Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has dismissed a writ petition challenging the use of a parcel of land in Model Town-II, Delhi. The Court held that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) was within its authority to use the land as a school playground. It was recorded that the petitioners could not establish any legal or vested right to insist upon the development of the land into an ornamental park. The Court concluded that the necessity of the land for use by school children was indispensable and found no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition along with the pending application was dismissed.

The dispute concerned a plot measuring 4458 square yards located opposite House Nos. F-14/31 to F-14/40, Model Town-II, Delhi. The petitioners were owners of properties facing this land and members of the Model Town Owners and Residents Society (Regd.). The land was originally shown as a lawn in the sanctioned site plan of 1965. Over time, however, a Municipal Corporation Primary School began functioning from the site.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka High Court’s Bail Grant to Accused | AL-Hind Not a Banned Organisation Under UAPA | Trial Court Directed to Expedite Proceedings

The petitioners opposed the conversion of the designated park into a school building as far back as 1987–1988. Initially, the MCD assured residents that only a temporary shed for the school would be constructed. Dissatisfied with continued construction activities, the Residents Society filed a civil suit in 1988 seeking an injunction against conversion of the lawn/park into a permanent school structure. During proceedings, a compromise was purportedly reached in September 2011 whereby the school would be allowed to construct a permanent building on part of the land, while the rest, facing houses F-14/31 to F-14/36, would be developed into an ornamental park.

On 28th September 2011, the Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, disposed of the suit based on this compromise. The petitioners later alleged that despite construction of the school, the MCD failed to develop the balance land as an ornamental park. Instead, in March 2017, the MCD issued a work order to reconstruct a boundary wall and install gates designating the land as school property. A demand notice was issued by the petitioners on 1st June 2017 calling for stoppage of construction and development of the land as a park. When no relief followed, the present writ petition was filed.

The petitioners argued that MCD had willfully disregarded the undertaking given before the Civil Court. They claimed their rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution were violated due to obstruction of air, light, and open surroundings. They maintained that the land had never been formally sanctioned for school use and sought a direction to remove the boundary wall and landscape the site.

The respondents contested maintainability, arguing the petition was in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation and barred by laches. They stated that the land was vested in the MCD and allotted to its Education Department on 21st May 1969. It was submitted that the school had been running on the plot for decades, originally from tents and sheds, and later from a permanent building completed in 2015. The remaining portion of 2898 square yards was retained as playground. They further submitted that the layout plan had been amended to show the land as earmarked for school through Standing Committee Resolution No. 1485 dated 30th November 1988, and later reaffirmed by Resolution No. 33 dated 19th August 2020. The respondents argued that the 2011 file noting relied upon by the petitioners was only a proposal never approved by competent authorities, and hence created no enforceable rights.

Interim orders were passed by the High Court in November and December 2017 to maintain status quo. However, it was subsequently recorded that the boundary wall and gates had already been constructed. The Court also noted the existence of Shalimar Garden, a 100-acre public park, within 30 meters of the site, and other parks in the vicinity.

Justice Pushkarna examined statutory provisions under Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the Master Plan of Delhi 2021. The Court recorded: “A layout plan would indicate the ‘Use Premises’ showcasing the ‘Use Zone’ of an area, which specifies its land use for a specific purpose, as marked in a layout plan.” The Court further stated: “Amendment in the layout plan to show the use of the land in question, in conformity with its actual land use, is in accordance with law.”

The Court observed that the Standing Committee of the MCD has the authority to sanction and amend layout plans and that such modifications are valid so long as they conform to the Master Plan. It was noted: “A layout plan can be amended and modified, as long as the said amended and modified layout plan is in conformity with the Master Plan.” Citing judicial precedents, the Court recorded: “So long as the layout plan conforms to Master Plan norms, Court cannot substitute its own opinion as to what principle or policy would best serve the object of the Master Plan.”

With respect to the petitioners’ reliance on the 2011 compromise, the Court stated: “Any statement by any officer made without any authority cannot be considered to be the stance or decision of the MCD, so as to bind the MCD.” It was further observed: “A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government.”

On the necessity of a playground, the Court stated: “The necessity of a playground for use of the school children cannot be underscored, as the same is an essential and fundamental requirement for overall growth of the children. Taking part in sports activities is an integral part of education, which cannot be overlooked.”

Also Read: Orissa High Court | Lessee Becomes Owner of Structures Built on Leased Land | Lessor’s Claim Over Tower Rejected Under Transfer of Property Act

The Court concluded that the petitioners had no vested right to claim the land as an ornamental park, noting: “This Court finds no justification in the prayer of the petitioners to use the parcel of land meant for ‘playground’ for school students of MCD school, as an ‘ornamental park’ for the public.”

In the concluding part of the judgment, Justice Mini Pushkarna recorded: “Considering the detailed discussion hereinabove, no merit is found in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with the pending application, is dismissed.” The Court categorically dismissed the petitioners’ claims, holding that there was no error in the decision of the MCD. It recorded that the petitioners could not establish any legal or vested right over the use of the land as an ornamental park. The Court held that the MCD’s use of the land as a school playground was justified and indispensable for the welfare of school children.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rana Ranjeet Singh, Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Mr. Aditya Shekhar, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Mr. Ravish Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Avni Singh, PC with Ms. Prapti; Mr. Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel MCD along with Ms. Dimple Aggarwal and Mr. Himanshu Goel, Advocates for the Respondent MCD

Case Title: Mohit Goel and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6992
Case Number: W.P.(C) 6416/2017 & CM APPL. 26577/2017
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna