Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.     888     OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 35037 OF 2015)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ANAND ARYA AND ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   889    OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 35038 OF 2015)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Notice, returnable forthwith.

2) Respondent  Nos.  1  and  2  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the

“respondents”),  who are  the  real  contesting  respondents,  have

appeared on Caveat and accepted notice.  Keeping in view the

nature of order which we propose to pass in these appeals, it was

not  found  necessary  to  serve  other  respondents.   Insofar  as

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 1 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 2

2

counsel for the appellants as well as counsel for the respondents

are  concerned,  they  were  ready  to  argue  the  matter  finally.

Accordingly, we heard the matter finally at this stage itself.   

3) Leave granted in both these matters.

4) The appellants in these two appeals are Government of NCT of

Delhi  and  Delhi  Transport  Corporation  respectively.  They  feel

aggrieved by the orders dated October 20, 2015 passed by the

High Court  of  Delhi  in  CM No.  12299 of  2015 in  Writ  Petition

(Civil)  No.  5481  of  2011.   In  order  to  have  a  glimpse  of  the

controversy,  we  may  state  that  the  matter  pertains  to  the

construction of Bus Depot by the appellants on an area situated

next to Nizamuddin Bridge and behind I.P. Power Station.  Writ

Petition (Civil)  No.  5481 of  2011 was disposed of  by the High

Court vide orders dated September 13, 2015.  It was found that

as per the Master Plan 2021 (MPD 2021) for Delhi the aforesaid

Bus  Depot,  popularly  known  as  Millennium  Bus  Depot,  was

shown as “river flood plain” and on such are no construction could

be carried out as per MPD 2021.  The High Court, however, gave

six months' time to the authorities to change the Master Plan, as

per law,  if the same was permissible, failing which the Millennium

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 2 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 3

3

Bus  Depot  was  to  be  removed  from  the  site.   This  has  not

happened, though the order of the High Court is dated September

13, 2012.  The DTC filed an application for extension of time , i.e.,

CM No. 12299 of 2015.  By the impugned order dated October

20, 2015, the High Court has rejected the prayer for extension of

time and dismissed the application.  It is this order which is the

subject matter of the instant appeals.

5) The matter has some history.  In order to appreciate the position

taken by the parties on the either side, it would be necessary to

traverse the historical  trajectory.  As we unfold the events that

have taken place, the narration thereof would not only reflect the

position taken by the parties on either side, some of the answers

which apparently flow from these facts would also automatically

become available.   For  these  reasons,  we  take  note  of  these

events  that  are  material  for  these  appeals  but  avoiding

unnecessary details at the same time.

6) As  is  clear  from  the  glimpse  of  the  lis  mentioned  above,  the

appellants have constructed Millennium Bus Depot at the site in

question.  As per the respondents, the site is river flood plain and

as per Master Plan – 2021, no construction can be carried out on

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 3 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 4

4

such an area.  The area in question is next to Nizamuddin Bridge

and behind I.P. Power Station and falls in Sub-Zone-06, Zone-O,

between  Nizamuddin  Railway  Bridge  and  National  Highway-24

measuring 390 hectares.  This prompted the respondents to file

Writ  Petition (Civil)  No. 5481 of 2011 by way of Public Interest

Litigation. The petition was filed at a time when the construction

was still underway.  The respondents wanted stay of construction

as well.  However, no such interim prayer was granted.  By the

time the matter came up for final hearing, the construction had

been  completely  carried  out  and  DTC Bus  Depot  had  started

functioning  therefrom.  Under  these  circumstances,  the

respondents pressed their relief for demolition of the construction

and restoration of area in its original condition.   

7) It  was  averred  by  the  respondents  that  the  construction  in

question amounted to encroachment on river flood plain/river front

resulting a change in the land use.  It was also stated that as per

the Master Plan, the area is earmarked for recreation purposes on

the West Bank (Clause 9.2.1).  It was pointed out that Draft Zonal

Plan of the area was published in July, 2008 for the purpose of

inviting objections.  The Zonal Plan has specified the land use of

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 4 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 5

