REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8747 OF 2016
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.23464 of 2016]
NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION …APPELLANTS
CORPORATION LTD & ORS.
Versus
KHOSMENDIR SINGH GAHUNIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
With
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8748 OF 2016
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.23912 of 2016]
J U D G M E N T
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J
Leave granted.
2 These Appeals by the National Building Construction Corporation, a
public sector enterprise, arise from a judgment and order of the Delhi High
Court dated 7 April 2016.
3 Under the Master Plan of 2021, Delhi Development Authority issued a
Zonal Development Plan for Zone (Division) -D on 27 July 1993, under which
Kidwai Nagar East was earmarked as a colony for re-development. Spread over
an area of 86 acres, the colony comprised of 2331 housing units meant for
employees of the Central Government. Apart from residential units, the
colony had three schools and two local shopping markets. Within its
precincts, there is a protected monument, called Darya Khan’s Tomb on an
area of about 2 acres.
4 The Master Plan took effect on 7 February 2007, following final
approval and a notification in the Gazette of India. Following the approval
of the plan for re-development by the Union Cabinet on 12 October 2010 and
by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs on 23 March 2012, a Letter of
Intent was issued to the Appellants who were nominated as the executing
agency on 22 June 2012. The projected cost of re-development of the colony
is Rs. 5,300/- crores with a stipulated date of completion of December
2019. The project envisages the construction of 4608 residential units
(comprised of type II-VII residential units) for employees and officers of
the Union Government and office space for its agencies.
5 The petitioner submitted a layout plan together with a plan for
re-development, for sanction to the NDMC on 23 July 2012. An
environment clearance was issued on 13 August 2012. On 18 October 2012, the
Ministry of Urban Development handed over the land to the Appellants and
issued no objection certificate for re-development. The new layout plan
and plan of proposed structures was sanctioned by NDMC on 13 March 2014.
The work of re-development has proceeded upon receipt of
statutory clearances.
6 The bone of contention is a road by the name of Veer Chandra Singh
Garhwali Marg. The road traverses a distance of 680 meters commencing from
Aurobindo Marg to its terminal point at Darya Khan’s Tomb.
7 Writ Petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution by the Residents’ Welfare Association of South
Extension Part-I, and by associations inter alia representing the
residents of Kotla Mubarakpur and Village Pillanji, among others. The
grievance in the Writ Petitions was that after re-development commenced in
September 2013, NBCC progressively encroached upon the public road. On 24
December 2015, the residents of South Extension, Part-I, Village Pillanji
and Kotla Mubarakpur found that the road had been completely cordoned off
and blocked. A sign board was put up stating that the road would be
permanently closed on 10 January 2016. As a result of the closure of the
road, which according to the petitioners before the High Court is a public
road, access was being denied from Aurobindo Marg for onward journey
towards South Mehrauli or North Central Delhi and beyond. The action of
NBCC of closing what is described as a public street within the meaning of
the NDMC Act 1994, was urged to be contrary to law; the grievance being
that the residents of localities in the area had utilized it for over 60
years to access Aurobindo Marg, INA metro station and market and other
public amenities.
8 A mandamus was sought inter alia to the Appellants to maintain the
road by the removal of encroachments made thereon. A prohibitory direction
was sought for restraining the Appellants from closing the road.
