Saraswati Apartments Residents Welfare Assocaiton vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

$~SB-1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010895182025
+ W.P.(C) 17333/2025
SARASWATI APARTMENTS RESIDENTS WELFARE
ASSOCAITON .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Sr. Adv.
along with Ms. Akshya, Adv.

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, Ms. Riddhi
Jain and Ms. Shayna Das
Pattanayak, Advs. for DDA.
Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr.
Parvin Bansal, Adv. for MCD
and DJB.

# CNR No. DLHC010026032026
+ W.P.(C) 1185/2026
NARMADA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajjay Arora, Sr. Adv. along
with Mr. Vansh Luthra, Adv.

versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Katyal, SC for DDA
with Mr. Nitish Kumar Danda,
Adv.
Mr. Akhil Mittal, ASC-DDA
with Mr. Sameer Vashisht,
Adv. for DDA

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:36:34
Rev.Pet.518/2026 in W.P.(C) 17333/2025 and connected matter Page 1 of 6

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
CM APPL. 75236/2026 [43 days delay in filing Review Petition
518/2026] in W.P.(C) 17333/2025
1. By way of the present application, the Petitioner seeks
condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the REV.PET. 518/2026.
2. For the reasons as stated in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 75232/2026 [29 days delay in filing Review Petition
517/2026] in W.P.(C) 1185/2026
4. By way of the present application, the Petitioner seeks
condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the REV.PET. 517/2026.
5. For the reasons as stated in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay is condoned.
6. The application is disposed of.
REV.PET. 518/2026 and CM APPL. 75235/2026 [stay] in W.P.(C)
17333/2025
REV.PET. 517/2026, CM APPL. 75233/2026 [exemption] and CM
APPL. 75234/2026 [stay] in W.P.(C) 1185/2026
7. With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, the
present Review Petitions are taken up together and are being disposed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:36:34
Rev.Pet.518/2026 in W.P.(C) 17333/2025 and connected matter Page 2 of 6

of by this common judgment.
8. A batch of four (04) Writ Petitions, instituted by different
Residents’ Welfare Associations [hereinafter referred to as ‘RWAs’],
assailing the proposed construction of a local shopping complex and a
two-level parking facility, came to be dismissed by this Court vide
judgment dated 17.08.2026. The Court, inter alia , found that the
proposed development was in accordance with the sanctioned layout
plan and that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate
any modification or redesignation of the land under the Master Plan or
the Zonal Development Plan.
9. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) 1185/2026, namely, Narmada RWA,
assailed the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court by way of
SLP (C) No.34056/2026. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of
as withdrawn, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach this Court
by way of a Review Petition and, if the decision in the Review
Petition was adverse to it, to approach the Supreme Court. The
relevant portion of the order passed by the Supreme Court reads as
under:
“Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned senior counsel for the petitioner after
arguing at some length, upon instructions, seeks permission to
withdraw this petition leaving it open for the petitioner to approach
the High Court by way of a review petition as according to him
factual inaccuracies have crept in the impugned order.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty as prayed for.
We grant further liberty to approach this Court again in the event
the decision in the proposed review petition is adverse to the
petitioner.”
10. At the outset, it may be noted that both the learned senior
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:36:34
Rev.Pet.518/2026 in W.P.(C) 17333/2025 and connected matter Page 3 of 6

counsel representing the Petitioners were called upon to identify the
factual inaccuracies, if any, which had crept into the judgment dated
17.08.2026. The submissions advanced in this regard have been
considered. However, on an examination of the objections raised, this
Court is unable to discern any factual error warranting exercise of the
review jurisdiction.
11. Learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner in W.P.(C)
1185/2026, while referring to Paragraph No.14 of the judgment under
review, contended that this Court proceeded on an erroneous
assumption that the Petitioners were not questioning the absence of
planning approval for the proposed development.
12. The aforesaid submission, however, does not disclose any error
apparent on the face of the record. A reading of the judgment dated
17.08.2026, in its entirety, would show that the controversy was
examined in the context of the sanctioned layout plan governing the
area. The Court had specifically noticed the stand of the DDA that the
subject land was earmarked for neighbourhood commercial facilities
and parking infrastructure under the original layout plan. The Court
had also considered the material placed on record and found that the
Petitioners had not produced any material demonstrating that the
subject land had subsequently been redesignated or that the Master
Plan or the Zonal Development Plan had been modified.
13. Learned senior counsel further contended that the procedure
prescribed under Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957,
has not been followed. This submission also does not warrant review
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:36:34
Rev.Pet.518/2026 in W.P.(C) 17333/2025 and connected matter Page 4 of 6

of the judgment. Section 11A would be attracted where a modification
of the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan is sought to be
undertaken in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. In the
present case, the finding returned by this Court was that the proposed
development was being undertaken in accordance with the original
sanctioned layout plan and that no modification of the Master Plan or
the Zonal Development Plan had been demonstrated. In these
circumstances, the question of compliance with the procedure under
Section 11A, on the premise that a modification of the aforesaid
statutory plans was being undertaken, does not arise.
14. Learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner in W.P.(C)
17333/2025 adopted the submissions advanced in the connected
Review Petition. In addition, the attention of the Court was invited to
Paragraph Nos.4 and 11 of the judgment dated 17.08.2026.
15. Insofar as Paragraph No.4 is concerned, the same merely sets
out the controversy which arose for consideration in the batch of Writ
Petitions, namely, whether the DDA could proceed with the proposed
development in accordance with the sanctioned layout plan
notwithstanding the existing community use of the subject land as a
green area. No independent finding adverse to the Petitioners has been
returned in the said paragraph.
16. Likewise, Paragraph No.11 merely records the contention
advanced on behalf of the Petitioners regarding the non-operational
basement parking facilities. The response of the DDA, as reflected in
its affidavit, is that efforts are being made to obtain the requisite
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:36:34
Rev.Pet.518/2026 in W.P.(C) 17333/2025 and connected matter Page 5 of 6

clearance from the Fire Department for operationalising the basement
parking facilities under the residential towers. The aforesaid issue,
however, is distinct from the proposed development of the local
shopping complex and the two-level parking facility. The mere
recording of the Petitioners’ contention in Paragraph No.11, therefore,
cannot be construed as a factual error warranting review of the
judgment.
17. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned senior
counsel and examined the judgment dated 17.08.2026, this Court finds
that the objections raised by the Petitioners essentially seek
reconsideration of the findings already returned on the basis of the
sanctioned layout plan and the material placed on record. The
Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any patent error or mistake
apparent on the face of the record which would warrant review of the
judgment dated 17.08.2026.
18. Consequently, no ground for review is made out. The present
Review Petitions, along with pending applications, are accordingly,
dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
OCTOBER 30, 2026
s.godara/shah
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:36:34
Rev.Pet.518/2026 in W.P.(C) 17333/2025 and connected matter Page 6 of 6