5

the River and confirmed that it would be only for recreational use

such as Biodiversity Park, Botanical Park, Forest etc. which would

help  in  regenerating  the  environment.   The  respondents  also

pointed out that the DDA vide its communication dated December

2, 2010 in response to RTI query had confirmed that a 6 hectares

strip  of  land  between  Akshardham  Complex  and  the

Commonwealth  Games  Village  was  indeed  designated  as

'Parking'  in  the  approved  lay  out  plan.   The  Delhi  Urban  Art

Commission  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  'the  DUAC')  after  its

inspection carried out on November 02, 2010 had directed both

the DDA and the DTC to vacate the river bed and to ensure the

removal of all the constructions carried out in the past.  Even the

Shunglu Committee which was set up to go into the conduct of

Commonwealth  Games-2010  had  adversely  commended  upon

the construction of the said structure and in its report by observing

as under:-

“All  clearances  were  provided  by  the  Lieutenant Governor for construction of a 'temporary'  structure which  was  ostensibly  to  be  dismantled  after  the conclusion  of  the  Games.   But  this  Project  was implemented by the Transport Department, GNCTD and DTC right from the beginning as a 'permanent' structure.   It  appears  as  if  the  hosting  of  CWG provided  a  pretext  for  'land  grab'  by  various Government  agencies  after  short  circuiting  the established rules and procedures.”   

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 5 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 6

6

In its affidavit filed by the DUAC, it also categorically mentioned

that  no  proposal  regarding  the  alleged  construction  was  ever

referred to the DUAC at any time and no sanction or approval

was thus obtained.  It was also mentioned that site was inspected

by the DUAC and thereafter matter was considered by the DUAC

in its meeting held on November 10, 2010.

In  nutshell,  the case set  up by the respondents  was that  the

construction of Bus Depot is contrary to Master Plan;  it  would

affect the ecology and environment of the area; by ignoring the

same the appellants were violating the principle of Puyblic Trust,

principle  of  Sustainable  Development,  Polluter  Pays  Principle,

Principle of Inter-Generational Equity; and all this amounted to

infuriation of Articles 21, 48A, 51A of the Constitution.

8) The DTC and Delhi Government filed their respective affidavits

explaining  that  the  land  in  question  was  allotted  for  the

development  of  a  Bus  Deport  to  be  used  during  the

Commonwealth Games which where to be held in New Delhi in

October, 2010.  The position taken by the DTC was that it was

imperative  to  have  such  a  bus  depot  which  was  utilised  for

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 6 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 7

7

operating buses in the city of Delhi and almost 900 buses were

providing services from this Depot which was serving major bus

terminals.  Since  it  was  serving  public  purpose,  there  was

necessity  for  such  a  depot.   At  the  same  time,  DTC  also

accepted  the  position  that  as  per  Master  Plan,  the  area  was

shown as river bed and no such construction could be carried

our on river bed. In view of such a situation, it was stated in the

affidavit that the DTC vide letter dated November 09, 2010 had

requested the DDA for change of land use.   

The  public  purpose  was  highlighted  by  stating  that  the

Millennium Park Bus Parking acts as a life line for nearly one

fourth of the bus commuters of Delhi.  It caters to approximately

ten lakhs people every day and is immensely beneficial to lower

and middle class sections of society who cannot afford a means

of transport  other than public bus service.   Shutting down the

Millennium Park Bus Parking would deprive lakhs of people of

cheap  and  convenient  bus  service  and  would  render  jobless

nearly 2,000 employees of the DTC such a drivers, conductors,

mechanics, etc.

9) The DTC also denied that there is a construction on the flood

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 7 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 8

8

plains of Yamuna River.  As per the DTC, the Millennium Park

Bus is situated at a suitable distance from the river bund.  It was

submitted that before development of the said land into a bus

depot, the same was used by the Indraprastha Thermal Power

Plant for dumping of residual fly-ash.  Almost 20 meters of fly-ash

spared over many acres were leveled, compacted and covered

with granular sub base to enable the ground to bear the 13.5 ton

weight  of  each  Low  Floor  Bus.   Incidentally,  a  high  tension

electricity  transmission tower-which is  an essential  part  of  the

infrastructural needs of the city, is situated right in the center of

this area.  The DTC also sought to project that no commercial

activity to the detriment of the ecological balance of the said land

or the Yamuna River is taking place as a result of the operation

of  the bus depot.   It  emphasized that  the DTC had spent  an

amount of approximately 100 crores on the development of this₹

infrastructure.

10) An  additional  affidavit  was  filed  by  the  DTC  giving  certain

material  to  support  its  contention  that  the  scientific  study

conducted by an expert body like NEERI recommended the area

in question for usage as parking space.

