# D.D.A v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 12 S.C.R. 163
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-07-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.4866-4867 of 2009
- **Bench:** K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, Dr. B.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-d-a-v-rajendra-singh-ors-25011
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

+-
Constitution of India, 1950:
c
Articles 32 and 226 - Writ petitions filed before High
Court under public interest litigation - Ongoing constructions
at the site of Commonwealth Games Village questioned on
the ground that the same would adversely affect ecological
integrity of the 'riverbed' and cause irreversible damage to
D
"floodplain" of river Yamuna - Direction by High Court to set
.>
μp a Committee to monitor the constructions carried out by
IDMRC - HELD: A P/L filed under Article 32 or 226 after
inordinate delay and without reasonable explanation therefor
is liable to be summarily dismissed - In the instant case,
E
Notification for change of land use was published in 1999 and
proposal for the site for CGV was published in 2003 -
Considering the reports of NEER/ and CWPRS that the site
~
in question did not fall within 'riverbed' or 'floodplain' the same
was chosen for CGV - Besides, when a High Powered
F
Committee in association with a renowned environmentalist
was monitoring the entire work, High Court was not justified
in entertaining the writ petitions and issuing the direction -
Judgment of High Court set aside - Environmental Law -
Public Interest Litigation - Delhi Development Act, 1957.
G
..
Article .141 - Law declared by Supreme Court to be
binding on all courts - Decision of Supreme Court in relation
to Akshardham Temple held by High Court as not binding!
163
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A applicable in considering CGV site - HELD: CGV site being
adjacent to Akshardham Temple, the decision of Supreme
Court in the said case has bearing on the issue and is a
binding precedent for all purposes - Precedent.
B
Words and Phrases:
Expressions 'floodplain' and 'riverbed' - Connotation of
Pursuant to the decision taken by Commonwealth
Games Federation on 13th September, 2003 to hold XIX
C Commonwealth Games-2010 in Delhi, Commonwealth
Games Village site was proposed to be located adjacent
to Akshardham Temple in Delhi. Two writ petitions were
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as
publi~ interest litigation, before the High Court in the year
D 2007 challenging the steps taken by the governmental
agencies on the ground that the ongoing constructions
on the site would affect the ecological integrity of the
"riverbed" besides causing irreversible damage to the
"floodplain". The
High
Court castigating the
E Governmental agencies, directed that the committee
under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.K. Pachauri, to be
constituted by the Government to examine and monitor
the construction carried out by DMRC. The governmental
agencies filed appeals challenging the directions issued
F by the High Court whereas the two writ petitioners filed
appeals as the High Court declined to stay the ongoing
constructions.
Allowing the appeals of the governmental agencies
G and dismissing those of the two writ petitioners, the
Court:
HELD: 1.1. A PIL filed under Article 32 or Article 226
or of the Constitution of India after inordinate delay and
without reasonable explanation, challenging a project
H
..
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
165
after commencement of its execution, is liable to be
A
...
summarily dismissed. In the case on hand, it is not in
-
. l
dispute that both the petitioners approached the High
Court only in the middle of 2007. Therefore, on the
ground of delay and laches, the writ petitions were liable
-
to be dismissed. Though an objection was raised by all
B
the official respondents before the High Court about the
inordinate delay in filing of the writ petitions, the said
aspect was not either adverted to or considered by it.
[Para 26 and 28] (198-G-H]
;-
c
Narmada Bachao Ando/an vs. Union of India (2000) 10
sec 664, relied on.
1.2. The Notification dated 21.09.1999 for change of
land use was published iri the Gazette of the Government D
of India. The site in question for the construction of
_j
Commonwealth Games Village had been chosen and
twidely published way back in the year 2003 itself. The
D

## Text

_Characters 0–39,836 of 67,442. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39836 for what follows._

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 163
D.D.A.
A
...
i
v.
RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.4866-4867 of 2009)
JULY 30, 2009
8
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND DR.