9 During the course of the hearing of the Writ Petitions before the
High Court, the Appellants and NDMC filed their respective counter
affidavits. The defense of the Appellants was that Veer Chandra Singh
Garhwali Marg together with other roads and passages inside the colony are
internal roads and do not constitute a public street within the meaning of
Section 2 (39) of the NDMC Act, 1994. The case which the Appellants
specifically pleaded in their counter affidavit was that in the layout plan
which was sanctioned by NDMC, the road in question was not reflected as a
road or passage and infact formed a portion of a new building/tower. The
Appellants relied upon the fact that on 1 October 2013, the office of the
Superintending Engineer (Roads-II), NDMC had issued a no objection
certificate in respect of roads and pavements before the project was
approved. The Appellants contended that if the road was a public street as
alleged in the Writ Petition, the layout plan would not have been approved
by NDMC. In the following extract from the counter affidavit filed by the
Appellants in the High Court it was stated specifically that the road was
not shown as a road/passage in the new layout plan sanctioned by NDMC :
“The layout plan submitted with NDMC is a entirely new plan which contains
complete changes of buildings layout, internal passages/road etc. the
existed internal road in question i.e. “Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg”
was not shown as road/passage in the new plan and it is portion of new
building/tower. The internal road/passages were therefore altered/shifted
as per new layout plan, the new layout plan and internal passages/roads in
the layout plan and detailed plans were submitted by respondent No. 2 to
NDMC for approval and same was duly approved/sanctioned by NDMC on
19.3.2014 under Section 217 showing building/Tower thereon, open space,
park, school market, space for other public purpose, allotment of site for
street, line of streets etc. (Id. at p- 120-121)
(emphasis supplied)
On the other hand in the counter affidavit that was filed by NDMC before
the High Court, it was stated that while sanctioning the layout plan, the
road had been retained and only its entry and exit points have been
shifted. The counter affidavit contains the following statement :
“That in the Zonal Development Plan (Zone-D), a 30 mt. wide road starts
from Aurobindo Marg upto surrounding of Darya Khan’s Tomb. Accordingly,
answering Respondent sanctioned the layout plan wherein the said road was
retained, only the entry and exit points have been shifted towards
Aurobindo Marg as per the NOC of UTTIPEC [Unified Traffic and
Transportation Infrastructure) (Plg. & Engg.) Centre]. (Id. at p-136-
137) (emphasis supplied)
This is again reiterated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit which
reads as follows :
“7). It is also wrong and denied that the said road is closed by the
answering Respondent. It is further denied that the said road emanates at
the Aurobindo Marg on one side and passes by the Darya Khan’s Tomb, east
Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. It is further submitted that answering Respondent
sanctioned the layout plan wherein the said road has been retained, only
the entry and exit points have been shifted towards Aurobindo Marg as per
the NOC of UTTIPEC [Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Plg.
& Engg.) Centre.] (Id. at p-137)
10 In this background, what clearly emerged before the High Court was
the clear and categorically statement in the affidavit by NDMC that in the
layout plan which it had sanctioned, the road had been maintained. Contrary
to this was the statement of the Appellants as the executing agency of the
project that the road is not shown as a road or passage in the new plan and
that it was infact a portion of a new building tower. In this background,
the Division Bench of the High Court while placing reliance on the counter
affidavit filed by NDMC held that it was not open to the Appellants to shut
down the road, which was in existence for sixty years, for an unstated
duration as was sought to be done without the issuance of a proper
sanction.
11 NDMC was accordingly directed to take appropriate steps for enforcing
the sanctioned layout plan for the area in question pertaining to Veer
Chandra Sigh Garhwali Marg and to take all necessary and consequential
steps in accordance with law.
12 When the Appellants filed Special Leave Petitions before this Court
seeking to challenge the judgment of the Delhi High Court, they reiterated
the position that the road had been shifted under the approved plan to make
way for the construction of 3 towers comprising of a ground floor and 14
floors with 3 basements.
13 During the course of the hearing, the learned Attorney General urged
that the road was being only temporarily closed to facilitate the work of
construction. Moreover, it was submitted that save and except for
realignment of the entry and exit points, the road would be retained. The
hearing was adjourned to enable the Appellants to clarify this position in
a further affidavit. During the course of the hearing a further affidavit
has been filed on behalf of the Appellants. In the affidavit filed on
behalf of the Appellants by Shri Arun Kumar Sharma, who is working as a
General Manger (Engineering) for the re-development project, reliance has
been placed on the approved layout plan. It has been stated that under the
approved plan of 12 February 2014, the road has been realigned at its entry
and exit points as indicated in the plan. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit
inter alia states as follows :
“3). The entry point from Point “A” to Darya Khan’s Tomb will have to be
closed for a temporary period for carrying out necessary construction
activities of the project by the Petitioner. After completion of the
requisite construction activities, the petitioner shall rebuild/re-lay the
said road with entry/exit as per the approved layout plan.
(Id. at p-1)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the affidavit are material for the
purposes of the present controversy and read as follows :
“4). The petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner is required to
close the said road at this stage, at least till December 2018, for
undertaking major construction and related activities at site, including
the road (interconnecting basements and other underground services viz.
sewerage connection, electricity and water). The stipulated date of
completion of the project is 30.11.2019. However, it shall be the endeavor
of the Petitioner to restore the road by the end of December 2018…
6). Currently, the Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg is dug up on either
side about 35-40 feet in depth for facilitating construction work of
basements which will be interconnected at points which would fall under the
said road. The use of this road which is currently being done by the public
is fraught with danger. The ingress and engress of the public including
commercial transporation needs to be stopped forthwith to avoid any mishaps
and the said road will be used by the Petitioner for completing the
project. The road will be reopened after the realignment from Point “B” by
the end of December 2018.”