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 8 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 9

9

11) After taking note of the respective stand of the parties the High

Court  went into the question as to whether  the aforesaid Bus

Depot could be constructed at the given site.  It was found that

since there was no dispute that as per MPD-2021 the land use of

the site was shown as “River Water Body” on which construction

of the type carried out  by the DTC was impermissible as law

mandates  construction  in  conformity  with  the  Master  Plan.

Because  of  this  reason  the  High  Court  disposed  of  the  writ

petition by giving six months' time to the appellants to get the

Master Plan amended, if it was possible in law.  

12) The flavour of the said order and the manner in which the writ

petition  was  disposed  of  can  be  gazed  from paras  17  to  19

thereof, which we reproduce hereunder for sake of clarity:

“17.  The moot question, however, is as to whether this Bus Depot could be constructed at the given site?  The petitioners have sought to demonstrate that  the  construction  is  carried  out  at  the  place which  forms  part  of  flood  plains/river  built  (sic - bed) and this id denied by the DTC/Government of NCT of Delhi.  On the other hand, the respondents argue that it is not a river bed and having regard to previous user of the site for fly-ash for last number of years, use thereof as bus depot is appropriate, it is  in  public  interest  and no  other  suitable  site  is available or at least identified by DDA so far.  We are,  however,  of  the  view  that  it  may  not  be necessary even to go into these questions.   The

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 9 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 10

10

stark reality is that as per MPD-2021 the land use of the site is “River Water Body”.  Admittedly, any construction has to be in conformity with the Master Plan.  May be for this reason, when the land was allotted  to  the  DTC to  take  care  of  the  need  of Commonwealth Games, it was for the purpose of 'temporary' parking, that too, in view of the security threat  perceptions  prevailing  in  the  region.   The Government was conscious of the fact  that there cannot  be  a  permanent  Bus  Depot  without amendment of the Master Plan, 2021.  It is for this reason, even during the argument, Mr. Waziri made a submission that the Government was planning to make modification in the Master Plan.

18.  In view of the above, we are of the opinion that these petitions can be disposed of by permitting the respondents  to  take  steps for  amendment  in  the Master Plan, as per law, if it is permissible.  There is a specific procedure for effecting the change in the Master Plan which includes notice to the public at  large  and  inviting  objections.   Once  this procedure is followed and objections are invited, it would  be  open  to  the  petitioners  to  file  their objections  and  raise  issue  of  ecology  and environment  which  will  have  to  be  considered. Thus,  arguments  raised  before  us  by  the petitioners  in  this  behalf  can  be  duly  taken  into consideration at  that  stage.   Naturally, if  there is any substance in the contention of the petitioners, it may not result change in the Master Plan.  On the other hand, at that stage it will also be open to the respondents, particularly DTC, to put forth its case that  the  site  in  question  was  used  as  fly-ash purposes since 1960s and on the construction of bund, the area was segregated and, therefore, it is not  going to  have any impact  on river  built/flood plains.   What  we  are  emphasizing  is  that  the respective  contentions  on  this  aspect  can  be considered and looked into and decision thereupon taken.

19.  These petitions are accordingly disposed of by granting six months time to the respondents to take

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 10 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 11

11

steps  for  the  change in  the  Master  Plan,  if  it  is possible,  thereby  changing  the  land  user  and bringing it  in conformity with the present use.   In case, the Master Plan is amended in this manner, the natural consequence thereof would be that the Bus  Depot  would  continue  to  operate  from  the given site.  On the other hand, if attempt to amend the Master Plan fails, there would be no option to re-locate the Bus Depot to some other place.  In that event, it will be for the DTC to ask the DDA to allot  alternate site and feasibility of  site at  Mayur Vihar can also be considered at that stage.”

13) Following aspects are discernible from the aforesaid order:

(a)  The construction of Millennium Bus Depot is on the land, which

according to MPD-2021 is shown as 'River Water Body'.

(b)   Position in  law is  clear, on which there is  no dispute,  that  any

construction has to be in conformity with the Master Plan.

(c)  If the land use of the site in question is 'River Water Body' as per

MPD-2021, construction thereupon is not permissible and such

area cannot be used as Bus Depot.

