication of the original controversy
nor merely explanatory or clarificatory in nature. On the contrary, the
amendment seeks to substantially enlarge the scope of the writ petition by
introducing issues relating to title, vesting and legality of historical revenue
proceedings, which would require adjudication of complex disputed
questions beyond the permissible contours of the present writ proceedings.
122. The amendment also suffers from gross and unexplained delay
inasmuch as the factual basis thereof admittedly existed and remained within
the knowledge of the Petitioners even prior to institution of the writ petition.
No subsequent event or newly discovered material has been shown which
could justify incorporation of such pleas at this stage.
123. Furthermore, it is reiterated that permitting the amendment would
seriously prejudice vested rights claimed by subsequent purchasers who
were not parties to the alleged revenue proceedings and whose rights have
accrued through long-standing transactions and revenue records over several
decades.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 54 of 113
124. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petitioners were
not aware of the proceedings before the Revenue Court at the time the Writ
was instituted, the petitioners’ own pleadings and submissions
fundamentally undermine this position. Throughout the course of arguments,
the petitioners have repeatedly contended that the land in question belongs
to the DDA and not to private owners, a submission which, in and of itself,
demonstrates a clear awareness of the underlying title dispute and of the
adjudication that had taken place before the Revenue Authority. It is against
this backdrop that the present application for amendment falls to be
considered.
125. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds
itself unable to grant the relief sought at this stage, and for the following
reasons.
126. The first and most conspicuous infirmity afflicting the present
application is the inordinate and wholly unexplained delay with which the
petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner invokes the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court after a lapse of approximately
five decades, without tendering any satisfactory explanation for this
extraordinary and unconscionable delay. It is well settled that the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, though wide and
discretionary in its amplitude, is not designed to resuscitate stale claims or to
unsettle proceedings that have long since attained finality. The doctrine of
laches operates with full vigour in the present case. A party cannot remain
dormant over its rights for half a century and thereafter seek to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to reopen matters that the passage of
time has conclusively closed. This position finds further reinforcement in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 55 of 113
decision of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Financial Commissioner ILR
(2008) 2 Delhi 762, wherein a challenge to revenue entries made after a
lapse of twenty-six years was held not to be maintainable, and the writ
petition was accordingly dismissed. If a delay of twenty-six years was found
to be fatal to the maintainability of such a challenge, the delay of nearly five
decades in the present case admits of no indulgence whatsoever.
127. Proceeding further, even if the question of delay were to be set aside,
the nature and scope of writ jurisdiction itself presents an insuperable
obstacle to the grant of the relief sought. This Court, exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a court of
appeal over the Revenue Authority, and it is not within the province of this
Court to re-examine the correctness of findings of fact or to substitute its
own assessment for that of a competent tribunal. It is only the powers of
judicial review that this Court exercises, and any interference, if at all, must
remain strictly within the parameters of such review and cannot partake of
the character of appellate scrutiny. The mere fact that a wrong view may
have been taken by the Revenue Authority would not, of itself, entitle this
Court to interfere. Interference would be warranted only where perversity is
demonstrated, or where it is shown that the order of the Revenue Authority
is contrary to settled law, or where the findings returned are shown to rest
upon no material whatsoever. The appropriate and efficacious remedy
available to the petitioner, had it been aggrieved by the award of the
Revenue Authority, was to challenge the same through the statutory
mechanism prescribed under the relevant revenue laws. By failing to avail of
such remedy and instead approaching this Court after decades through the
device of an amendment to a petition whose original prayers bore no nexus
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 56 of 113
whatsoever with the question of title, the petitioner cannot now be permitted
to circumvent the statutory scheme so as to achieve collaterally what it could
not have sought directly.
128. In this connection, the observations of a Full Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Dr. Kidar Nath Sharma v. Rattiram Mangli AIR
1966 P&H 321 are instructive. The Full Bench made reference to an earlier
Division Bench judgment of that Court dated 13th March, 1963 in Ramjilal
v. Lekhi , which laid down that the task of determining which individuals
were entitled to the benefit of the general declaration of Bhumidhari rights
in accordance with the entries in the revenue records was of enormous
magnitude and would consume years if every such case were to be
contested. It was accordingly held that the record of Bhumidhari rights was
to be made on the basis of revenue records, and that persons wishing to
contest the certificates granted thereunder had ample opportunity to do so
under Rule 8(4) of the Reforms Rules. In the same vein, a Division Bench of
this Court in Gaon Sabha v. Jage Ram 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter 597
held that a person seeking to challenge the correctness of entries in the land
revenue forms must first apply to the Revenue Assistant under Rule 8(4) of
the Reforms Rules, who may then require him to file a regular suit in a Civil
Court. These decisions collectively underscore the principle that the
statutory machinery must be invoked before recourse is given to this Court,
and that bypassing such machinery altogether is impermissible.
129. The settled legal position with respect to revenue entries further
buttresses this conclusion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishwa Vijay
Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan (1976) 3 SCC 642 held that entries in the
revenue record ought generally to be accepted at their face value, and that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 57 of 113
courts should not embark upon an appellate enquiry into their correctness
unless it is shown that such entries were made fraudulently and
surreptitiously. No such fraud has been established in the present case. To
the same effect is the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jagdeo v.
Deputy Director of Consolidation MANU/UP/1079/2006, wherein it was
held that revenue entries in respect of agricultural lands carry great
evidentiary value, given the meticulous procedure prescribed for their
recording, correction, and maintenance, and that they cannot be equated with
entries made for purposes such as house tax under the Municipalities Act. It
was further observed that purchasers of agricultural land and others dealing
therewith invariably verify the right of the vendor from the revenue records
alone a recognition of the primacy accorded to such entries in matters of
title.
130. What further fortifies this Court in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion
is the complete absence of locus on the part of the petitioner. The
proceedings before the Revenue Authority were contested solely between
the DDA and one Shri Ram Dhan, and admittedly, the petitioner was never
impleaded as a party therein. This Court fails to comprehend how a third
party, who was not even aware of the existence of such proceedings at the
relevant time, can seek to assail a decree after the lapse of more than five
decades.
131. It is also significant that neither the petitioners nor the respondents
have placed any material on record to show that the order passed by the
Revenue Authority was ever set aside, modified, or remained pending
challenge in appeal or revision. On the contrary, the material on record
reflects that the decree attained finality and was acted upon subsequently as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 58 of 113
well. In fact, when the DDA later formulated the Self-Financing Housing
Scheme (SFS), Vasant Kunj, and sought to utilize the land by stacking
construction material and raising a boundary wall, certain persons including
one Shri Kartar Singh approached the Civil Court claiming rights over the
land on the strength of the order dated 30.07.1974 passed by the Revenue
Assistant declaring them bhoomidars . The suit for permanent injunction was
decreed in their favour and even the appeal preferred by the DDA came to
be dismissed.
132. These subsequent developments lend further credence to the
conclusion that the findings returned by the Revenue Authority had attained
conclusiveness inter se the parties. The decree itself had been passed after
due opportunity to the contesting parties, upon consideration of the relevant
revenue records and the report of the Village Patwari, who had specifically
recorded that the land belonged to private owners.
133. In these circumstances, this Court fails to see how a stranger to the
proceedings can be permitted to impeach its validity at this belated stage. It
may additionally be observed that the Revenue Act provides a clear
procedure for impugning a wrong entry, if any, made in the record of rights,
and that a party aggrieved by a mutation was required to have the same
corrected through the prescribed statutory mechanism. Without applying for
such correction, no party can be heard to contend to the contrary. The
Legislature has expressly bestowed a presumption of correctness upon such
entries, and the failure to seek their correction through the proper forum
which alone is competent to adjudicate such a dispute renders the present
application not only belated but fundamentally misconceived.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 59 of 113
134. The settled legal position on the scope of writ jurisdiction in such
matters admits of no ambiguity. As observed herein above that it has been
consistently held in a catena of decisions that a decree passed by the
Revenue Authority or the Board of Revenue cannot be set aside in writ
proceedings, since the High Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction
over such tribunals. The only recognised exception to this principle is where
the impugned decree is shown to be illegal on the face of the record, or
where the findings recorded are so perverse as to shock the conscience of the
Court and even this limited exception is available only to a party who has
first exhausted the statutory remedies available to it. Neither condition is
satisfied in the present case. The decree does not suffer from any apparent
illegality, nor has the petitioner exhausted or indeed invoked any statutory
remedy at any point in time. To permit a third party to mount a collateral
attack upon a decree that has stood unchallenged for five decades would be
repugnant to all principles of finality, repose, and the orderly administration
of justice.
135. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to allow the
application for amendment, which would have the effect of introducing an
entirely new relief namely, a challenge to the title of the property into a
petition whose original prayers bore no relation to any such claim.
Accordingly, the application bearing CM APPL. 10311/2025 stands
dismissed.
136. Having dealt with Issue No. 2, this Court shall now proceed to
adjudicate upon the principal controversy arising in the present proceedings,
namely, whether the approvals and sanctions granted in favour of
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14, are contrary to standing laws including sanction
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 60 of 113
dated 13.05.2024, the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the Delhi
Development Act, 1957, MPD-2021, Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016, and
the applicable planning regulations, thereby warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
137. At the outset, it becomes necessary to appreciate the statutory and
regulatory architecture governing the present controversy in its entirety
rather than in the selective and fragmented manner. The Master Plan for
Delhi, 2021, the Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016, and the Regulations for
Enabling the Planned Development of Privately Owned Lands, 2018 do not
operate in isolation. They constitute an integrated planning framework
intended to secure orderly urban development, planned utilisation of land,
and balanced infrastructural growth within the National Capital Territory of
Delhi. The provisions contained therein are therefore required to be
interpreted harmoniously and purposively so as to further the object of
planned development, rather than in a narrow or compartmentalised manner
leading to internal inconsistency within the statutory scheme.