(Id. at p- 2)
14 During the course of the hearing, it has been stated before this
Court that a temporary closure of the road is required until December 2018
and that the road would be reopened after realignment of the entry and exit
points as indicated in the approved plan.
15 The Delhi High Court cannot be faulted for having proceeded on the
basis of the clear statement in the counter affidavit filed by NDMC to the
effect that it has sanctioned the layout plan in which the road was
retained and it was only the entry and exit points which have been shifted
towards Aurobindo Marg in accordance with the NOC issued by the Unified
Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Planning & Engineering). This
being the clear and categoric statement of the planning authority, the High
Court observed that the Appellants were bound by the layout plan which was
sanctioned by NDMC. We also take note of the fact that in the application
that was submitted by the Appellants to the State Expert Appraisal
Committee (a copy of which is attached as Annexure “A” to the further
affidavit filed on behalf of the Appellants), it has been stated that “no
new road will be constructed during construction or operation.”
16 The position that now emerges before this Court from the further
affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Appellants is that the
existing road shall be closed temporarily until December 2018. This is to
facilitate the work of reconstruction and to obviate any danger or mishaps.
The closure is temporary and not for an indefinite duration. The Appellants
have furnished an undertaking to restore the road to its original form and
width thereafter in terms of the approved plan.
17 The original petitioners before the High Court, have expressed
apprehensions during the course of the hearing about whether the road would
be restored in a manner as is required under the sanctions issued by NDMC.
On their behalf, it has been urged that necessary safeguards may be
instituted by this Court so that these apprehensions are duly allayed. On
the other hand, the learned Attorney General submitted that as a result of
the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the execution of the project, which
involves an outlay of Rs. 5,300/-crores, has been stalled and it is
necessary for the earlier completion of the project that this state of
impasse should end. Moreover, it has been urged that the original
petitioners before the High Court are not residents of Kidwai Nagar East
which was a colony for government servants but are residents of nearby
localities. It was urged that a temporary closure of the road to facilitate
the progress of the work would not cause any prejudice to the residents of
colonies in the vicinity who have alternative means of ingress and egress.
Moreover, it was urged that since the Appellants have now stated clearly
that they shall restore the road by December 2018 in accordance with the
terms of the approved layout plan, the apprehensions of the residents’
associations would be duly met.
18 We have adverted to the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of
the Appellants during the course of the hearing and to the undertaking that
the Appellants would by December 2018 restore the road in accordance with
the terms of the approved layout plan. In other words, the closure of the
road is not of a permanent nature but is of a temporary character to
facilitate the completion of the work. Presently, it has been stated that
Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg has been excavated to a depth of 35 to 40
feet for facilitating the construction of basements which will be
interconnected at points which would fall under the road. A temporary
closure of ingress and egress has been necessitated to avoid any mishaps.
That being the position, we see merit in the grievance of the Appellants
that at this stage, the balance of convenience would lie in allowing the
completion of the project. We accept the assurance furnished by the
Appellants on affidavit and through the learned Attorney General in Court.
The project for re-development having received the statutory approvals, it
is necessary to facilitate the completion of the project on schedule. The
statements which have been made on behalf of the Appellants in the further
affidavit as well as the undertaking would adequately protect the concerns
of the petitioners who had moved to the Delhi High Court. At the same time,
we deem it appropriate and proper in the interests of justice to remit the
proceedings to the High Court to consider whether any additional safeguards
should be introduced so as to allay the genuine apprehensions of the
petitioners before it. For that purpose, the proceedings shall stand
remitted back to the High Court for the limited purpose of considering
whether any such additional safeguards are required and if deemed necessary
to provide for them. In the meantime, we clarify that in view of the
statements made before this Court on affidavit by the Appellants and the
undertaking before this Court as noted earlier the project for re-
development shall proceed unhindered. However, we leave it to open to the
High Court to impose suitable safeguards in pursuance of the present
judgment, to allay the apprehensions of the original petitioners.
19 The Civil Appeals shall accordingly stand disposed of in these terms.
The order passed by the High Court shall accordingly stand substituted by
the above directions. No costs.
.........................................CJI
[T S THAKUR]
............................................J
[A M
KHANWILKAR]
.............................................J
[Dr D Y
CHANDRACHUD]
New Delhi
September 02, 2016.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8747 OF 2016
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.23464 of 2016]
NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION …APPELLANTS
CORPORATION LTD & ORS.
Versus
KHOSMENDIR SINGH GAHUNIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
With
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8748 OF 2016
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.23912 of 2016]
J U D G M E N T
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J
Leave granted.
2 These Appeals by the National Building Construction Corporation, a
public sector enterprise, arise from a judgment and order of the Delhi High
Court dated 7 April 2016.
3 Under the Master Plan of 2021, Delhi Development Authority issued a
Zonal Development Plan for Zone (Division) -D on 27 July 1993, under which
Kidwai Nagar East was earmarked as a colony for re-development. Spread over
an area of 86 acres, the colony comprised of 2331 housing units meant for
employees of the Central Government. Apart from residential units, the
colony had three schools and two local shopping markets. Within its
precincts, there is a protected monument, called Darya Khan’s Tomb on an
area of about 2 acres.
4 The Master Plan took effect on 7 February 2007, following final
approval and a notification in the Gazette of India. Following the approval
of the plan for re-development by the Union Cabinet on 12 October 2010 and
by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs on 23 March 2012, a Letter of
Intent was issued to the Appellants who were nominated as the executing
agency on 22 June 2012. The projected cost of re-development of the colony
is Rs. 5,300/- crores with a stipulated date of completion of December
2019. The project envisages the construction of 4608 residential units
(comprised of type II-VII residential units) for employees and officers of
the Union Government and office space for its agencies.
5 The petitioner submitted a layout plan together with a plan for
re-development, for sanction to the NDMC on 23 July 2012. An
environment clearance was issued on 13 August 2012. On 18 October 2012, the
Ministry of Urban Development handed over the land to the Appellants and
issued no objection certificate for re-development. The new layout plan
and plan of proposed structures was sanctioned by NDMC on 13 March 2014.
The work of re-development has proceeded upon receipt of
statutory clearances.
6 The bone of contention is a road by the name of Veer Chandra Singh
Garhwali Marg. The road traverses a distance of 680 meters commencing from
Aurobindo Marg to its terminal point at Darya Khan’s Tomb.
7 Writ Petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution by the Residents’ Welfare Association of South
Extension Part-I, and by associations inter alia representing the
residents of Kotla Mubarakpur and Village Pillanji, among others. The
grievance in the Writ Petitions was that after re-development commenced in
September 2013, NBCC progressively encroached upon the public road. On 24
December 2015, the residents of South Extension, Part-I, Village Pillanji
and Kotla Mubarakpur found that the road had been completely cordoned off
and blocked. A sign board was put up stating that the road would be
permanently closed on 10 January 2016. As a result of the closure of the
road, which according to the petitioners before the High Court is a public
road, access was being denied from Aurobindo Marg for onward journey
towards South Mehrauli or North Central Delhi and beyond. The action of
NBCC of closing what is described as a public street within the meaning of
the NDMC Act 1994, was urged to be contrary to law; the grievance being
that the residents of localities in the area had utilized it for over 60
years to access Aurobindo Marg, INA metro station and market and other
public amenities.
8 A mandamus was sought inter alia to the Appellants to maintain the
road by the removal of encroachments made thereon. A prohibitory direction
was sought for restraining the Appellants from closing the road.