(d)  The DTC, however, contended that land site was wrongly shown as

'River Water Body' in the MPD 2021 as it was actually not so.  It

contended that the previous user of the site was for fly-ash and

the argument of the appellants in the High Court was that it was

not  a  river  bed  and,  therefore,  same  could  be  used  as  Bus

Depot,  which  user  was  in  public  interest.   The  respondents

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 11 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 12

12

herein, on the other hand, contended that the user of the site as

Bus Depot was a threat to ecology and environment.

(e)  Since as per the MPD-2021, the land use of the site is 'River Water

Body',  on  which  construction  was  not  permissible  without

amendment of the Master Plan, the appellants conceded that in

order to continue the Bus Depot, amendment in the Master Plan

was needed.

14) Keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects, the High Court granted

six months time to the authorities to take steps for change in the

Master Plan, if it was possible in law, thereby changing the land

user and bringing it in conformity with the present use.  It was

pointed out that the procedure that has to be followed for change

of  Master  Plan included giving opportunity  to  the respondents

herein to file their objections and raise the issue of ecology and

environment and for  DTC to put  forth its case that  the site in

question  was  used  as  fly-ash  purposes  since  1960  and  on

construction of the Bund the area was segregated and, therefore,

use of site as Bus Depot was not going to have any impact on

the river bed/flood plains.   The purpose was, thus,  to give an

opportunity to the appellants to establish that area could not be

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 12 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 13

13

treated as 'river bed' and if that is proved, it could pave way for

change of MPD 2021.

15) There  is  no  amendment  in  the  MPD-2021  till  date  on  the

aforesaid  aspect  and  as  per  the  said  Master  Plan,  land  use

remains the same, which has not been altered.  The DTC has its

own explanation as it is contended that though steps were taken

by  the  DDA to  change  the  land  use,  but  it  was  taking  time

because of the dispute that had arisen between DDA and the

Land and Development Office (L&DO) about the ownership of

the land in question.   Be as it  may, the Master  Plan remains

unaltered.   

16) Since time of six months granted by the High Court expired and

the  consequence  thereof  was  that  as  per  the  directions

contained in the order dated 13.09.2012 the appellants had to

relocate the Bus Depot to some other place, and the same was

not done, the respondents herein filed Contempt Petition No. 474

of  2013  in  Writ  Petition  No.  5481 of  2011.   Some significant

developments which took place in the Contempt Petition need to

be mentioned at this stage.

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 13 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 14

14

17) On receiving the notice of  contempt,  in  which Chairman-cum-

Managing Director (CMD) of DTC was impleaded as respondent/

contemnor, the CMD filed an affidavit dated 23.01.2014 on behalf

of the DTC wherein undertaking was given to the Court to vacate

the  site  in  question  on  or  before  31.10.2014.   It  was  also

mentioned by the DTC in the affidavit that the problem could be

solved by the DDA with the allotment of alternate land.  Since the

officials of the DDA was also impleaded as a contemnor in the

said  Contempt  Petition,  they  filed  periodic  Status  Reports  in

respect of allotment of  land.  The ultimate result  was that  the

DDA allotted 8.25 acres of additional land at Sarai Kale Khan, 10

acres of land at Narela, 16.33 acres of land at Anand Vihar and

20 acres of land at Rohini Phase-V.  The stand of the DTC was

that  some  portion  of  the  land  allotted  by  the  DDA had  been

encroached upon illegally and the land use had also not been

changed because of which the DTC was unable to shift.   

In the meantime, the application for extension of time was filed,

as aforesaid, which was pending consideration by the Division

Bench  of  the  High  Court  and  because  of  this  reason,  the

Contempt Petition was adjourned from time to time to await the

result of the said application.   

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 14 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 15

15

When the Division Bench dismissed the application for extension

of  time vide impugned order  dated 20.10.2015,  the Contempt

Petition was taken up by the learned Single Judge of the High

Court  and  taking  note  of  the  said  dismissal,  the  High  Court

pointed out that the DTC had to forthwith comply with the order

dated 13.09.2012.  As on that date, the DTC informed the Court

that  500  out  of  800  buses  that  were  being  parked  at  the

Millennium Bus Depot  had  already  been shifted  to  other  Bus

Depots.  In this scenario, the Court granted the DTC two months

further  time,  i.e.  till  27.01.2016,  to  vacate  the  Bus  Depot  by

shifting remaining buses as well to some other Depots.

