- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Delhi Development Authority v. Kenneth Builders Private Limited And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute concerns two parcels of land in Khasra Nos. 444 and 445 (14.3 hectares) in Delhi that were shown as “gair mumkin pahar” in the revenue records. In earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court (Writ Petition (C) No. 10647 of 2009, Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.), questions arose whether this land formed part of the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge. The present order is issued after the Supreme Court heard counsel and examined correspondence from the Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 3-12-2009, which recommended treating the land as ridge. Conflicting affidavits have also been filed regarding a meeting allegedly held at “Raj Niwas” on 23-6-2009. The Court now seeks clarification from multiple agencies before proceeding further.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the land in Khasra Nos. 444 and 445 should legally be classified as part of the Delhi Ridge.
- Which of the two conflicting affidavits—one by Ms. Swati Sharma (Additional Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor) and the other by Mr. Prabhat Tyagi (then Deputy Conservator of Forests)—accurately represents events of 23-6-2009.
- Whether construction of a residential colony on the disputed land would violate provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985 (Supreme Court proceedings concerning the Delhi Ridge) | Protection and conservation of the Delhi Ridge; criteria for classifying land as “ridge.” | The Court noted that orders in this long-running matter guide how land within Delhi should be identified as ridge and relied on this background in deciding to obtain an expert opinion. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (origin of the Central Empowered Committee) | Creation of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to assist the Supreme Court in forest-related matters. | The Court invoked the CEC’s mandate from the Godavarman case and referred the present dispute to it for an expert report. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the record lacked “clarity” on whether the land forms part of the Delhi Ridge. Although the Ministry of Environment and Forests had expressed the view that the land should be treated as ridge, the Court felt an independent, authoritative assessment was necessary. Accordingly, it invoked the expertise of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) created in the Godavarman litigation to provide an opinion, requesting a report before 24-11-2015.
Regarding procedural inconsistencies, the Court noted a direct conflict between Ms. Swati Sharma’s affidavit (denying any meeting on 23-6-2009) and Mr. Prabhat Tyagi’s affidavit (asserting such a meeting occurred and decisions were made). To resolve this, Mr. Tyagi was ordered to file a further affidavit explaining the basis for his earlier statement.
Finally, because the proposed development might raise statutory pollution issues, the Court sought a categorical affidavit from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) on potential violations of the Air Act, 1981 and the Water Act, 1974.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The Court referred the land-classification question to the Central Empowered Committee, directed Mr. Prabhat Tyagi to clarify his affidavit, instructed the DPCC to report on statutory compliance issues, and listed the matter for 24-11-2015.
Implications: The order does not finally decide the status of the land but initiates fact-finding that will directly affect whether development can proceed. No new legal precedent is set, but the involvement of the CEC underscores the Court’s reliance on expert bodies in environmental disputes.
Order
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties for quite some time. Our attention has been drawn to the Letter dated 3-12-2009 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Forest Protection Division), Government of India to the Additional Solicitor General, Delhi High Court, Delhi. In the letter, it is stated that the opinion of the Ministry of Environment and Forests with regard to the land [subject-matter of a writ petition filed in Kenneth Builders and Developers Ltd. v. Union of India, in the Delhi High Court being Writ Petition (C) No. 10647 of 2009] is as follows:
“Keeping in view the purely legalistic position taken by DDA and exercise undertaken for identification of ridge, based upon one or more criterion decided by NCT of Delhi, as relevant for classification of any land as “ridge” in Delhi, the said piece of land measuring 14.3 ha falling in Khasra Nos. 444 and 445 reflected as “gair mumkin pahar” in revenue land, needs to be considered as ridge in accordance to the spirit of various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985, morphological features and revenue records. The Hon'ble Apex Court is still looking into various aspects of protection and conservation of Delhi Ridge, in WP (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 from time to time. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, if deemed appropriate, the opinion of the Central Empowered Committee, set up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by, may be taken.”
2. Since there is no clarity on the question whether the land in Khasra Nos. 444 and 445, which was the subject-matter of dispute in the Delhi High Court and subject-matter of dispute before us, falls in the ridge or not, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate if the opinion of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) set up by this Court in Godavarman case should be obtained. Under the circumstances, we refer the matter to CEC to give us an opinion in this regard at the earliest. CEC is requested to give a report, as mentioned above, preferably before 24-11-2015 with a copy to the learned counsel for the parties.
3. We have also gone through the affidavit filed by Ms Swati Sharma working as Additional Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor. It is categorically stated that neither any meeting related to this case was held in Raj Niwas on 23-6-2009 nor was there any official engagement relating to this case.
4. In an affidavit dated 5-10-2009 filed by Mr Prabhat Tyagi, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests (South) in the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 10647 of 2009, it is clearly mentioned in Para 14 that a decision was taken in a meeting held at Raj Niwas on 23-6-2009 that the whole issue with regard to the land in question should be referred to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India which has already accorded environmental clearance to the project for consideration. The decision of the Ministry shall be final and binding upon both the Department of Environment and Forests and the Delhi Development Authority.
5. The affidavit of Mr Prabhat Tyagi, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests is in direct conflict with the affidavit filed by Ms Swati Sharma, Additional Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor. Therefore, we direct Mr Tyagi to file an affidavit explaining on what basis the statement, as mentioned in Para 14 of the affidavit, was made. The affidavit be filed by Mr Tyagi within a period of four weeks from today.
6. In the meanwhile, we also direct the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to tell us categorically whether the coming up of a residential colony in the land in question would be in violation of any of the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The affidavit be filed by DPCC within a period of four weeks from today
7. List the matters on 24-11-2015.
Court Masters
Alert