9 During the course of the hearing of the Writ Petitions before the
High Court, the Appellants and NDMC filed their respective counter
affidavits. The defense of the Appellants was that Veer Chandra Singh
Garhwali Marg together with other roads and passages inside the colony are
internal roads and do not constitute a public street within the meaning of
Section 2 (39) of the NDMC Act, 1994. The case which the Appellants
specifically pleaded in their counter affidavit was that in the layout plan
which was sanctioned by NDMC, the road in question was not reflected as a
road or passage and infact formed a portion of a new building/tower. The
Appellants relied upon the fact that on 1 October 2013, the office of the
Superintending Engineer (Roads-II), NDMC had issued a no objection
certificate in respect of roads and pavements before the project was
approved. The Appellants contended that if the road was a public street as
alleged in the Writ Petition, the layout plan would not have been approved
by NDMC. In the following extract from the counter affidavit filed by the
Appellants in the High Court it was stated specifically that the road was
not shown as a road/passage in the new layout plan sanctioned by NDMC :
“The layout plan submitted with NDMC is a entirely new plan which contains
complete changes of buildings layout, internal passages/road etc. the
existed internal road in question i.e. “Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg”
was not shown as road/passage in the new plan and it is portion of new
building/tower. The internal road/passages were therefore altered/shifted
as per new layout plan, the new layout plan and internal passages/roads in
the layout plan and detailed plans were submitted by respondent No. 2 to
NDMC for approval and same was duly approved/sanctioned by NDMC on
19.3.2014 under Section 217 showing building/Tower thereon, open space,
park, school market, space for other public purpose, allotment of site for
street, line of streets etc. (Id. at p- 120-121)
(emphasis supplied)
On the other hand in the counter affidavit that was filed by NDMC before
the High Court, it was stated that while sanctioning the layout plan, the
road had been retained and only its entry and exit points have been
shifted. The counter affidavit contains the following statement :
“That in the Zonal Development Plan (Zone-D), a 30 mt. wide road starts
from Aurobindo Marg upto surrounding of Darya Khan’s Tomb. Accordingly,
answering Respondent sanctioned the layout plan wherein the said road was
retained, only the entry and exit points have been shifted towards
Aurobindo Marg as per the NOC of UTTIPEC [Unified Traffic and
Transportation Infrastructure) (Plg. & Engg.) Centre]. (Id. at p-136-
137) (emphasis supplied)
This is again reiterated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit which
reads as follows :
“7). It is also wrong and denied that the said road is closed by the
answering Respondent. It is further denied that the said road emanates at
the Aurobindo Marg on one side and passes by the Darya Khan’s Tomb, east
Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi. It is further submitted that answering Respondent
sanctioned the layout plan wherein the said road has been retained, only
the entry and exit points have been shifted towards Aurobindo Marg as per
the NOC of UTTIPEC [Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Plg.
& Engg.) Centre.] (Id. at p-137)
10 In this background, what clearly emerged before the High Court was
the clear and categorically statement in the affidavit by NDMC that in the
layout plan which it had sanctioned, the road had been maintained. Contrary
to this was the statement of the Appellants as the executing agency of the
project that the road is not shown as a road or passage in the new plan and
that it was infact a portion of a new building tower. In this background,
the Division Bench of the High Court while placing reliance on the counter
affidavit filed by NDMC held that it was not open to the Appellants to shut
down the road, which was in existence for sixty years, for an unstated
duration as was sought to be done without the issuance of a proper
sanction.
11 NDMC was accordingly directed to take appropriate steps for enforcing
the sanctioned layout plan for the area in question pertaining to Veer
Chandra Sigh Garhwali Marg and to take all necessary and consequential
steps in accordance with law.
12 When the Appellants filed Special Leave Petitions before this Court
seeking to challenge the judgment of the Delhi High Court, they reiterated
the position that the road had been shifted under the approved plan to make
way for the construction of 3 towers comprising of a ground floor and 14
floors with 3 basements.
13 During the course of the hearing, the learned Attorney General urged
that the road was being only temporarily closed to facilitate the work of
construction. Moreover, it was submitted that save and except for
realignment of the entry and exit points, the road would be retained. The
hearing was adjourned to enable the Appellants to clarify this position in
a further affidavit. During the course of the hearing a further affidavit
has been filed on behalf of the Appellants. In the affidavit filed on
behalf of the Appellants by Shri Arun Kumar Sharma, who is working as a
General Manger (Engineering) for the re-development project, reliance has
been placed on the approved layout plan. It has been stated that under the
approved plan of 12 February 2014, the road has been realigned at its entry
and exit points as indicated in the plan. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit
inter alia states as follows :
“3). The entry point from Point “A” to Darya Khan’s Tomb will have to be
closed for a temporary period for carrying out necessary construction
activities of the project by the Petitioner. After completion of the
requisite construction activities, the petitioner shall rebuild/re-lay the
said road with entry/exit as per the approved layout plan.
(Id. at p-1)
The statements in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the affidavit are material for the
purposes of the present controversy and read as follows :
“4). The petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner is required to
close the said road at this stage, at least till December 2018, for
undertaking major construction and related activities at site, including
the road (interconnecting basements and other underground services viz.
sewerage connection, electricity and water). The stipulated date of
completion of the project is 30.11.2019. However, it shall be the endeavor
of the Petitioner to restore the road by the end of December 2018…
6). Currently, the Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg is dug up on either
side about 35-40 feet in depth for facilitating construction work of
basements which will be interconnected at points which would fall under the
said road. The use of this road which is currently being done by the public
is fraught with danger. The ingress and engress of the public including
commercial transporation needs to be stopped forthwith to avoid any mishaps
and the said road will be used by the Petitioner for completing the
project. The road will be reopened after the realignment from Point “B” by
the end of December 2018.”