18) The  position  that  emerges  from the  aforesaid  events  can  be

summed up as under:

Though an opportunity  was granted by the High Court  to  the

appellants  to  have the MPD-2021 amended,  if  the same was

possible,  and  the  time  of  six  months  was  granted  for  this

purpose, even when almost four and a half years have passed,

there is no amendment in the Master Plan.  In the absence of

said amendment, the legal position is that Millennium Bus Depot

at  the  given  site  cannot  operate.   In  the  Contempt  Petition,

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 15 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 16

16

undertaking was given by the DTC to vacate the Bus Depot by

31.10.2014.   That  undertaking  is  not  adhered  to.   No  doubt,

application for  extension of  time was pending and because of

this reason the Contempt Petition was adjourned from time to

time, but the said application for extension has been dismissed

taking note of the fact that the appellants have failed to get the

Master Plan amended.  In the impugned order, while dismissing

the  said  application,  the  High  Court  has  taken  note  of  the

circumstances because of which there is no amendment to the

Master Plan.   

19) Another material fact which is to be noticed is that in respect of

this  very  issue,  there  was  a  meeting  held  under  the

Chairmanship  of  the Chief  Minister  of  Government  of  NCT of

Delhi on 15.01.2014 wherein the background of the development

of  the  Millennium  Bus  Depot  was  explained  by  the  Chief

Secretary.   After  understanding  this  background,  the  Chief

Minister pointed out the urgent need to protect the land along the

riverbed  of  the  river  Yamuna  to  increase  recharge  and  to

supplement  the  water  needs  of  the  city  of  Delhi.   He  was,

therefore,  of  the  view  that  DTC  should  vacate  the  land  in

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 16 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 17

17

question and move its buses to some alternate location and the

same be done in a time bound manner.  As the Minutes of the

said meeting reflect,  the demand of the Chairman of the DTC

was that the DDA should immediately provide alternate land for

relocating thousand buses which are parked and maintained at

the  said  Depot.   It  was  explained  that  if  no  alternate  site  is

immediately made available, the DTC will face great difficulty in

parking  its  fleet  as  there  are  huge  constraints  in  its  existing

depots for the fleet in question.  DTC even gave the explanation

by  submitting  that  it  had  got  the  Environmental  Impact

Assessment from WAPCOS (a Government of India body under

the  Ministry  of  Water  Resources)  and  it  was  committed  to

following the said Report in all respects.  It also mentioned that

the DTC was making efforts in creating greenery in the area and

setting  up  of  effluent  treatment  plants.   Significantly,

notwithstanding  the  above,  the  Chief  Minister  expressed  that

DTC should relocate to some other place.  The entire discussion

thereof  proceeded on  the alternate  land  to  be  allotted by  the

DDA to the DTC.   

20) If  only the aforesaid features are to be kept  in  mind,  there is

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 17 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 18

18

hardly any reason to interfere with the order passed by the High

Court.  In  fact,   Mr. Shanti  Bhushan and Mr. Jayant  Bhushan,

learned senior  counsel  appearing for  the respondents,  on the

other  hand,  submitted  that  the  aforesaid  circumstances,  as

pointed out by the appellants, had no bearing on the issue and

having regard to the solemn undertaking given by the DTC in its

affidavit to shift the Bus Depot by 31.10.2014, which had already

been flouted,  and the  DTC was in  clear  contempt,  no further

chance should be given to the appellants in this behalf.

21) Notwithstanding the above position, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned

senior counsel appearing for the DTC, and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,

learned senior counsel appearing for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

made  a  passionate  plea  for  grant  of  some  more  time  as

according to them there was still  a possibility of amending the

Master Plan suitably in near future.  Such a plea was predicated

on the developments which have taken place after the passing of

the impugned order.  Explaining the position, it  was submitted

that no amendment in MPD 2021 would be carried out earlier

because of the following three hurdles:

1) L&DO land ownership issue.

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 18 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 19

19

2) Yamuna Standing Committee approval.

3) Foresh Department approval.

Mr.  Venugopal  submitted  that  on  all  three  fronts,  the  ground

realities had undergone a total change.  It was pointed out that

even when L&DO had raised the issue of land ownership, it had

in  principle  accepted to  grant  No Objection  Certificate  for  the

retention of DTC Bus Depot.  Even Yamuna Standing Committee

had granted its approval in principle, which was evident from the

Minutes  of  the  Meeting  held  on  17.09.2013  and  04.10.2013.