B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
+-
Constitution of India, 1950:
c
Articles 32 and 226 - Writ petitions filed before High
Court under public interest litigation - Ongoing constructions
at the site of Commonwealth Games Village questioned on
the ground that the same would adversely affect ecological
integrity of the 'riverbed' and cause irreversible damage to
D
"floodplain" of river Yamuna - Direction by High Court to set
.>
μp a Committee to monitor the constructions carried out by
IDMRC - HELD: A P/L filed under Article 32 or 226 after
inordinate delay and without reasonable explanation therefor
is liable to be summarily dismissed - In the instant case,
E
Notification for change of land use was published in 1999 and
proposal for the site for CGV was published in 2003 -
Considering the reports of NEER/ and CWPRS that the site
~
in question did not fall within 'riverbed' or 'floodplain' the same
was chosen for CGV - Besides, when a High Powered
F
Committee in association with a renowned environmentalist
was monitoring the entire work, High Court was not justified
in entertaining the writ petitions and issuing the direction -
Judgment of High Court set aside - Environmental Law -
Public Interest Litigation - Delhi Development Act, 1957.
G
..
Article .141 - Law declared by Supreme Court to be
binding on all courts - Decision of Supreme Court in relation
to Akshardham Temple held by High Court as not binding!
163
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A applicable in considering CGV site - HELD: CGV site being
adjacent to Akshardham Temple, the decision of Supreme
Court in the said case has bearing on the issue and is a
binding precedent for all purposes - Precedent.
B
Words and Phrases:
Expressions 'floodplain' and 'riverbed' - Connotation of
Pursuant to the decision taken by Commonwealth
Games Federation on 13th September, 2003 to hold XIX
C Commonwealth Games-2010 in Delhi, Commonwealth
Games Village site was proposed to be located adjacent
to Akshardham Temple in Delhi. Two writ petitions were
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as
publi~ interest litigation, before the High Court in the year
D 2007 challenging the steps taken by the governmental
agencies on the ground that the ongoing constructions
on the site would affect the ecological integrity of the
"riverbed" besides causing irreversible damage to the
"floodplain". The
High
Court castigating the
E Governmental agencies, directed that the committee
under the Chairmanship of Dr. R.K. Pachauri, to be
constituted by the Government to examine and monitor
the construction carried out by DMRC. The governmental
agencies filed appeals challenging the directions issued
F by the High Court whereas the two writ petitioners filed
appeals as the High Court declined to stay the ongoing
constructions.
Allowing the appeals of the governmental agencies
G and dismissing those of the two writ petitioners, the
Court:
HELD: 1.1. A PIL filed under Article 32 or Article 226
or of the Constitution of India after inordinate delay and
without reasonable explanation, challenging a project
H
..
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
165
after commencement of its execution, is liable to be
A
...
summarily dismissed. In the case on hand, it is not in
-
. l
dispute that both the petitioners approached the High
Court only in the middle of 2007. Therefore, on the
ground of delay and laches, the writ petitions were liable
-
to be dismissed. Though an objection was raised by all
B
the official respondents before the High Court about the
inordinate delay in filing of the writ petitions, the said
aspect was not either adverted to or considered by it.
[Para 26 and 28] (198-G-H]
;-
c
Narmada Bachao Ando/an vs. Union of India (2000) 10
sec 664, relied on.
1.2. The Notification dated 21.09.1999 for change of
land use was published iri the Gazette of the Government D
of India. The site in question for the construction of
_j
Commonwealth Games Village had been chosen and
twidely published way back in the year 2003 itself. The
Department also issued a Global Tender process for
Public Private Partnership participation in the residential
E
portion of the Commonwealth Games project which was
floated in December 2006 and was completed in June
2007. Apart from these materials, it was also highlighted
before the High Court as well as before this Court that
J._
Environmental Clearance was granted on 14.12.2006
permitting permanent structures on the site. It was
F
highlighted that in the light of the suggestions of Ministry
of Environment and Forests, studies were carried out and
after completion of such studies permanent structures
-·
were permitted to be constructed on the site in April 2007.
The High Court has lost sight with regard to these material
G
aspects. The High Court, therefore, in the absence of
proper explanation, ought not to have probed the matter
at this juncture. [Para 26 and 28) (199-8-F; 201-A-B]
2.1. After due deliberations by the ODA with other
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 12 S.C.R.