138. It is equally necessary to bear in mind the institutional character of the
authorities whose decisions are under challenge in the present proceedings.
The Screening Committee, the Technical Committee, and the Building Plan
Committee are specialised statutory and technical bodies constituted
precisely to examine, weigh and decide questions of planning, development
control, road access, environmental impact, and regulatory compliance.
Such bodies undertake detailed technical scrutiny upon examination of
planning records, layouts, site conditions, circulation networks, Floor-Area
Ratio (FAR) calculations, and infrastructural feasibility, which are matters
requiring specialised expertise. The scope of judicial review under Article
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 61 of 113
226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving technical planning
decisions is therefore necessarily limited. Constitutional Courts do not sit as
appellate planning authorities to substitute their own views for those arrived
at by expert statutory bodies merely because another view may also be
possible. Interference is warranted only where the decision-making process
is shown to suffer from patent illegality, manifest arbitrariness, mala fides ,
or clear violation of statutory provisions.
139. The principal challenge raised by the Petitioners proceeds on the
premise that the Subject Property itself could not have been processed under
the “ Regulations for Enabling the Planned Development of Privately Owned
Lands, 2018 ” ( hereinafter, “2018 Regulations” ) and that its incorporation
within the integrated layout framework of Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj
is fundamentally contrary to the planning scheme envisaged under the Delhi
Development Act and MPD-2021.
140. According to the Petitioners, the Subject Property originally formed
part of acquisition proceedings undertaken for planned development and had
always been represented as part of the Vasant Kunj Residential Scheme
floated by DDA. It has further been contended that once notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued and the
area stood urbanised, the Revenue Authorities lacked jurisdiction to declare
bhumidari rights vide judgment dated 30.07.1974, and consequently the
subsequent chain of title relied upon by Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 is void ab
initio.
141. Per contra, the Respondents have consistently maintained that the
Subject Property remained privately owned land throughout, that it was
never acquired under the acquisition proceedings in question, that the land
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 62 of 113
stood specifically de-notified on 20.08.1996 and that the rights of
Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 emanate from valid revenue entries, mutation
records, and registered conveyance documents. Reliance has also been
placed upon the communication dated 22.02.2024 issued by the Land
Acquisition Collector (South), expressly stating that the Subject Property is
free from acquisition.
142. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the
challenge raised by the Petitioners essentially seeks reopening of complex
questions relating to acquisition, title, bhumidari rights, de-notification, and
ownership extending back several decades. Such issues are not only heavily
disputed on facts but have also undergone substantive adjudication before
competent forums in earlier proceedings.
143. At this stage, this Court finds it apposite to refer to the Order dated
07.12.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal,
MCD in Appeal No. 24/AT/MCD/2009 , which had comprehensively
examined the status of the Subject Property, the nature of the rights claimed
by the private Respondents, and the extent of authority, if any, vested in the
DDA to object to development over the said land.
144. The Appellate Tribunal, MCD, while deciding the aforesaid appeal
upon remand by the learned District Judge (South), examined the legality of
the rejection of the Appellants’ layout plan by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (“MCD”) on the basis of objections raised by DDA. Upon
appreciation of the material placed before it, the Tribunal returned a
categorical finding that the Subject Property was privately owned land,
continued to stand mutated in the names of the Appellants in the revenue
records, had never been acquired, and was residential in land use where
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 63 of 113
Group Housing was permissible in terms of the applicable notification dated
05.06.1999.
145. The Tribunal further noticed that though DDA had sought acquisition
of the land since the year 1989 for the purposes of the “ Vasant Kunj
Residential Scheme ”, no acquisition proceedings had culminated for more
than two decades and, significantly, the area itself stood de-notified vide
notification dated 20.08.1996. The Tribunal also took note of the statement
made by the Assistant Town Planner, MCD, to the effect that there existed
no statutory provision requiring procurement of a No Objection Certificate
from DDA for sanction of the layout plan. Proceeding on the aforesaid basis,
the Tribunal held that the DMC Act constituted a complete code in itself
insofar as sanction of layout plans was concerned and that the MCD alone
was competent under Section 313 thereof to process and sanction the
proposal.
146. The Tribunal categorically held that DDA possessed no right, title,
control or jurisdiction over the subject land and that mere contemplation of
future acquisition did not empower it to obstruct development over private
unacquired land, particularly in the absence of any statutory provision
mandating such NOC. The ATMCD further held that MCD acted illegally in
rejecting the proposal solely on the basis of DDA’s objection, especially
when DDA had earlier itself proposed “ no objection ” to the development.
Rejecting DDA’s plea regarding planned development, the Tribunal held
that speculative future acquisition could not curtail the Appellants’ rights
over their property and reiterated that even issuance of a notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act would not deprive the owners of their
right to use the land until possession was taken. Accordingly, the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 64 of 113
order dated 23.12.2008 was set aside as suffering from “ patent illegality ”
and the matter was remanded to MCD for fresh consideration uninfluenced
by DDA’s objections.
147. The aforesaid findings thereafter came to be substantially affirmed by
the learned District and Sessions Judge in MCD Appeal No. 04/2013 vide
final judgment and order dated 16.07.2016. The learned Appellate Court,
while dismissing the Appeal preferred by DDA, again noted that the Subject
Property was admittedly a private, residential, and de-notified parcel of land
standing mutated in favour of the landowners and that despite repeated
requests made by DDA since 1989, no acquisition proceedings had
culminated for more than two decades.
148. The Appellate Court also took note of the affidavits filed on behalf of
the Vice Chairman, DDA, wherein categorical admissions were made that
the Subject Property had neither been acquired nor placed at the disposal of
DDA and that DDA exercised jurisdiction only in respect of acquired or
notified development land. The Court further noticed DDA’s subsequent
stand that acquisition of the Subject Property was not financially viable and
that the issue relating to sanction of the proposal was liable to be considered
by the competent municipal authority. Upon consideration of the aforesaid
material, the learned District & Sessions Judge held that a private landowner
could not be indefinitely deprived of development rights merely because
DDA contemplated possible acquisition at some future date, particularly
when the proposed development was otherwise consistent with the
residential land use prescribed under the applicable planning framework.
The learned Court accordingly affirmed that no NOC from DDA was legally
required for consideration of the proposal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 65 of 113
149. The aforesaid judicial determinations assume considerable
significance in the present proceedings. The planning authorities, while
processing the proposal under the 2018 Regulations and the applicable
planning framework, were not acting in a factual or legal vacuum but upon
the basis of findings already rendered by competent appellate forums
regarding the status of the Subject Property and the absence of any legal
embargo upon consideration of development permissions in respect thereof.
150. Further, this Court finds support in the aforesaid regard from the CEC
Report, which itself records that the original DDA SFS Scheme of 1987 left
the Subject Property out because the land could not be acquired, and that the
parcel thereafter remained surrounded by multi-storeyed DDA residential
housing. The planning authorities, therefore, proceeded upon the premise
that the Subject Property constituted an undeveloped private pocket
embedded within an otherwise planned residential layout.
151. Accordingly, the consistent findings of the ATMCD, the learned
District and Sessions Judge, and the CEC Report conclusively settle the
position that the Subject Property is a private, unacquired and denotified
parcel of land over which DDA possesses neither proprietary rights nor
statutory authority to obstruct development.
152. The remaining contentions of the respective parties, are discussed in
detail hereinafter:
(I) Alleged Violation of MPD- 2021
(a) Integration of Layout Plan
153. The Petitioners have contended that the incorporation of the Subject
Property into the existing layout plan of Sector-B, Pocket-1 amounted to a
modification of an approved layout plan, which, according to them, could
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 66 of 113
only have been undertaken after following the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Clause 11A of the MPD-2021. However, upon examination
of the MPD-2021, it emerges that no such clause exists therein, and that the
statutory framework governing modification of plans, including the
requirement of public notice and invitation of objections, is in fact contained
in the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
154. For the sake of convenience, the concerned Section 11-A of the DDA
Act, 1957 is extracted hereunder-
“ 11A. Modifications to plan. —
(1) The Authority may make any modifications to the master
plan or the zonal development plan as it thinks fit, being
modifications which, in its opinion, do not effect important
alterations in the character of the plan and which do not
relate to the extent of land-uses or the standards of
population density.
(2) The Central Government may make any modifications to
the master plan or the zonal development plan whether such
modifications are of the nature specified in sub-section (1)
or otherwise.
(3) Before making any modifications to the plan, the
Authority or, as the case may be, the Central Government
shall publish a notice in such form and manner as may be
prescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections
and suggestions from any person with respect to the
proposed modifications before such date as may be
specified in the notice and shall consider all objections and
suggestions that may be received by the Authority or the
Central Government.
(4) Every modification made under the provisions of this
section shall be published in such manner as the Authority
or the Central Government, as the case may be, may specify
and the modifications shall come into operation either on
the date of the publication or on such other date as the
Authority or the Central Government may fix.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 67 of 113
(5) When the Authority makes any modifications to the plan
under sub-section (1), it shall report to the Central
Government the full particulars of such modifications within
thirty days of the date on which such modifications come
into operation.
(6) If any question arises whether the modifications
proposed to be made by the Authority are modifications
which effect important alterations in the character of the
plan or whether they relate to the extent of land-uses or the
standards of population density, it shall be referred to the
Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final.
(7) Any reference in any other Chapter, except Chapter III,
to the master plan or the zonal development plan shall be
construed as a reference to the master plan or the zonal
development plan as modified under the provisions of this
section.”
155. At the outset, it is necessary to appreciate the nature of the action
impugned under this ground. The Petitioners proceed on the premise that
any incorporation of a previously undeveloped parcel within an existing
approved layout constitutes a " modification " attracting the full procedural
rigour of Section 11-A of the DDA Act. This premise, in the considered
opinion of this Court, conflates two conceptually distinct categories of
planning action which the statutory framework treats differently and for
good reason.