Likewise, Forest Department approval was under consideration,

which was clear from the correspondence that was exchanged in

this  behalf  and  it  was  explained  that  no  prior  environment

clearance was needed in this case as the built  up area in the

complex is less than 20,000 sq.mts.  The learned counsel also

referred  to  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  held  under  the

Chairmanship of A.S. (UD) in the Ministry of Urban Development,

on 17.10.2015 wherein following was agreed:

(i) DDA will take immediate steps, possibly within a period of one

month,  for  demarcation  of  'O'  zone  area  after  collecting  the

required statistics from the Irrigation & Flood Control Department

of GNCTD.

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 19 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 20

20

(ii)  MD, DTC will actively coordinate with DDA for facilitating collecting

the data and also in whatever way possible for conducting the

demarcation  of  'O'  zone  and  also  approaching  the  Principal

Committee for its permission.

(iii)   Once  the  required  permission  from the  Principal  Committee  is

available and the court cases are disposed of, L&DO will  take

necessary action for issuing the required NOC for land use for

the Bus Depot.

It was submitted that Minutes of the said Meeting were prepared

only on 28.10.2015 and, therefore, could not be placed before

the High Court when the matter was taken up on 20.10.2015 and

impugned order passed.   

22) Another significant development which was pointed out was the

order dated 13.01.2015 of the National Green Tribunal passed in

OA No.  6/2012  and  MA Nos.  967/2013  and  275/2014  in  the

matter  of  Manoj  Mishra  v.  Union  of  India  &  Ors.  That  case

pertains to cleaning of  River Yamuna.  In the aforesaid order,

after  comprehensively  reviewing  the  situation  in  the  light  of

various  technical  reports  etc.,  the  Tribunal  has  given  some

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 20 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 21

21

directions which, inter alia, include the direction to all concerned

authorities, including the DDA, Municipal Corporations and the

Govt. of NCT of Delhi, to take immediate and effective steps for

identification of floodplain.  The Tribunal has directed preparation

of  a  map  in  this  regard  and  physically  demarcate  the  entire

floodplain.  There is also a direction to the Principal Committee to

identify which structures were to be demolished and which ones

were to be retained, in the interest of ecology and environment.

The public  interest  in retaining the said Bus Depot was again

emphasized  and  it  was  submitted  that  once  the  aforesaid

exercise of demarcation of the entire floodplain is carried out by

the Principal Committee, the stand of the appellants would be

vindicated that the area in question where the Bus Depot has

been  constructed  does  not  fall  within  the  floodplain  thereby

paving way for the amendment of the Master Plan.

23) We  have  considered  the  respected  submissions  of  learned

counsel for the parties on either side.  As is clear from the tenure

and spirit  behind  the  orders  dated  13.09.2012 passed by  the

High Court, the chance was given to the appellants to have the

MPD 2021 amended if it was permissible in law and the period of

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 21 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 22

22

six months was given for this purpose.  This was done by the

High  Court  keeping  in  view the  submission  of  the  appellants

herein that the Bus Depot in question was constructed to serve

greater public purpose; the area in question was, as a matter of

fact, was not falling on the river bed; and there was no threat to

environment or ecology in having the Bus Depot at the given site.

Exercise to consider the aforesaid aspect has not taken place, or

for some reason or the other, whether it was because of dispute

between  L&DO  and  DDA on  the  issue  of  land  ownership  or

otherwise.  However, the development which have taken place in

recent  times,  particularly  the  orders  of  the  National  Green

Tribunal, point out to the fact that things are started moving and it

would be known in near future as a result of study conducted by

the Expert  Committee, whether area in question where the Bus

Depot stands, is viable for this purpose or not, directing the DTC

to  demolish  the  Bus  Depot  at  this  juncture  may  not  be

appropriate and the decision in this regard can be deferred for

some time to await the outcome of the report of the identification

of floodplain.   

24) Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals by granting one year

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 22 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)

Page 23

23

time to the DTC during which period the DTC shall either get the

MPD 2021  amended,  failing  which  it  shall  shift  the  Depot  in

question.     We make it clear that no further time on any ground

whatsoever shall be granted in this behalf.   

….......................................CJI. (T.S.THAKUR)

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 05, 2016.

Civil Appeal No.                  of 2016 & Anr. Page 23 of 23 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 35037/2015 & Anr.)