(Id. at p- 2)
14 During the course of the hearing, it has been stated before this
Court that a temporary closure of the road is required until December 2018
and that the road would be reopened after realignment of the entry and exit
points as indicated in the approved plan.
15 The Delhi High Court cannot be faulted for having proceeded on the
basis of the clear statement in the counter affidavit filed by NDMC to the
effect that it has sanctioned the layout plan in which the road was
retained and it was only the entry and exit points which have been shifted
towards Aurobindo Marg in accordance with the NOC issued by the Unified
Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Planning & Engineering). This
being the clear and categoric statement of the planning authority, the High
Court observed that the Appellants were bound by the layout plan which was
sanctioned by NDMC. We also take note of the fact that in the application
that was submitted by the Appellants to the State Expert Appraisal
Committee (a copy of which is attached as Annexure “A” to the further
affidavit filed on behalf of the Appellants), it has been stated that “no
new road will be constructed during construction or operation.”
16 The position that now emerges before this Court from the further
affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Appellants is that the
existing road shall be closed temporarily until December 2018. This is to
facilitate the work of reconstruction and to obviate any danger or mishaps.
The closure is temporary and not for an indefinite duration. The Appellants
have furnished an undertaking to restore the road to its original form and
width thereafter in terms of the approved plan.
17 The original petitioners before the High Court, have expressed
apprehensions during the course of the hearing about whether the road would
be restored in a manner as is required under the sanctions issued by NDMC.
On their behalf, it has been urged that necessary safeguards may be
instituted by this Court so that these apprehensions are duly allayed. On
the other hand, the learned Attorney General submitted that as a result of
the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the execution of the project, which
involves an outlay of Rs. 5,300/-crores, has been stalled and it is
necessary for the earlier completion of the project that this state of
impasse should end. Moreover, it has been urged that the original
petitioners before the High Court are not residents of Kidwai Nagar East
which was a colony for government servants but are residents of nearby
localities. It was urged that a temporary closure of the road to facilitate
the progress of the work would not cause any prejudice to the residents of
colonies in the vicinity who have alternative means of ingress and egress.
Moreover, it was urged that since the Appellants have now stated clearly
that they shall restore the road by December 2018 in accordance with the
terms of the approved layout plan, the apprehensions of the residents’
associations would be duly met.
18 We have adverted to the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of
the Appellants during the course of the hearing and to the undertaking that
the Appellants would by December 2018 restore the road in accordance with
the terms of the approved layout plan. In other words, the closure of the
road is not of a permanent nature but is of a temporary character to
facilitate the completion of the work. Presently, it has been stated that
Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg has been excavated to a depth of 35 to 40
feet for facilitating the construction of basements which will be
interconnected at points which would fall under the road. A temporary
closure of ingress and egress has been necessitated to avoid any mishaps.
That being the position, we see merit in the grievance of the Appellants
that at this stage, the balance of convenience would lie in allowing the
completion of the project. We accept the assurance furnished by the
Appellants on affidavit and through the learned Attorney General in Court.
The project for re-development having received the statutory approvals, it
is necessary to facilitate the completion of the project on schedule. The
statements which have been made on behalf of the Appellants in the further
affidavit as well as the undertaking would adequately protect the concerns
of the petitioners who had moved to the Delhi High Court. At the same time,
we deem it appropriate and proper in the interests of justice to remit the
proceedings to the High Court to consider whether any additional safeguards
should be introduced so as to allay the genuine apprehensions of the
petitioners before it. For that purpose, the proceedings shall stand
remitted back to the High Court for the limited purpose of considering
whether any such additional safeguards are required and if deemed necessary
to provide for them. In the meantime, we clarify that in view of the
statements made before this Court on affidavit by the Appellants and the
undertaking before this Court as noted earlier the project for re-
development shall proceed unhindered. However, we leave it to open to the
High Court to impose suitable safeguards in pursuance of the present
judgment, to allay the apprehensions of the original petitioners.
19 The Civil Appeals shall accordingly stand disposed of in these terms.
The order passed by the High Court shall accordingly stand substituted by
the above directions. No costs.
.........................................CJI
[T S THAKUR]
............................................J
[A M
KHANWILKAR]
.............................................J
[Dr D Y
CHANDRACHUD]
New Delhi
September 02, 2016.