156. A modification of land use, that is, an alteration of the designated use
of land from one category to another, such as from residential to commercial
or from green space to institutional, directly affects the planning
entitlements of the surrounding area and the expectations of those who have
organised their lives and investments around the existing use designation. It
is precisely such action that attracts the rigorous procedural safeguards
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 68 of 113
under the Delhi Development Act and MPD-2021, including public notice,
opportunity for objections and higher-level regulatory scrutiny. The
rationale underlying those requirements is the protection of third-party
interests which may be prejudicially affected by a fundamental alteration of
the planning character of an area.
157. The present case, however, involves no such alteration. The Subject
Property has consistently retained its residential character within the
planning framework. The proposal before the authorities pertained to
residential group housing development within a zone already designated and
developed for residential group housing purposes. No change of land use
from one category to another was involved, and no fundamental alteration of
the planning character of the surrounding area was occasioned. The action of
the planning authorities in integrating the Subject Property within the layout
framework of Sector-B, Pocket-1 was therefore a planning determination
within an already permissible land use category and not a modification of
land use in the sense contemplated under Section 11-A
158. It is equally significant that the integration of the Subject Property
was not an ad hoc or unilateral act of the planning authorities but was
undertaken specifically under the 2018 Regulations, which were specifically
framed under Section 57 of the Delhi Development Act to address
undeveloped privately owned land pockets embedded within larger planned
and urbanised areas. The 2018 Regulations themselves prescribe a defined
procedure for such integration, involving examination by the Screening
Committee and the Technical Committee of the DDA, each of which is a
competent expert body entrusted with the responsibility of examining the
planning, infrastructural and regulatory dimensions of the proposal. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 69 of 113
objective underlying the said Regulations is to avoid creation of
permanently undeveloped enclaves within otherwise planned urban layouts
and to integrate such land parcels into the planning framework in a regulated
and coordinated manner. To superimpose upon that procedure the additional
requirements of Section 11-A, which addresses a different category of
planning action altogether, would be to read the two provisions in a manner
that is neither harmonious nor consistent with the distinct objects they
respectively serve.
159. In this regard, the Minutes of the 368th and 370th Screening
Committee Meetings, read conjointly with the Minutes of the 11th Technical
Committee Meeting dated 23.12.2019, assume considerable significance.
The Technical Committee specifically noted that the Subject Property forms
part of the integrated layout plan of Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj and
examined the proposal within the framework of residential land use
applicable to the area. The material placed on record prima facie indicates
that the Subject Property retained residential character within the planning
framework and that the proposed development likewise pertains to
residential group housing. Consequently, the present case does not involve
any alteration of land use from residential to commercial, industrial, or
institutional use so as to attract the rigours applicable to change of land use
under the Delhi Development Act and MPD-2021.
160. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners that the Subject Property
was impermissibly “ inserted ” into the approved layout at a subsequent stage
also does not merit acceptance in the facts of the present case.
161. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the challenge
raised by the Petitioners to the very applicability of the 2018 Regulations
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 70 of 113
and to the incorporation of the Subject Property into the planning framework
cannot be accepted. The planning authorities were acting within the contours
of the applicable statutory and regulatory framework, and no patent illegality
has been demonstrated warranting interference by this Court in exercise of
writ jurisdiction.
162. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the procedure under
Section 11-A of DDA Act, 1957 was not attracted in the facts of the present
case, and that the planning authorities committed no illegality in proceeding
under the 2018 Regulations without independently initiating the Section 11-
A process.
(b) Collusion in the Approval Process
163. The Petitioners have alleged, under this composite head of challenge,
that misleading and manipulated layout plans were submitted to falsely
depict independent access to the Subject Property and to incorporate existing
DDA infrastructure within the proposed project, that the approvals were
granted in collusion with private developers, and that the MCD granted
sanction under Section 336 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957
without first obtaining approval of a layout plan as mandatorily required
under Sections 312 and 313 of the said Act. This Court has carefully
considered each of the aforesaid allegations and finds, for the reasons set out
hereinbelow, that none of them merit acceptance.
164. Dealing first with the allegations of fraud and collusion, it is a well-
settled principle that allegations of manipulation and collusion, particularly
in the context of statutory planning approvals granted by expert public
bodies, cannot rest upon mere assertion. Such allegations strike at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 71 of 113
integrity of the decision-making process and, precisely for that reason,
require clear, specific and substantiated pleadings supported by
demonstrable evidence. The graver the charge, the more exacting is the
standard of proof required to sustain it. Bald assertions of manipulation,
however forcefully or repeatedly urged, cannot substitute for proof, and this
Court cannot proceed to invalidate approvals granted by competent statutory
authorities on the basis of unsubstantiated insinuation alone.
165. The material placed on record, far from supporting an inference of
manipulation or collusion, in fact points in the opposite direction. The
proposal was subjected to scrutiny at multiple levels before sanction was
granted, including before the Building Plan Committee of the MCD, the
Screening Committee of the DDA, and the Technical Committee of the
DDA. Each of these bodies is a specialised expert statutory authority
constituted for the precise purpose of examining the technical, planning and
regulatory dimensions of development proposals. The existence of such a
multi-layered approval process, involving independent expert examination at
each stage, is itself inconsistent with any credible inference of collusion or
mechanical grant of sanction. The Petitioners have not identified any
specific document alleged to have been fabricated, any particular
representation alleged to have been fraudulently made before any of these
bodies, or any material demonstrating that the scrutiny undertaken by them
was anything other than genuine.
166. It is further relevant in this regard that the legislature, in its wisdom,
has specifically provided under Section 338 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 a statutory mechanism for cancellation of sanctions
obtained on the basis of material misrepresentation or fraud. This remedy,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 72 of 113
which is both appropriate and efficacious for addressing precisely the kind
of allegation urged by the Petitioners, was never invoked. The Petitioners
having neither availed of the said statutory remedy nor placed before this
Court any material capable of establishing that any specific document was
fabricated or any particular representation was fraudulently made, the
allegation of fraud, manipulation and collusion in the approval process
cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected.
167. Turning to the contention regarding Sections 312 and 313 of the DMC
Act, the Petitioners have urged that the grant of sanction under Section 336
without prior approval of a layout plan under Sections 312 and 313 renders
the impugned sanction void for non-compliance with a mandatory statutory
prerequisite. This Court is unable to accept the said contention on the facts
of the present case. The layout of Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj, was an
already approved and developed scheme. The Subject Property, upon being
integrated within the existing approved layout framework through the
process under the 2018 Regulations, was treated by the competent
authorities as forming part of an already sanctioned layout plan rather than
as a standalone parcel requiring a fresh and independent layout sanction.
The ATMCD in its order dated 07.12.2012 had itself found that the MCD
was the competent authority to process the proposal under the DMC Act and
had directed fresh consideration of the same. The subsequent processing of
the proposal by the Building Plan Committee, which involved detailed
examination of planning parameters including FAR, setbacks, access, height
and statutory compliances, constituted in substance the requisite
consideration of the layout and development parameters applicable to the
Subject Property.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 73 of 113
168. The contention that an entirely fresh and independent layout sanction
under Sections 312 and 313 was mandatorily required, as though the Subject
Property existed in planning isolation, does not account for the fact that the
Subject Property was processed as part of an integrated residential pocket
with an already approved layout. Sections 312 and 313 are intended to
ensure that development proposals are examined with reference to the layout
framework governing the area before individual building sanctions are
granted. That object was, in substance, achieved through the layered process
of examination undertaken by the Screening Committee, Technical
Committee and the Building Plan Committee in the present case. No
prejudice having been demonstrated from the manner in which the proposal
was processed, and no substantive infirmity in the approval process having
been established, this ground is also rejected.
(c) Environmental Clearance
169. The Petitioners have contended that the Sanction Plan expressly
conditioned commencement of construction upon prior obtainment of
Environmental Clearance from the SEIA/SEAC, and that construction
activity including tree felling and foundation work was commenced without
such clearance. The Respondents have not effectively controverted this
assertion. This is a ground which this Court treats with greater seriousness
than the others urged in the present proceedings.
170. Conditions imposed upon a sanction are not mere directory
requirements but constitute enforceable obligations defining the basis upon
which authorization to commence construction rests. A sanction expressed
to be conditional upon subsequent compliance cannot be construed as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 74 of 113
conferring an unconditional licence to proceed in advance of fulfilment of
stated preconditions. At the same time, this Court is not oblivious to the
practical realities of the statutory clearance process. Environmental
clearances involve multi-layered procedural scrutiny, public consultations
and technical appraisals, all of which necessarily consume considerable
time, and it is not uncommon for various statutory clearances to be
processed concurrently over an extended period. The mere fact that a
clearance was obtained subsequent to the grant of sanction does not, without
more, establish deliberate circumvention of the regulatory framework,
particularly where the clearance process was actively pursued and has since
been duly completed.
171. The Environmental Clearance from MoEFCC was granted on
13.01.2025 during the pendency of these proceedings, and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 has since permitted the project
to proceed subject to conditions. The subsequent obtainment of clearance
does not, however, retroactively validate construction activity, if any,
undertaken in breach of the express precondition prior to its grant.
(d) The 18-Metre Right of Way (ROW) Requirement
172. Having thus held, this Court shall now proceed to examine the next
substantial objection raised by the Petitioners, namely, whether the Subject
Property satisfies the minimum Right of Way (“ROW”) requirement
prescribed for Group Housing under the applicable planning framework.
173. The Petitioners have vehemently contended that the Subject Property
does not directly abut an 18 metre ROW as allegedly mandated under
Clause 4.4.3(B)(ii) of MPD-2021 governing Group Housing development.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 75 of 113
According to the Petitioners, the actual frontage available to the Subject
Property comprises only internal roads measuring approximately 13 metres
in width and, therefore, the very grant of approval in favour of Respondent
Nos. 4 to 14 is contrary to the mandatory planning norms prescribed under
the Master Plan. It has further been argued that the DDA Screening
Committee and Technical Committee impermissibly relied upon wider
peripheral roads servicing the larger layout of Sector-B, Pocket-1 in order to
artificially satisfy the said requirement.
174. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it becomes necessary
to extract the relevant planning provision. Clause 4.4.3(B)(ii) of MPD-
2021 , reads as under:
“ ii. [Plots for group housing should be located on roads
facing a minimum width of 18 m ROW (7.5m ROW for
Redevelopment Areas / Rehabilitation area / Special Area /
Village (Lal Dora / Firni) / Extended Lal Dora) ”
175. Clause 4.4.3(B)(ii) of MPD-2021, insofar as relevant, provides that
Group Housing plots are required to “ face ” a minimum 18 metre ROW. The
expression employed in the planning framework is significant. The
provision does not state that every individual parcel must independently and
exclusively abut an 18 metre road in isolation from the planning structure
governing the surrounding layout. The requirement must therefore
necessarily be understood in the context of the larger planning framework,
circulation network, and integrated access structure applicable to the area in
question.
176. At this stage, it is also important to note that the interpretation placed
upon the aforesaid provision by the DDA Technical Committee and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 76 of 113
Screening Committee constitutes the considered view of the specialised
planning authorities entrusted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 with
implementation of MPD-2021 and regulation of planned development in
Delhi. Such interpretation, unless shown to be ex facie arbitrary or contrary
to the statutory scheme, deserves due deference in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
177. The record demonstrates that the issue relating to ROW and
accessibility was specifically deliberated upon by the competent authorities
during the processing of the proposal. The Minutes of the 368th Screening
Committee Meeting dated 22.04.2019 reveal that the Committee consciously
examined the accessibility and circulation pattern governing the Subject
Property and took note of the fact that the parcel forms part of the integrated
layout plan of Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj, which itself is serviced
through a planned circulation network connected to wider arterial roads
having 24 metre, 45 metre and 75 metre ROW. The Committee thereafter
proceeded upon the planning assessment that the Subject Property could not
be viewed in isolation from the integrated circulation framework of the
larger residential pocket.
178. The aforesaid approach adopted by the planning authorities cannot be
said to be alien to the statutory framework. On the contrary, the 2018
Regulations themselves specifically contemplate development of privately
owned land pockets situated within already planned and urbanised areas.
Clause 4.1 of the said Regulations envisages planned integration of such
undeveloped private parcels within the larger layout of which they form an
integral component.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 77 of 113
179. The regulatory framework therefore itself recognises that privately
owned enclaves situated within larger planned sectors are required to be
examined in the context of the integrated planning structure surrounding
them, rather than as standalone and disconnected parcels.
180. The position was thereafter independently affirmed by the DDA
Technical Committee vide communication dated 10.01.2020, wherein the
competent planning authority clarified that, the Subject Property being part
of the integrated layout of Sector-B, Pocket-1, the ROW requirement could
not be interpreted in the isolated and fragmented manner suggested by the
Petitioners. The MCD Building Plan Committee subsequently relied upon
the aforesaid clarification while processing the building plans and granting
sanction dated 13.05.2024.
181. In the considered opinion of this Court, the interpretation advanced by
the Petitioners would lead to impractical and unworkable consequences in
the context of planned urban development.
182. Acceptance of the Petitioners’ contention would effectively imply that
every internal plot situated within a larger planned residential pocket must
independently abut an 18 metre ROW irrespective of the integrated
circulation network servicing the area as a whole. Such an interpretation
would render development of numerous internal plots within planned
colonies impossible despite adequate connectivity through the planned road
network. Planning norms relating to accessibility and circulation cannot be
interpreted in a manner divorced from the realities of integrated urban
layouts.
183. The planning framework itself contemplates coexistence of plot-level
development controls and sector-level circulation planning. Merely because
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 78 of 113
certain development parameters are assessed at the plot level does not
necessarily imply that access and circulation must also be viewed in
complete isolation from the larger integrated planning framework governing
the surrounding sector.
184. This Court also finds merit in the submission advanced on behalf of
the Respondents that Clause 1.6 of the 2018 Regulations specifically
provides that interpretational issues are to be referred to the DDA for
clarification. The MCD followed precisely this procedure by seeking
clarification from the DDA regarding the issues of road width and
permissible height, and thereafter acting upon the clarification furnished by
the competent planning authority. Such procedure cannot be characterised as
abdication of statutory responsibility or mechanical approval; rather, it
reflects adherence to the regulatory mechanism specifically contemplated
under the governing framework for resolution of planning interpretation
issues. Therefore, it is safe to say that the concept of an “ integrated layout ”
is not an afterthought introduced by the Respondents to circumvent
regulatory requirements.
185. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Subject Property, when
examined in the context of the integrated layout and circulation framework
of Sector-B, Pocket-1, satisfies the minimum ROW requirement under
Clause 4.4.3(B)(ii) of MPD-2021 and Clause 8.2(a) of the Unified Building
Bye-Laws, 2016. Consequently, the clarification issued by the DDA
Technical Committee vide communication dated 10th January, 2020, under
MPD-2021 and the 2018 Regulations, cannot be said to be arbitrary,
contrary to the planning framework, or liable to interference in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 79 of 113
(e) Conformity With Surrounding Development: Clause 5.5 and
Height Restrictions
186. The aforesaid conclusion naturally leads this Court to the next limb of
challenge raised by the Petitioners, namely, whether the proposed
construction violates the requirement of conformity with the surrounding
development under Clause 5.5 of the 2018 Regulations and whether the
height of the sanctioned structure is contrary to the applicable planning
framework.
187. The Petitioners have placed heavy reliance upon Clause 5.5 of the
2018 Regulations and have contended that since existing buildings
surrounding the Subject Property within Sector-B, Pocket-1 predominantly
comprise DDA SFS flats of approximately 3 to 4 storeys, the proposed
development consisting of nine upper floors with stilt and basement levels is
ex facie contrary to the requirement of conformity with surrounding
development. According to the Petitioners, the proposed construction
fundamentally alters the built character of the locality and disrupts the low-
rise planning profile originally envisaged under the Vasant Kunj Residential
Scheme.
188. At first blush, the aforesaid submission may appear attractive,
however, upon closer scrutiny of the regulatory framework and the planning
context in which the impugned approvals were granted, this Court is unable
to accept the narrow construction sought to be placed by the Petitioners
upon Clause 5.5 of the 2018 Regulations.
189. The 2018 Regulations were framed with the specific object of
enabling planned and regulated development of privately owned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 80 of 113
undeveloped land pockets situated within already urbanised and planned
areas. The Regulations neither contemplate blanket prohibition on
development of such parcels nor require that every future development
identically replicate the precise built form of pre-existing structures
surrounding it. At the same time, the Regulations undoubtedly seek to
ensure that development undertaken thereunder remains compatible with the
broader planning character of the surrounding zone. It is in this context that
Clause 5.5, as well as Clauses 4.1 and 4.4 of the Regulations , are required
to be understood. The relevant clauses reads as under:
“ 4.1 . Development on the privately owned land shall be in
consonance with the land use as notified in prevailing MPD
/ ZDP or land use / use premise mentioned in already
approved layout plans / schemes of that area, if any or as
specified in these Regulations.”
“ 4.4 . The category / type of development activity shall be in
conformity with the existing development on majority of the
plots adjacent / surrounding the said land parcel.”
“ 5.5 . Land parcels falling within the already approved or
developed schemes of DDA/ ULBs/ other government bodies
shall be in conformity with the surrounding development,
irrespective of applicable development control norms. The
development of such lands will be governed by the use/
activity and the development control norms of the
surrounding development (subject to availability of required
infrastructure services), maintaining the planned
development around the land parcel.”
190. Clause 5.5 provides that land parcels with already approved schemes
must be developed “ in conformity with the surrounding development ”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 81 of 113
Clauses 4.1 and 4.4 similarly mandate that all development activity must be
assessed in the context of the surrounding planned area. However, the
expression “ conformity ” employed therein cannot be interpreted to mean
exact replication of the height, design, or architectural profile of every
immediately adjoining structure. Such an interpretation would not only be
impractical but would also defeat the very object underlying evolving urban
planning norms and contemporary development policies embodied in MPD-
2021.
191. The expression “ surrounding development ” must necessarily be
understood in the broader planning sense and not merely with reference to
the immediately adjacent buildings viewed in isolation. The surrounding
area of Sector-B, Pocket-1 is not a standalone enclave consisting exclusively
of low-rise flats. It forms part of the larger Vasant Kunj Housing Scheme,
which itself comprises multiple pockets and sectors containing residential
developments of varying densities and heights, including group housing
complexes and multi-storeyed residential structures. The planning character
of the larger zone is therefore residential group housing and not merely low-
rise walk-up apartments.
192. In this regard, the Respondents have specifically placed on record the
existence of comparable group housing developments within the broader
Vasant Kunj area having heights and scales substantially similar to the
proposed development. Significantly, the Petitioners have not effectively
rebutted the said factual position. The absence of any substantive challenge
to the existence of such surrounding developments lends considerable
support to the stand of the Respondents that the conformity requirement
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 82 of 113
contained in Clause 5.5 is satisfied when viewed in the context of the larger
planned residential zone.
193. More importantly, Clause 5.5 cannot be read in isolation divorced
from Clauses 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the 2018 Regulations. A conjoint reading of
the aforesaid provisions clearly indicates that the relevant unit of planning
analysis is the planned area or residential pocket as a whole and not merely
the immediately adjoining structures. The conformity requirement therefore
mandates compatibility with the planning character of the surrounding zone
rather than mechanical identity with existing neighbouring buildings. Since
the proposed development itself is residential group housing within a
residential group housing zone, the essential planning requirement stands
satisfied.