A departments including the Yamuna Committee and
pursuant to the elaborate discussion on 10.11.1997 itself,
35 hectares of land were recommended for change of
land use and the same was approved (Pocket-Ill) on
21.09.1999 for "public and semi-public purpose". [Para
B 28] [201-D-F]
-
2.2. Before change of the land use, the authority
concerned issued public notice, heard objections/
suggestions and in consultation with expert bodies such
as NEERI, CWPRS and MoEF, approved the said
"'
c proposal and permitted the ODA to use the area covered
under Pocket- Ill for "public and semi-public purpose".
[Para 28] [201-F-G]
D
2.3. The materials on record clearly show that, at
every stage, ecological integrity of the river, the concept
of "riverbed", "floodplain" and "river zone" were duly
i
considered. It also reveals that the expert bodies like
•
NEERI and CWPRS were duly consulted and based on
E
their expert opinion the land under Pocket Ill alone was
reclassified and Master Plan Delhi 2001 was also suitably
amended. [Para 18] [187-F-H]
2.4. In view of the literal meaning and in the light of
the clarification by NEERI in their affidavit dated
-4
F 29.01.2008, the site in question is neither a "floodplain"
nor a "riverbed". [Para 24) [197-D]
2.5. A conjoint reading of NEERI reports 1999, 2005
and January, 2008 coupled with affidavit dated 29.01.2008
.~
G clearly shows that the CGV site is not either on a
"riverbed" or on the "floodplain" of the Yamuna river. It
is brought to the notice of the Court that during the
'
course of hearing NEERI filed before the High Court an
affidavit dated 29.01.2008 wherein it clarified the entire
H aspects and asserted that the site in question is not even
j
...
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
167
"floodplain" much less a "riverbed". It is also pointed out A
in its report that 85% of the land at the site in question is
()eing used for recreational purposes and 15% for
development purposes (including residential and
commercial). The High Court, therefore, is not justified.in
making comments on the NEERI Report presented in
B
January 2008. [Para 22-23 and 28] (196-A-C; 201-8-C]
Thames Conservators Case [1897] 2 QB 335, referred
to.
The Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition Pg 154; C
Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer's , Volume
4, 2005 Edition Pg. 4157; and Fredd Michaels, 'Dictionary
of Environment Studies'- referred to.
2.~. Th~ 9~§ervation ~md ~gnclusion of the High
D
CPYrt that tJi~ §jJ~ in ques~jgn is cm a "riverbed!! cannot
b!il !5Y§t~inei:f, Th~ High Court disregarded and ignored
material $Cientifi~ lit@rnt1.1rn ~n~ the ~minion of experts and
scientific; be>diei;; whi~I'! h<lV@ i::~teQ9riscilly h~ld that the
CGV site is neither h>c<lt!il~ ,:m ~ "river!>~cl'' nor on the
E
"floodplain". Further, in view of the change of the land
use which wa!i approved way back in 1997 by the
Yamuna Committee and by NEERI permitting the DOA to
use Pocket-Ill for ''public and semi-public purpose", the
contrary conclusion arrived at by the High Court is liable
F
to be set aside. [Para 28) [201-H; 202-A-C]
2.7. The decision of expert and autonomous body,
namely, NEERI, supported by materials placed by other
bodies such as CWPRS and MoEF, cannot be lightly G
interfered with by the Court without adequate contra
materials. [Para 28] (201-C-D]
3.1. It is not in dispute that the CGV site is situated
adjoining to Akshardham Temple. When land was allotted
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A for construction of Akshardham Temple, a writ petition
was filed before this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, challenging allotment of the said
land to Akshardham on the ground that the same would
adversely affect recharging of underground water and
B that the allotment was contrary to the land user as
declared in the development plan. On behalf of the ODA,
it was stated that the proposed construction being nearly
1700 metres away from the Yamuna River bank was
permitted after obtaining the opinion of the Central Water
c Commission and NEERI and was in accordance with the
sanctioned plan. This Court dismissed the writ petition.
The CGV site in question and the site allotted for
Akshardham Temple form part of the same area and both
are adjacent to each other. In the light of the reasoned
0 order by this Court, it is unfortunate that the High Court
has commented that the said decision is not a binding
decision and not applicable to the case on hand. The
said observation of the High Court cannot be sustained.
