Full Judgment
of status quo given already will continue in the meanwhile.' On behalf of the respondents it is stated that in some of the matters possession has already been taken over by them which is, of course, naturally denied by the petitioners. Without entering into this controversy, we are only directing the status quo as obtaining between the parties regarding possession to continue in the meanwhile. Liberty is, however, given to the parties to move this Court if circumstances so warrant.'
(16) PHOTO-COPY of this order was filed by the plaintiffs in Suit Nos.101of 1993. 103/93, 104/93 who are claiming to be in actual physical possession of the said land and who have filed the photo copy of the aforesaid order in C.W. 701 /81 in which defendant Dda was restrained from taking possession and this Court ordered for maintain status quo, claimed to have transferred their lands measuring approximately 1250 sq.yds. on monthly tenancy in 1991 or in 1992. In Suit No.104/93 in the year 1989 under agreement dated 1.7.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.3500.00 for carrying on business of storage, sale and supply of marbles and other stones and allied items as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint. How the land which is under dispute and the possession of the plaintiffs was only on account of the stay order granted by this Court, in view of the specific order of maintaining status quo, how and why the land has been transferred on lease or otherwise. In one of the suits being Suit No.105/93 the plaintiff has filed a document purporting to be the sale deed executed by Madan Lal Mittal, Bhim Sain Mittal, Bhagirath Lal Mittal, Co bind Lal Mittal and Smt. Maya Devi in favor of Praveen Kumar Jaju who is plaintiff in the Suit. It is interesting to read the sale agreement at page 3 of the sale deed. The land which has been sold .has been described as 'agricultural land' and in para 8 of the' said sale-deed it has been specifically stated that the said land is agricultural (and and shall be used for agricultural purposes. Plaintiff no.1 has purchased the land which is agricultural and has stated so in the sale deed that the said land will be used for agriculture purposes. However, in the plaint plaintiff no.1 has stated that he had given this land approximately l000 sq. yds. on 21.10.1992 to plaintiff no.2 Ashok Kumar Jaju. Plaintiff no.1 was aware that land is an agriculture one, how and why he entered into a rent agreement for non-agriculture purpose and if he has entered for non agriculture purpose and some authority established under law challenges or intends to initiate an action for the use of such land which is being used in violation of the statutory provisions whether court should grant injunction in such cases. Conscious of the fact that any expression of opinion would effect the trial of the case I am only concerned with prima.facie view keeping in view the pleadings and documents before me to answer this question and nothing said will be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. In any case at this stage I have to see whether property of the plaintiffs is in danger of bring wasted or not. Learned counsel for Dda has made a statement that plaintiffs shall be dispossessed from their land in question only in accordance with law. Whether staking of marble carrying on activities of commercial nature on agricultural land which plaintiffs knowingly are carrying on in derogation of Master Plan and land use cannot be allowed to by this Court under Order 39 Rule 1. There is no force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendants at best for using the disputed land for a purpose other than what has been provided in the Master Plan, can take recourse only to the provisions regarding prosecution and penalty as provided under the Act. If this argument is taken to its logical conclusion it would amount to making the provision of the Master Plan and Section 14 of the Act. redundant as in no case the defendants would be in a position to slop the misuse because this interpretation would lead to allow the misuse to continue except to file prosecution in a court of law. The intention of the Parliament was not to make defendants a toothless authority and a silent spectator to witness activities in areas not conforming to the land use as provided in the Master Plan.
(17) Even otherwise, I must point out that Parliament enacted the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and under the provisions of this Act Master Plan of 2001 was approved by the Central Government. Ministry of Urban Development vide its notification issued on 1.8.1990 in the preamble of the Master Plan for Delhi 21)01 in para 2 has shown the land in dispute on the Southern Ridge. It has been stated :-
'ECOLOGICALBALANCE To Be MAINTAINED. Delhi Has Two Distinct Natural FEATURES- The Ridge Which Is The Rocky Outcrop Of Aravali Hills And The River YAMUNA. Some Parts Of The Ridge Have Been Erased In The Central City AREA. No Further Infringements Of The Ridge Is To Be PERMITTED; It Should Be Maintained In Its Pristine GLORY.'
At page 140 of the aforesaid notification it has been mentioned as follows :-
'NATURAL Features Conversation of major natural features in a settlement is of almost importance to sustain the natural eco-system. Two major natural features in Delhi are the Ridge and the Yamuna River. Ridge in Delhi is declined as rocky out-crop of Aravali ranges stretching from the University in the North of the union Territory boundary to the South and beyond. The Central ridge area which is part of New Delhio, was planned as its integral part at the time of development of New Delhi Capital. This area was left in its pristine glory by planting only with the indigenous species of trees like kikar and babul. The plan in 1962 identimed, a future stretch of south central ridge near Mehrauli. Though parts of ridge in Delhi have been erased out, total ridge area now available is 7,777 hectares approx. divided as follows : Northern Ridge 87ha. Central Ridge . 854 ha. South Central Ridge (Mehrauli) 626 ha. Southern Ridge 6200 ha. The ridge thus identified should be conserved with utmost care and should be afforested with indigenous species with minimum of artificial landscape.'
(18) In the back-drop of the intention of the legislature which is manifest from the adoption of Master Plan for Delhi 2001 admittedly the area in dispute as per the Master Plan 2001 falls in recreational /,one of which the land use is Regional Park and District Park as defined in Master Plan at page 154 paragraphs P-1 and P-2. A notification declaring the area in dispute measuring 2100 acres the boundary of which has been shown in the notification issued in 1973 pursuant to which a plan as referred to above had been prepared in the year 1969 showing the land in dispute falling in Zone F-15 in the Master Plan 1962 which is zone 'J' in the Master Plan of 2001, in view of these facts prima facie no injunction can be granted in relation to the said land allowing the plaintiff to continue to carry on its activity inconsistent with the provisions of Master Plan, and land use mentioned in the said plan. If injunction is granted that will make Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act nugatory which prohibits that no person shall use or permit to be used any land or building in a Zone otherwise then in confirmedly with such plan. Plaintiffs have failed to establish that any property is in danger of being wasted. In view of these conclusions, I would not go into the controversy as raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs regarding the meaning and scope of building in relation to the judgment cited before me in case of Rohit Talwar & Others. (supra) and other arguments.
(19) In view of above discussion, I hold that plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case in their favor. Keeping in view the tremendous growth of Delhi as a mag metropolis, paucity of land, heavy pressure on infra-structural civic facilities, over- crowding, conjested, heavy load of traffic on the roads it is high time when the law enforcing agencies as well as citizens should make a concerted effort to make Delhi a city with less pollution, if not totally free from pollution and preserve its natural habitat and ecology and Court cannot come in aid of a party to thwart the powers of statutory authority like defendants in achieving these objects. Learned counsel for the defendant, during the course of arguments, has made a statement that plaintiffs shall not be dispossessed from the land in question except in accordance with law. In view of above discussion, I hold that plaintiffs have failed to establish prima facie case in their favor. Other prayers of the applicants except regarding possession, in view of the above observations, are untenable and the same are dismissed. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(20) Let the parties appear before the Joint Registrar on 14th September, 1994 for admission and/or denial of documents and after the needful is done, the matter be listed before Court for framing of issues.