194. This Court also finds merit in the submission advanced on behalf of
the Respondents that the issue relating to permissible height was specifically
examined by the competent planning authorities. The DDA Technical
Committee, upon consideration of the applicable planning framework,
clarified that no independent height restriction operated in the manner
suggested by the Petitioners and that the permissible height would be
governed by the applicable building bye-laws and statutory clearances. The
record further demonstrates that requisite clearances from the Airports
Authority of India, Delhi Fire Services, and other concerned authorities were
duly obtained prior to grant of sanction.
195. The Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016 and MPD-2021 do not
prescribe that permissible height of a proposed structure must necessarily
correspond to the height of surrounding buildings. Height restrictions under
the applicable planning framework are governed by FAR, setbacks, fire
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 83 of 113
safety norms, aviation clearances, structural safety requirements, and other
technical parameters. Once the competent authorities, upon examination of
the applicable norms, granted approval subject to statutory compliances, this
Court would be slow to substitute its own assessment in place of the
technical determination rendered by expert planning bodies.
196. Further, the DDA’s counter-affidavit unequivocally states that the
applicable development control norms are to be governed by Clause 5.5 of
the Private Land Policy. The impugned sanction permitting the proposed 33-
metre development is entirely consistent with the said position and cannot be
said to be contrary thereto. The record, in fact, demonstrates complete
consistency in the stand adopted by the Respondents throughout the
proceedings.
197. The clarification issued by the DDA Technical Committee vide
communication dated 10th January, 2020 , whereby it was concluded that
no independent height restriction operated in the manner suggested by the
Petitioners, is fully sustainable in law and in conformity with the applicable
planning framework. The said determination was rendered by the competent
expert authority upon consideration of the governing regulations, the layout
structure and the surrounding planning context.
198. Accordingly, on perusal of the regulations and the sanctioned building
plans, including the height parameters approved by the competent
authorities, it is cannot be said that they are contrary to the provisions of
MPD-2021 or the applicable development control norms.
199. In DLF Universal Ltd. v. Greater Kailash II Welfare Association ,
LPA 2633/2005, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider a
Letters Patent Appeal arising from an order of a coordinate Bench, wherein
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 84 of 113
a challenge had been raised by the residents and welfare association of
adjoining colonies against the sanction granted for the renovation and
modification of the existing Savitri Cinema into a mini cinema hall-cum-
commercial complex. The challenge was founded on the apprehension that
the proposed project would lead to traffic congestion, parking difficulties,
and public inconvenience in the surrounding areas. Upon examining the
approvals granted by the MCD, DUAC, DCP (Traffic), DCP (Licensing),
and other competent authorities, the Division Bench held that matters
concerning parking norms, traffic circulation, and allied planning
considerations fall squarely within the domain of the statutory and expert
authorities entrusted with such functions, and that a writ court ought not to
interfere with the exercise of such expert judgment in the absence of clear
illegality or shocking arbitrariness. The Division Bench observed as under:
“ 34 . We have carefully perused the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and we are of the opinion that learned Single
Judge has practically sat as a court of appeal over the
decisions of the executive authorities. It may be mentioned
that granting permission, regulating traffic etc. are all
executive functions and it is ordinarily wholly
inappropriate for the judiciary to encroach into the
executive function vide VISA Steel Ltd & Ors. vs. Union of
India & Others in W.P (C ) No. 20185-87/2005 decided on
8.12.2005, Rama Muthuramalingam, vs. Dy. Superintendent
of Police, Mannargudi and Another AIR 2005 Madras |, etc.
These decisions have referred to the relevant case law on
the point, which may be seen.
35. Whether the relevant standards and requirements have
been met is ordinarily for the concerned authorities to look
into, and not for this Court.
[.........]
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 85 of 113
38. In our opinion, it was for the aforesaid authorities to
consider whether the appellant's proposal met the requisite
requirements under the law, and it is not for this Court to
ordinarily go into these considerations. The Court has to
maintain judicial restraint and has to ordinarily defer to
the opinion of the administrators, unless there is clear
violation of law or something shockingly arbitrary.
[......]
42. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of the
MCD and other authorities. With respect to the learned
Single Judge, we are of the opinion that he has wrongly
stayed the sanction granted by the MCD even though he
found no irregularity or mala fides in the sanction order,
and despite the fact that the sanction had already been
acted upon fully by the appeltant and the
renovation/modification project had been completed in
terms of the same even prior to the filing of the writ petition.
In our opinion, the learned Single Judge should have
dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches because
clearly the petitioner came after unreasonable delay”
[…Emphasis Supplied]
200. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was carried in appeal
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Greater Kailash Part II Welfare
Association & Ors. v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 448.,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by the Division
Bench and held that where the competent statutory, planning and traffic
authorities had examined the proposal and granted sanction in accordance
with the applicable Rules, Building Bye-Laws and regulatory framework,
the writ court ought not to interfere merely on the basis of apprehended
traffic congestion, inconvenience or possible traffic problems projected by
the residents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 86 of 113
“58. The owner of a plot of land is entitled to use and utilise
the same for any lawful purpose and to erect any
construction thereupon in accordance with the existing
rules. So long as such owner does not contravene any of the
provisions which restrict his use of the plot in any manner,
he cannot be prevented from utilising the same in
accordance with law. In this case, Respondent 1 which is
the owner of the plot in question cannot be denied the use of
the plot on account of the apprehension of the appellants,
particularly when he has already raised the structure in
accordance with the sanctioned plan. It is not the case of the
appellants that Respondent 1 has in any manner deviated
from the building plan as sanctioned. The grievance of the
appellants is confined to the possible problem that may
arise from the use of the building as a cinema hall-cum-
commercial complex. Once the authorities who are
competent to do so have indicated that the apprehension
was unfounded, it is not for the writ court to interfere with
such decision.”
[……EmphasisSupplied]
201. The aforesaid principles apply with full force to the controversy in the
present case. As the Division Bench observed in DLF Universal Ltd(supra) .
and as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Greater Kailash Part II
Welfare Association (supra) , where the competent statutory, planning, and
expert authorities have examined a proposal and granted sanction in
accordance with the applicable rules and regulatory framework, a writ court
ought not to interfere merely on the basis of apprehended congestion,
inconvenience, or allied infrastructural concerns projected by third parties.
The challenge in the present case is founded substantially upon such
apprehensions of traffic congestion, environmental impact, and
inconvenience notwithstanding that the project has undergone due scrutiny
by every competent authority under the applicable regulatory framework. As
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 87 of 113
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, once the authorities who are
competent to do so have indicated that such apprehensions are unfounded, it
is not for the writ court to interfere with that determination. Significantly, no
patent illegality, manifest arbitrariness, or violation of any governing
statutory provision, building norm, or planning regulation has been
demonstrated so as to warrant interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction
particularly in matters involving technical and administrative determinations
that fall squarely within the specialised domain of expert authorities, and
into which the judiciary ought not ordinarily to encroach.
202. It must also be borne in mind that MPD-2021 itself reflects a
conscious planning shift towards vertical urban development as a necessary
response to the acute scarcity of residential land in Delhi. The Master Plan
recognizes that Delhi, being a land-constrained metropolitan city with
continuously increasing population pressure, cannot sustainably rely upon
horizontal expansion alone. The planning framework therefore consciously
encourages optimal utilization of available urban land through higher
density and vertical development, particularly in areas already forming part
of planned urban infrastructure
203. The objective underlying such policy is evident from the broader
scheme of MPD-2021, which seeks to balance planned urban growth with
efficient land utilization, infrastructure optimization and housing
availability. The encouragement of Group Housing and vertical development
is intended to address precisely the problem of limited developable land
within Delhi and the increasing demand for residential accommodation.
204. Viewed in this context, the mere fact that the proposed project
contemplates greater height than some of the surrounding older DDA SFS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 88 of 113
flats cannot, by itself, render the project contrary to the planning framework.
It is reiterated that the surrounding development largely pertains to an earlier
phase of urban planning and cannot operate as a perpetual restriction
freezing all future development to the same height parameters irrespective of
subsequent planning policy and statutory evolution.
205. Also, the planning framework under MPD-2021 does not proceed on
the principle that future development must identically mirror the built form
of older surrounding structures. Rather, it contemplates calibrated
intensification and vertical growth, subject to compliance with
infrastructural, safety and environmental safeguards.
206. Accordingly, the Petitioners cannot insist that the development
potential of the subject property be confined to the height profile of older
neighbouring structures, particularly when no such statutory embargo is
borne out from the applicable planning regulations. Acceptance of such a
contention would effectively render subsequent planning measures and
revised development policies otiose, and would unjustifiably curtail the
permissible utilisation of privately owned land despite full compliance with
the governing norms and regulatory approvals.
207. The proposed construction represents a development sanctioned under
the prevailing statutory regime and in furtherance of contemporary urban
planning requirements. Merely because the surrounding structures were
constructed under an earlier planning framework with comparatively lower
height norms cannot operate as a legal prohibition against subsequent
development undertaken in accordance with present-day regulations.
208. This Court is therefore of the considered view that no case is made
out for interdicting the sanctioned construction on the ground urged by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 89 of 113
Petitioners. The relief sought, insofar as it seeks to restrain the Respondents
from proceeding with the approved development solely on the basis of
comparative building height, cannot be granted. The sanctioned
construction, having been approved by the competent authorities upon
due consideration of the applicable planning framework and statutory
requirements, does not warrant interference in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
(II) Environmental Jurisprudence And The Effect Of The CEC Report:
Morphological Ridge
209. The question as to whether the Subject Property forms part of the
Morphological Ridge constitutes another substantial aspect of the
controversy involved in the present proceedings.
210. The Petitioners have consistently contended that once the Subject
Property was found to substantially fall within the Morphological Ridge
Area, the proposed Group Housing Project became legally impermissible
under the environmental regime governing protection of the Delhi Ridge. In
support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon the orders
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 and connected
proceedings, as well as the decisions rendered in Ashok Kumar Tanwar v.