Inasmuch as the Akshardham Temple site is adjacent to
E CGV site, the decision of this Court in regard to
Akshardham Temple has bearing on the issue and is a
binding precedent for all purposes. [Para 25, 27 and 28)
[197-F-G; 200-C-E; 202-C]
3.2. A High-Powered Committee for Yamuna River
F Development Authority was constituted by the Prime
Minister of India consisting of the Lt. Governor,
Government of NCT as Chairperson, with Chief Minister
of Delhi as Vice-chairperson and other Members
representing various departments, to go into the aspects
G of development of the river, ecology, environmental
pollution, sustainable use of river front and quality of
water in the Yamuna river. Since the said Committee in
association with Dr.R.K. Pachauri is monitoring the
ongoing construction of CGV, the direction of the High
H Court for appointment of a fresh Committee to examine
I , -
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
169
f.
and monitor the construction carried out by DMRC is set
A
~ . \
aside. [Para 22] [195-D-H]
/
/ .,
4. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The
DOA and other authorities are free to proceed with the
work at CGV site. [Para 28] [202-F-G]
B
Case Law Reference:
[1897] 2 QB 335
referred to
para 24
t-
(2000) 10 sec 664
relied on
para 26
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
4866-67 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.11.2008 of the High
D
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7506 of
. .i
2007 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6729 of 2007.
,.
WITH
C.A. No. 4868, 4'369, 4870-71, 4872-73, 4874, 4875-4876 of
E
2009.
G.E. Vahanvati, Attorney Genl. for India, Gopal
J-..
Subramanium, Sol. Genl. of India, Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, T.
· Andhyarujina, Sameer Parekh, Devdutt Kamat, Arjun Garg,
F
' Yashodara Anant, Smita Bhargava, (for M/s. Parekh & Co.),
Aman Ahluwalia, Binu Tamta, Sushma Suri, Sanjay Sharawat,
Abhishek Tewari, S.N. Terdal, Neeraj S.harma, Roopali Singh,
Archana Lakhatia (for Mis. Dua Associates), Kunal Bahri,
Sanjay Parikh, Jitin Sahni, Ritwick Dutta, A.N. Singh, Mamta
G
Saxena, Anitha Shenoy, Tarun Johri, N. Waziri, Rajiv Nanda,
...
.M.L. Lahoty, Sanjay Sharawat, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B.
Saharya (for Mis. Saharya & Co.), Arijit Prasad, D.S. Mahra
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. All these special leave petitions
are directed against the common judgment and order dated
03.11.2008 of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) Nos. 6729
& 7506 of 2007 which, inter alia, issued certain directions for
setting up of a Committee to enquire as to whether the
B Commonwealth Games Village (CGV) site complex is situated
on the Yamuna "riverbed" or "floodplain" and further observed
that any construction made or third party rights created are at
the peril and risk of the Organisers/Government. Aggrieved by
the said judgment, Delhi Development Authority (in short "ODA")
c has filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 29055-29056 of 200;: Ministry of
Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation has filed S.L.P.(C)
No. 30075 of 2008 and Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has
filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4408-4409 of 2009 as well as S.L.P .(C)
Nos. 6029-6030 of 2009 and Organizing Committee,
D Commonwealth Games has filed S.L.P .(C) Nos. 31123-31124
of 2008. Vined Kumar Jain, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6729 of
2007 before the High Court of Delhi, has filed S.L.P.(C) No.
30112 of 2008 arid Rajendra Singh & Ors petitioners in W.P.(C)
No. 7506 of 2007 before the High Court have filed S.L.P.(C)
E No. 6256 of 2009 praying for stopping all construction activities
on the riverbed of Yamuna other than CGV site and Delhi Metro
Rail Corporation. Since all the special leave petitions arise from
the common judgment, all are being disposed of by the following
judgment.
F
2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
3. Brief Facts:
Vined Kumar Jain and Rajendra Singh and Others claiming as
G environmentalists approached the High Court of Delhi by filing
W.P.(C) Nos. 6729 and 7506 of 2007 for the following reliefs:
H
"(a)
Directing the respondents to remove any
construction, fill up, digging etc. made so far and
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
171
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
restore the ecology of Yamuna river bed.
A
""\
(b)
Declaring the Yamuna riverbed in Delhi as an
ecologically sensitive area and hence to be
protected and preserved.
(c)
Directing that any construction in the Yamuna river
B
bed will permanently destroy the ecology of river
Yamuna; its ground water recharge ability and will
be violative of public trust doctrine, precautionary
lprinciple which are part of Article 21 of the
Constitution.
c
(d)
Directing that the respondents should locate an
alternative site for the project(s) as pointed out in
the EAC recommendations dated 03.11.2006.
