Tara Chand v. DDA

order impugned, being order dated

17.1;.2011, is accordingly affirmed by us.

¶12An alternative submission was advanced that appellants have been discriminated against inasmuch as a few other persons who had applied prior to February 2007 for grant of permission to set up petrol pumps ih rural areas have been granted permission applying the Regulations of 2005 and denial of said benefit to the' .appellants would be * discriminatory.

¶13Now, if somebody's application is processed, finalized by a date before.which law gets amended, it would-not mean that in law there is a discrimination for the reason it is settled law that by applying for a permission, no vested right is acquired. As held in the decision reported as 2001 (5) SCC LPA 169/11,385/11.& 830/11 .,Page7of9 101 H.H.Maharani Shanti Devi Vs. Saviibhai Hanibhai Patel & Ors. development and town planning are ongoing processes and changes occur from time to time depending upon local needs therefore a Master Plan cannot be regarded as static. In the decision reported as 2004 (1) SCO 663 Howrah Municipal Corporation Vs. Ganges Rope ComDany it was held that no vested right accrues when building plans are submitted for sanction and that building norms existing on date of sanction would govern the matter.

¶14alternative submission urged is accordingly rejected.

¶15It was lastly urged that the appellants cannot be left in a state of flux for the reason para

3.2 of |V1PD-2021' requires zonal development plans to be finalized and thereafter land use determined keeping in view development norms in the expanding urbanized areas of Delhi.

¶16, The argument takes the appellants nowhere for the reason a Master Plan by its very nature is a document having -futuristic applications and needless to state development by way of expansion in a city is a phase wise phenomenon and thus one would have to await a zonal development plan being , finalized. •

¶17The learned SingleJudge has granted permissionto the appellants to re-apply to DDA for a sanction to set up a .petrol pump as per MPD-2021 and this we find is the only benefit which could be granted to the appellants. We would only supplement that DDA should immediately finalize the urban extension in the erstwhile rural zones i.e. zones J, K, L, N P i.e. the zones envisaged vide para 3.2 of the Master Plan LPA 169/11,385/11 &830/11 Page8of9 \\ as required-forurba;n .;extension-on lands which hithertofone were rural lands..

¶18The appeals are disniissed but without any prders ' " •> a.s to. costs. ' 12, foil mnn LPA 1.69/11,385/11 & 830/11 ^ I' ^ d. ( (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE ;UN!L GAUR) JUDGE JB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % ludament Reserved on: 10^" October. 2011 ludament Pronounced on: 12'^'" October. 2011 + LPA 830/2011 TARA CHAND Appellant Through: Mr.S.K.Rungta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Prashant Singh Ms.Neha Tanwar, Advocate versus DDA Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers nnay be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAIOG. I. For orders, see LPA No.169/2011. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE INIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER 12, 2011 mm Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ludament Reserved on: 10^'^ October. 2011 iudament Pronounced on: 12*^^ October, 2011 LPA 169/2011 CHANDER MEENAKSHI .....Appellant Through: Mr.S.K.Rungta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Prashant Singh Ms.Neha , Tanwar, Advocate versus DDASiANR. ; Through: .....Respondents Mr.Ajay Verma/ Advocate for DDA LPA 385/2011 YOGESH PALIWAL :.... Appellant through: Mr.S.K.Rungta, Sr.Advocate with Mr;Prashant .Singh Ms.Neha Tanwar, Advocate DDA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: ' ' Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate for DDA- Mr.Parijat Sinha , . Mr.Vikram Ganguli, Advocates for R-2, LPA 830/2011 TARACHAND .....Appellant - . Through: Mr.S.K.Rungta, Sr.Advocate with , : Mr.Prashant Singh Ms.Neha Tanwar, Advocate versus DDA . . Through: LPA 169/11, 385/11 & 830/11 .....Respondent Mr.Ajay Verma', Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE IVIR. JUSTICE PRADEEP MANDRAJOG HON'BLE rwlR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ' PRADEEP MANDRAtOG, i. 1. The 3 appellants have a grievance pertaining to DDA deferring or rejecting their application's) for setting up a petrol-pump on the subject lands acquired by the appellants. The battle has been lost before the learned Single,Judge when writ petition filed by appellants Chander Meenakshi Yogesh Paliwal were dismissed vide order dated 17.1.2011 and writ petition(s) filed by appellant Tara Chand was dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2011;, which order has simply followed the reasoning contained in the order dated 17.1.2011. 2. The legal issue which arises for consideration in the , 3 appeals was settled by the predecessor Division Bench as per order dated 26.7.2011,0 wherein it was recorded that the issue falling consideration in the appeals is whether establishment of petrol pumps in Delhi, is covered by paragraphs 12.12.1 and 12.12.2 of the 'Master Plan of Delhi 2021' and not by the regulations frajmed, in the year 2005. 3. Suffice would it be to state that the appellants stake a,claim for grant of permission to set up a petrol pump in terms of the 'Regulations for setting up of petrol pump on private land in National Capital Territory of Delhi' notified oh 27.9.2005. • LPA 169/11,385/11&830/11 • 'Page2of9 4. The appellants obtained a letter of intent from oil companies to operate petrol pumps in rural, areas!5omewhere , in the yea.r 2004 and claim to have applied/to DDA in the same , year to. permit them to set up petroj pumps on the subject . lands, having designated land .use agriculture since the lands ' • were in. rural Delhi. . . ' . ; 5. It is not in dispute that the iviaster Plan/for Delhi ,2001 i.e. the previous Master Plan before Master Plan for Delhi 2021 came into force contained no provisions fo|r setting up petrol pumps in Delhi and the field'was occupied, by the < . Regulations notified in the year 2005. : Further, it is .not in dispute that as per the Delhi Development Act 1957, Master Plan for Delhi is a statutory plan and has the force of law. thus, the issue of law settled vide order dated 26.7.2011 is a simple