Union of India (supra) and DDA v. Kenneth Builders (supra). According
to the Petitioners, once the ridge character stood established, the project
could not be permitted to proceed merely by imposing conditions, as Clause
3.2.4 of the 2018 Regulations excludes ridge areas from permissible
development activities.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 90 of 113
211. In this backdrop, the CEC Report dated 14.05.2025 assumes central
significance. The CEC considered two separate applications, namely:
A. Application No. 1587/2024 filed by Shri Rajiv Ranjan
objecting to the proposed project on the ground that the Subject
Property forms part of the Morphological Ridge Area; and
B. Application No. 1608/2025 filed by M/s RR Texknit LLP
seeking permission for construction of the Group Housing
Project over the Subject Property.
212. Upon examination of the material placed before it, the CEC
categorically recorded that approximately 4553 sq. metres out of the total
5353 sq. metres of the Subject Property falls within the Morphological
Ridge Area. The CEC further observed that the E-Vanlekh Portal
constituted the only objective basis for determining such status and
expressly accepted the contention that the Subject Property possesses
Morphological Ridge character. Ordinarily, such a finding would carry
serious environmental implications, particularly having regard to the
judicially recognised ecological significance and protected status accorded
to ridge areas within the NCT of Delhi.
213. Now, ordinarily, a finding that the Subject Property falls within the
Morphological Ridge Area would carry significant environmental
implications, particularly having regard to the judicial protection
consistently accorded to ridge areas within Delhi. However, the matter does
not conclude merely with the aforesaid determination. Significantly, the
CEC, during its site inspection conducted on 03rd January, 2025, recorded
several important factual observations, namely that:
(a) the land was substantially flat in character;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 91 of 113
(b) the site was surrounded by existing developed residential housing;
(c) the area did not exhibit rocky terrain, dense vegetation or biodiversity
attributes typically associated with ridge ecosystems;
(d) the land was neither notified as Forest nor Protected Forest nor
formally notified Ridge;
(e) the land was not classified as “Gair Mumkin Pahar” in the revenue
records; and
(f) the approved integrated layout plan classified the land for residential
use.
These observations assume considerable significance, as they demonstrate
that although the Subject Property may technically fall within the
Morphological Ridge delineation, the CEC did not regard it as ecologically
analogous to an untouched or environmentally pristine ridge forest
ecosystem warranting an absolute prohibition against development.
214. Most importantly, it is imperative to note at this juncture is that
notwithstanding its express finding regarding the Morphological Ridge
character of the Subject Property, the CEC ultimately did not recommend an
absolute prohibition upon development over the land. On the contrary, after
undertaking an extensive factual, environmental and planning assessment,
the CEC consciously recommended that the project be permitted to proceed,
albeit subject to stringent safeguards, environmental conditions, mitigation
measures and continuing regulatory oversight. The significance of this
conclusion cannot be understated. The CEC was fully conscious of the
environmental sensitivity attributed to the area and yet, rather than
recommending cancellation of the project or restoration of the land to an
undeveloped state, it adopted a calibrated and balanced approach seeking to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 92 of 113
reconcile environmental concerns with the existing planning and proprietary
realities governing the Subject Property.
215. This Court is therefore required to harmoniously reconcile the two
facets emerging from the CEC Report itself: first, the categorical
observation that the Subject Property bears characteristics relatable to the
Morphological Ridge; and second, the equally categorical conclusion that
development over the land need not be altogether interdicted, provided
adequate environmental safeguards and regulatory controls are imposed and
continuously monitored. These two findings cannot be selectively read in
isolation from one another. The Report, when read as a whole, does not
proceed on the premise that every parcel identified as part of the
Morphological Ridge is, by that reason alone, rendered absolutely incapable
of development irrespective of its legal status, planning history, surrounding
urbanization, or the nature of the proposed project. Rather, the CEC appears
to have recognized the peculiar factual position of the Subject Property,
namely that it is a long-standing private parcel embedded within an already
urbanized and fully developed residential layout surrounded by multi-
storeyed housing and civic infrastructure.
216. The Petitioners, however, seek to isolate the first observation and
contend that the mere identification of Morphological Ridge characteristics
necessarily invalidates all subsequent permissions, sanctions and approvals
granted in favour of the project. Such an interpretation, in the considered
view of this Court, is neither borne out from the language of the CEC Report
nor consistent with the ultimate recommendations made therein. If the CEC
itself, despite recording its environmental concerns, stopped short of
recommending complete prohibition and instead proposed a framework of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 93 of 113
conditional regulation and environmental compliance, it would be
impermissible to read the Report as mandating an automatic and irreversible
embargo upon all development activity. The Report, properly construed,
reflects not an absolutist prohibition, but a nuanced balancing exercise
between environmental preservation, planned development considerations,
and the vested rights arising from the long-standing private character of the
Subject Property.
217. The Respondents, on the other hand, have contended that all
competent environmental, planning and statutory authorities, including the
CEC itself, examined the peculiar and distinguishing factual circumstances
surrounding the Subject Property before ultimately recommending
conditional approval of the project. It has been submitted that the material
placed on record clearly reflects that the surrounding locality already stands
substantially urbanised and forms part of an extensively developed
residential zone comprising multi-storeyed group housing, civic
infrastructure, internal roads and other urban amenities developed over
several decades. According to the Respondents, the Subject Property
constitutes an isolated private parcel embedded within an otherwise fully
developed urban residential fabric and, therefore, cannot be mechanically
equated with untouched or ecologically pristine ridge forest land warranting
an absolute prohibition against all forms of construction activity. It is their
contention that the competent authorities consciously appreciated this
unique factual matrix and accordingly adopted a balanced regulatory
approach by permitting development subject to strict environmental
safeguards, mitigation measures and continuing supervision, instead of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 94 of 113
directing total prohibition or restoration of the land to its alleged original
condition.
218. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid controversy can
no longer be treated as res integra in view of the proceedings before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide Order dated 12th August, 2025 passed in
W.P. (C.) 202/1995.
219. In W.P.(C.) 202/1995 before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for M/s RR Texknit LLP supported the
recommendations of the CEC and submitted that the proposed Group
Housing Project possessed all requisite statutory approvals and clearances
from the competent authorities, including the DDA, MCD, MoEFCC and
other concerned agencies. It was further contended that the CEC, after
examining the entire record including the reports of the Forest Department,
had recommended approval of the project subject to stringent environmental
safeguards. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Shri Rajeev
Ranjan opposed the recommendations of the CEC and reiterated that the
Subject Property forms part of the Morphological Ridge Area and therefore
ought not to be permitted for development. On the aforesaid basis, rejection
of the CEC recommendations was sought.
220. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, after considering the rival
submissions and the recommendations of the CEC, proceeded to accept the
applications filed by M/s RR Texknit LLP and permitted the project to
proceed subject to strict adherence to the conditions stipulated in the CEC
Report. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are of considerable
significance and merit reproduction:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 95 of 113
“10. Be that as it may, since the applicant is having valid
permissions from all the competent authorities and since
the CEC has also found that the permission to go ahead
with the project can be granted on imposing certain
stringent conditions, we see no reason not to accept the
recommendations of the CEC. In the event, it is found that
the project proponent has committed a crime with regard to
felling of trees, the law would take its own course. Further,
a criminal also cannot be prohibited to use his property in
the manner he desires, subject to obtaining requisite
permissions from the competent authorities.
11. In that view of the matter, IA Nos. 159062/2025 &
159063/2025 stand allowed subject to the project proponent
scrupulously following all the conditions as stipulated in the
report of the CEC. Consequently, IA Nos. 135736/2025,
136040/2025, 135954/2025, 173765/2025, 173767/2025 are
dismissed. IA Nos. 126582/2025, 138810/2025 &
133813/2025 stand disposed of.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
221. The significance of the said order lies not merely in the fact that the
CEC Report was taken on record, but in the circumstance that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while fully cognizant of the findings concerning the
Morphological Ridge character of the Subject Property, nonetheless
permitted the matter to proceed in accordance with the conditional
framework recommended by the CEC. The acceptance of the CEC
recommendations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court necessarily indicates
judicial approval of the balanced and conditional approach adopted therein,
rather than an interpretation advocating a blanket embargo upon all
developmental activity over the Subject Property. The issue must therefore
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 96 of 113
be viewed in light of the final position emerging from the proceedings
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein environmental concerns were
consciously weighed against the peculiar factual and planning realities
governing the Subject Property, and a calibrated regime of regulated
development was ultimately considered appropriate.
222. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that while the
Morphological Ridge character of the Subject Property remains an important
environmental consideration necessitating strict regulatory oversight,
continuing compliance and rigorous adherence to all safeguards imposed by
the competent authorities, the same cannot, in the peculiar factual and legal
circumstances of the present case, justify complete invalidation of the
impugned sanctions and approvals. The project shall, however, remain
strictly governed by the environmental safeguards, monitoring mechanisms
and compliance conditions imposed by the competent authorities, the CEC
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and any deviation therefrom shall invite
consequences in accordance with law.
(III) Legitimate Expectation And Promissory Estoppel
223. The Petitioners have also invoked the doctrines of legitimate
expectation and promissory estoppel on the basis of the representations
allegedly made by the DDA in the Vasant Kunj Self-Financing Scheme
Brochure of 1987 and the corresponding layout representations pertaining to
Sector-B, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj. According to the Petitioners, the DDA had
publicly represented that the Subject Property would either be developed as
48 SFS flats for the benefit of the residents of the colony or retained as
green/open space comprising lawns and parking areas. It is their case that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 97 of 113
several residents purchased flats in the locality acting upon the aforesaid
representations and on the legitimate understanding that the character of the
colony would remain substantially low-rise, planned and environmentally
balanced. On that basis, it has been contended that the DDA is estopped
from now permitting a high-density private Group Housing Project upon the
Subject Property.
224. The doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel
undoubtedly constitute important principles of public law intended to secure
fairness, consistency and non-arbitrariness in administrative action. Public
authorities are ordinarily expected to honour representations legitimately
made by them, particularly where citizens have altered their position acting
in reliance thereupon. Equally, however, these doctrines cannot be applied in
a manner that permanently freezes urban planning or disables statutory
planning authorities from responding to evolving developmental
requirements, demographic pressures and changing urban realities.
225. The Respondents have sought to answer the aforesaid contention by
asserting that the brochure relied upon by the Petitioners pertained only to
DDA-owned land and could not operate to regulate or restrict development
upon privately owned land. At the same time, the Petitioners’ plea of
legitimate expectation operates at two distinct levels. Firstly, the Petitioners
assert that the Subject Property itself constitutes DDA/Government land,
though the adjudication of title disputes in that regard stands preserved
before the competent civil forum. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the
Petitioners contend that the overall planning character of the colony,
including the existence of open areas, green spaces and low-density
development, was publicly projected by the DDA and formed a material
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 98 of 113
basis upon which residents chose to acquire residential units within the
locality.
226. This Court is unable to accept the proposition that a planning
brochure or layout representation issued several decades ago creates an
immutable and perpetual prohibition against any future redevelopment or
alteration within an urban colony. Urban development plans are inherently
dynamic instruments. Metropolitan cities such as Delhi are continuously
shaped by population growth, infrastructural demands, land scarcity and
evolving planning priorities. Consequently, redevelopment, densification
and calibrated intensification of urban land use may legitimately become
necessary within the framework of statutory planning controls. The planning
process cannot therefore be judicially fossilised on the basis of
representations made at a particular historical stage of urban development.
227. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Howrah Municipal Corpn. v. Ganges
Rope Co. Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 663 clarified that the doctrine of legitimate
expectation does not create an indefeasible or vested right capable of
overriding statutory provisions. The Court observed that, at best, an
applicant may possess a settled expectation that its application would be
considered under the rules prevailing on the date of submission. However,
such expectation remains subject to changes in law effected in public
interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where, during
the pendency of an application, the governing statutory rules are amended,
any expectation founded upon the unamended regime stands extinguished
and cannot be enforced against the State or statutory authorities. It was
further emphasized that no claim founded upon legitimate expectation or
alleged vested right can prevail against subsequently enacted statutory
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 99 of 113
provisions introduced to serve larger public interest and convenience. The
relevant paragraph reads as under:
“37. “The argument advanced on the basis of so-called
creation of vested right for obtaining sanction on the basis
of the Building Rules (unamended) as they were on the date
of submission of the application and the order of the High
Court fixing a period for decision of the same, is
misconceived. The word “vest” is normally used where an
immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in
respect of a property is created. With the long usage the
said word “vest” has also acquired a meaning as “an
absolute or indefeasible right” [see K.J. Aiyer's Judicial
Dictionary (A Complete Law Lexicon), 13th Edn.]. The
context in which the respondent Company claims a vested
right for sanction and which has been accepted by the
Division Bench of the High Court, is not a right in relation
to “ownership or possession of any property” for which the
expression “vest” is generally used. What we can
understand from the claim of a “vested right” set up by the
respondent Company is that on the basis of the Building
Rules, as applicable to their case on the date of making an
application for sanction and the fixed period allotted by the
Court for its consideration, it had a “legitimate” or “settled
expectation” to obtain the sanction. In our considered
opinion, such “settled expectation”, if any, did not create
any vested right to obtain sanction. True it is, that the
respondent Company which can have no control over the
manner of processing of application for sanction by the
Corporation cannot be blamed for delay but during
pendency of its application for sanction, if the State
Government, in exercise of its rule-making power, amended
the Building Rules and imposed restrictions on the heights
of buildings on G.T. Road and other wards, such “settled
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 100 of 113
expectation” has been rendered impossible of fulfilment due
to change in law. The claim based on the alleged “vested
right” or “settled expectation” cannot be set up against
statutory provisions which were brought into force by the
State Government by amending the Building Rules and not
by the Corporation against whom such “vested right” or
“settled expectation” is being sought to be enforced. The
“vested right” or “settled expectation” has been nullified
not only by the Corporation but also by the State by
amending the Building Rules. Besides this, such a “settled
expectation” or the so-called “vested right” cannot be
countenanced against public interest and convenience
which are sought to be served by amendment of the Building
Rules and the resolution of the Corporation issued
thereupon."
This principle assumes particular significance in the present case, where the
Petitioners seek to rely upon historical planning representations and the
earlier low-rise character of the locality so as to restrain a development
otherwise processed and sanctioned under the prevailing statutory and
regulatory framework.
228. At the same time, the grievance raised by the Petitioners cannot be
brushed aside as entirely insubstantial. Residents who purchased properties
within a planned colony were undoubtedly entitled to expect that any
significant alteration affecting the locality would occur transparently,
rationally and in conformity with applicable planning norms. The doctrines
of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel may not, by themselves,
invalidate the impugned project; however, they unequivocally require the
planning authorities to act fairly, transparently and consistently, and to duly
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 101 of 113
account for the impact of intensified development upon the existing
residential environment before permitting such development.
229. The Petitioners have further contended that the impugned project
infringes Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by adversely
impacting the rights of the residents and the Petitioner School to a safe,
healthy and dignified living environment. According to the Petitioners, the
scale and nature of the proposed development would substantially alter the
existing character and equilibrium of the locality, adversely affecting the
environmental quality, civic sustainability and overall habitability of the
surrounding area. It is their case that the constitutional guarantee of life
under Article 21 necessarily encompasses the right to reside in an
environment consistent with principles of safety, environmental balance and
orderly urban living, and that any development undertaken without adequate
regard to such concerns would fail to satisfy the constitutional requirement
of fairness and reasonableness.
230. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the Right to life
under Article 21 encompasses the right to a healthy, safe and
environmentally sustainable living environment. Equally, however, Article
21 cannot be construed as prohibiting planned urban development
undertaken in accordance with law and subject to statutory safeguards. The
constitutional obligation of the Court is therefore to ensure that development
proceeds within the discipline of the rule of law, environmental protections
and planning norms. The Court cannot proceed on the assumption that every
urban development project necessarily results in violation of Article 21
merely because residents perceive inconvenience, increased density or
alteration of neighbourhood character. Conversely, statutory authorities
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 102 of 113
cannot disregard genuine infrastructural, environmental and safety concerns
merely because a project formally satisfies technical parameters on paper.
231. This Court also cannot lose sight of the larger statutory and planning
philosophy underlying MPD-2021 and the framework governing urban
development in Delhi. Delhi is a land-constrained metropolitan city facing
continuous demographic pressure, rapid urbanisation and an ever-increasing
demand for residential accommodation. The availability of developable
urban land is inherently limited. It is precisely for this reason that MPD-
2021 consciously promotes optimal utilisation of available urban land
through planned redevelopment, Group Housing and calibrated vertical
development, particularly in areas already supported by existing
infrastructure and civic amenities. The Master Plan does not contemplate
perpetual freezing of localities in the precise form in which they may
originally have been developed decades earlier. Urban planning is
necessarily evolutionary in character, and development norms, density
patterns and housing policies must adapt to changing population realities
and infrastructural demands. The surrounding DDA SFS flats in the present
case largely belong to an earlier phase of Delhi’s urban planning history.
The fact that such structures were originally developed at comparatively
lower height and density levels cannot operate as an absolute or perpetual
restriction prohibiting all future intensification of residential development
within planned urban areas. At the same time, MPD-2021 does not permit
unrestricted or unregulated construction. The governing planning framework
seeks to secure planned growth subject to compliance with environmental
safeguards, infrastructural sustainability, traffic management norms and
public safety requirements. The balance envisaged under MPD-2021 is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 103 of 113
therefore not between “ development ” and “ non-development ”, but between
planned urban growth and unregulated urbanisation. So long as the proposed
development remains within the discipline of statutory planning controls and
is subjected to adequate environmental and infrastructural safeguards, the
objective of planned urban development under MPD-2021 cannot be
defeated merely because the proposed structures are taller or denser than
certain older surrounding developments.
232. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no legal basis to
invoke the principles of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation so as
to invalidate the impugned sanction. The material relied upon by the
Petitioners, including the brochure and layout representations, at best
reflected the planning position prevailing at the relevant point in time and
cannot be elevated to the status of a binding and immutable assurance
controlling all future planning decisions concerning the locality.
233. The jurisdiction exercised by statutory planning authorities
necessarily includes the power to revisit, revise and adapt development
patterns in accordance with contemporary urban requirements and
applicable regulatory frameworks. Unless a clear statutory infraction,
manifest unreasonableness or abuse of power is established, the Court would
not substitute its own perception of desirable urban development for that of
the competent planning authorities.
234. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the impugned project
has been sanctioned dehors the governing statutory regime or in violation of
any enforceable legal right arising from the doctrines invoked by them. The
plea founded upon promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation,
therefore, does not merit acceptance and cannot constitute a valid ground to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 104 of 113
restrain the Respondents from proceeding with the sanctioned development
and is accordingly dismissed.
(IV) The Masonic Public School's Concerns
(a) Impact of Traffic
235. The Petitioner School contends that the impugned Group Housing
Project would aggravate congestion on the existing approach road, rendering
the same inadequate for school operations and emergency access, and that
the Traffic Impact Assessment (“TIA”) stands vitiated as the traffic survey
was conducted during summer vacations when the School was not
operational. The aforesaid submissions are required to be examined in the
backdrop of the material placed on record and the previous proceedings
concerning the issue of access to the School.
236. The issue concerning access to the School is not res integra and had
independently engaged the attention of this Court in W.P.(C.) No.
1797/2016 instituted by the parent organization of the Petitioner School.
Pursuant thereto, the Vice-Chairman, DDA constituted a multi-disciplinary
Committee which, after site inspection and consultation with stakeholders,
recorded that the School had always been accessed through the existing 13.5
metre internal road forming part of the approved layout plan of Sector-B,
Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj, and further found that creation of any separate
motorable access route through the adjoining green/waterbody area or
beneath the 66 KV high-tension line was not feasible owing to
environmental and safety constraints as well as the likelihood of tree cutting.
Consequently, by speaking order dated 30.08.2024, the Vice-Chairman,
DDA directed that the said 13.5 metre internal road shall continue to remain
the approach road for the School and further directed the RWA B1 Vasant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 105 of 113
Kunj to ensure that the road is cleared of parked vehicles. Simultaneously, in
order to reduce pedestrian movement on the internal road, DDA directed
provision of a separate pedestrian pathway for students from Aruna Asaf Ali
Marg through the adjoining green area in Khasra No.1220 with appropriate
fencing and safeguards. The arrangement thus envisaged retention of the
existing vehicular access together with provision of an independent
pedestrian entry, the pedestrian pathway being intended not as a substitute
for the motorable access road but as an additional mitigating measure to
facilitate smoother circulation. The aforesaid arrangement subsequently
received judicial recognition in the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this
Court in CONT.CAS(C) No. 118/2024 and W.P.(C.) No. 1797/2016,
whereupon the parent organization of the School stated that its grievances
stood adequately addressed and did not press for any further relief.
237. As regards the challenge to the TIA, this Court is unable to accept the
submission that the report stands vitiated merely because the survey was
conducted during the summer vacation period. The report itself expressly
discloses that schools in the vicinity were closed during the survey period
and that the likely impact thereof was considered while preparing the
assessment. There is thus no concealment in the methodology adopted.
Significantly, the TIA formed part of the Environmental Clearance process
and was examined by the SEAC and other competent expert authorities
before grant of approval. The Petitioners have placed no independent
technical study, expert opinion or counter-assessment demonstrating that the
conclusions of the report are so fundamentally flawed or perverse as to
warrant judicial interference. Mere disagreement with the conclusions of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 106 of 113
technical assessment cannot justify substitution of judicial opinion for that
of specialized expert bodies.
238. It is also material that the sanctioned project incorporates structured
basement parking and regulated internal circulation systems designed to
accommodate vehicular demand substantially within the project site itself,
thereby minimizing dependence upon on-street parking and reducing
spillover onto the existing internal road network. This assumes significance
in light of the specific direction issued by the Vice-Chairman, DDA for
removal of parked vehicles from the existing internal road. The proposed
development, therefore, is not shown to aggravate the existing situation;
rather, the sanctioned planning measures are intended to aid and improve
traffic management and circulation within the pocket.
239. It is also relevant that the School accepted allotment of its land in
1988 within a larger urban scheme which contemplated residential and
group housing development. The School has co-existed for decades with a
substantial resident population utilizing the same circulation network. The
incremental addition arising from the present project cannot therefore be
said to justify interdiction of the sanctioned development itself.
240. The existence of a functioning educational institution in the vicinity
cannot operate as an absolute embargo against all future development upon
adjoining privately owned land, particularly where such development has
proceeded through a layered statutory approval process involving planning
authorities, municipal authorities, environmental bodies and other expert
agencies. Planned urban development necessarily requires balancing
competing public and private interests and, so long as access to the
institution continues to remain available and mitigating measures have been
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 107 of 113
evolved by the competent authorities, this Court would be slow to interfere
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
241. The scope of judicial review in matters involving technical planning
assessments and traffic evaluation is limited to examining whether the
decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides, non-
application of mind or violation of statutory provisions. No such infirmity is
made out in the facts of the present case. The contentions of the Petitioner
School on the issue of traffic, circulation and access are accordingly
rejected.
(b) Other Contentions
242. The Petitioner School has further contended that the proposed
construction activity including the movement of labour, operation of
machinery, dust generation, vibration, and construction noise would
adversely affect the functioning of the School and the educational
environment of its students. This Court, while not entirely dismissing such
concerns as fanciful, is nonetheless of the view that apprehensions of this
nature, rooted as they are in conjecture rather than demonstrated fact, cannot
by themselves constitute sufficient ground to invalidate sanctions and
approvals that have been duly granted by the competent statutory and expert
authorities upon due application of mind. The question which therefore
arises for consideration is not whether some degree of inconvenience may
attend the construction activity in proximity to the Petitioner School, but
whether any legally cognisable infirmity in the impugned approvals has
been established so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction a threshold which, for the reasons that follow, the Petitioner
School has failed to meet.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 108 of 113
243. The record indicates that the project proposal has undergone
consideration before the competent planning, municipal and environmental
authorities within the framework of the applicable statutory regime. The
Petitioners have not placed on record any independent technical assessment
or material demonstrating that the authorities completely failed to consider
the existence and functioning of the Petitioner School while processing the
project, or that the concerns relating to construction activity are of such
nature that the sanctioned development itself becomes incapable of
proceeding within the regulatory framework governing urban construction
activity. The apprehensions raised by the Petitioners substantially pertain to
the manner in which construction activity is to be undertaken and regulated
during the execution phase of the project.
244. It also cannot be overlooked that temporary inconvenience, traffic
movement, construction noise, dust generation and related operational issues
are matters which may arise to varying degrees in the course of urban
development activity and ordinarily fall within the sphere of supervision and
regulation by the concerned authorities during execution of the project. The
mere possibility of such inconvenience, by itself, cannot furnish a ground to
interdict a development project which has otherwise undergone scrutiny and
approval under the applicable planning and regulatory framework. In this
regard, this Court finds guidance from the principles laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in DLF Universal Ltd.(supra) , as affirmed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Greater Kailash Part II Welfare
Association(supra) , wherein it was observed that matters concerning traffic
circulation, planning requirements and allied infrastructural considerations
ordinarily fall within the domain of the competent expert authorities, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 109 of 113
that a writ court ought not to interfere merely on the basis of apprehended
inconvenience or possible traffic and infrastructural concerns once the
competent authorities have examined the proposal in accordance with the
governing framework
245. This Court, having considered the matter in its entirety, is of the view
that the material placed on record falls considerably short of establishing any
illegality, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned sanctions
and approvals so as to warrant interference in exercise of the jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. The
writ petition, insofar as it seeks invalidation of approvals duly granted by the
competent statutory and expert authorities, is accordingly without merit. It
is, however, made clear that the concerned authorities shall remain obligated
to ensure that the execution of the project is carried out in strict conformity
with the applicable permissions, conditions, and regulatory requirements
governing the same, and that any deviation therefrom shall be dealt with in
accordance with law.
CONCLUSION
246. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings returned on the
issues framed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is made out insofar as the challenge to the impugned planning
approvals, sanctions, and consequential permissions is concerned. The
challenge raised by the Petitioners essentially seeks re-appreciation of
technical and planning determinations rendered by expert statutory
authorities; nevertheless, no patent illegality, manifest arbitrariness, mala
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 110 of 113
fides , or jurisdictional infirmity having been established so as to justify
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
247. At the same time, considering the nature of the concerns raised
regarding environmental safeguards, statutory compliances, and adherence
to the sanctioned plans, this Court deems it appropriate to ensure that the
development permitted pursuant to the impugned approvals remains strictly
regulated in accordance with law.
248. Accordingly, the present petitions are disposed of in the following
terms:
I. The prayers seeking quashing of the sanction dated 13.05.2024 issued
by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Minutes of the 368th and
370th Screening Committee Meetings of the Delhi Development
Authority, and all consequential approvals and permissions granted in
favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 14, are rejected.
II. The prayers seeking quashing of the order dated 07.12.2012 passed by
the learned Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal, MCD in Appeal No.
24/AT/MCD/2009 and the judgment dated 16.07.2016 passed by the
learned District & Sessions Judge in MCD Appeal No. 04/2013 are also
rejected.
III. The prayers seeking restraint against construction over the Subject
Property on the grounds of alleged violation of the Right of Way
requirements, height restrictions, conformity clauses, layout integration,
and planning norms under MPD-2021, Unified Building Bye-Laws,
2016, and the applicable Regulations, stand rejected.
IV. The prayers founded upon the doctrines of legitimate expectation and
promissory estoppel based upon the Vasant Kunj Self Financing Scheme
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 111 of 113
Brochure and the original layout depiction are also rejected, no
enforceable legal right having been established so as to invalidate the
impugned approvals on the said basis.
V. Nevertheless, the Respondent authorities shall ensure that the
proposed construction and development over the Subject Property strictly
conform to the sanctioned plans, applicable environmental norms, fire
safety requirements, aviation clearances, traffic circulation standards, and
all other statutory conditions imposed under the applicable laws, rules,
regulations, and bye-laws.
VI . The impugned sanction dated 13.05.2024 and all consequential
approvals shall remain subject to continued compliance by Respondent
Nos. 4 to 14 with all statutory requirements, permissions, environmental
conditions, and compliances contemplated under the applicable Standard
Operating Procedures, statutory framework, and regulatory approvals. In
the event of any deviation from the sanctioned plans or breach of
statutory conditions, it shall remain open to the competent authorities to
take action strictly in accordance with law.
VII. Nothing contained in the present judgment shall be construed as an
expression on the merits of any independent civil, title, acquisition,
environmental, or statutory proceedings, if any, pending or initiated
before any competent forum in accordance with law.
249. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 11283/2024 titled Vasant Kunj Residents
Welfare Association, Sector-B, Pocket-1 & Ors. v. Government of NCT of
Delhi & Ors. and W.P.(C) No. 17433/2025 titled Masonic Public School v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 112 of 113
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. stand dismissed in the aforesaid
terms.
250. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
MAY 29, 2026
HP/RM/MM/DG
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.05.2026
15:51:49
W.P.(C) 11283/2024 & W.P.(C) 17433/2025 Page 113 of 113