D
(e)
Setting aside of EC dated 14.12.2006 as being
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
"-
(f)
Setting aside of EC dated 22.01.07; 29.03.07; and
02.04.07 as being arbitrary, whimsical, mala fide
E
and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
i
Constitution.
'
.....
(g)
Directing the respondents to restore the ecology of
river Yamuna in accordance with the "Polluters pay
F
Principle".
(h)
Pass any such other order as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
G
"'
""'·
4. On 13.09.2003, Commonwealth Games Federation
selected Delhi as the venue for Commonwealth Games
scheduled to be held from 3rd to 14th October, 2010. After due
deliberations, XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 are being
hosted in Delhi pursuant to a commitment made by the Indian . H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A Olympic Association in the form of an agreement in which it
agreed to host the games in India with the approved standards
and requirements of the Commonwealth Games Federation.
Complaining that the Governmental agencies and the DOA are
effecting various steps including massive construction on the
B periphery of Yamuna river, apprehending that the action being
taken would not only destroy the river Yamuna but also pose
severe threat to the Delhi city as well and in order to stop the
entire proceedings, the said petitioners moved the High Court
of Delhi. The main claim of the petitioners before the High Court
c was to the effect that the ongoing construction would affect the
ecological integrity of the "riverbed" besides causing
irreversible damage to the "floodplain".
5. Refuting the apprehensions and the allegations of the
0 public interest litigants, the Respondents therein i.e. the Central
Government authorities - Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Ministry of Urban
Development and Poverty Alleviation, Government of Delhi and
DOA filed separate counter affidavits extensively dealing with
E all the subjects including the apprehension about the alleged
damage to the ecology of the Yamuna riverbed, floodplain and
other environmental hazards. Apart from highlighting these
aspects, they also placed various reports from specialized
agencies like Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), National Environmental
F Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and Central Water
Power Research Station (CWPRS).
6. The Government Departments in addition to clearing the
apprehension about damage to Yamuna 'riverbed' and
G 'floodplain', also highlighted that the writ petitions are to be
dismissed on the ground of delay/laches. They also pointed out
that when the change of "category" was published by way of
public notice, though certain general objections were raised,
no specific objection was raised by anyone much less by the
H petitioners about the Yamuna riverbed or floodplain. With
,.,
I
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
173
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
handful of materials, both the writ petitioners and the official
A
'\"
respondents highlighted their case before the High Court. The
Division Bench, by the impugned order dated 03.11.2008,
though refused to interfere with the project in question,
however, directed that the Committee under the Chairmanship
of Dr. R.K. Pachauri, which is to be constituted by the
8
Government, is to examine and monitor the construction carried
out by the DMRC. Apart from the said direction, on the same
day, one of the Judges i.e. Rekha Sharma, J. while agreeing
i---
with the judgment prepared by A.K. Sikri, J. issued further
directions castigating the Government and made serious
C
insinuation against their officers. After those directions
propounded by Rekha Sharma, J., the other learned Judge,
A.K. Sikri, J. approved the same by treating those directions
and observations as "pbst script" and held that the directions
issued by Rekha Sharma, J. would be deemed as directions o
of the Bench. Aggrieved by the conclusion and ultimate
. -'
directions, D.D.A., Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty
' Alleviation, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and Organizing
Committee, Commonwealth Games filed the above appeals by
way of special leave petitions. Dissatisfied with the conclusion
E
of the Division Bench for not directing stay of the execution of
any proposal or any fresh construction except Commonwealth
Games Village and Metro Station contemplated on the river
;. floodplain till the appropriate authority is constituted for
regulating the floodplain, the writ petitioners have filed appeals
F
by way of special leave petitions.
7. Heard Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General for
India, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Solicitor General of
India, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General
G
of India and Mr. T. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel for
~ Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, M/s. Sanjay Parikh and M.L.
Lahoty, learned counsel for the contesting respondents in the
appeals filed by the Government and for the appellants in Civil
Appeals @ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 30112/08 and 6256/09.
H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 12 S.C.R.
A CONTENTIONS BY BOTH SIDES:
8
c
D
E
F
G
8. The main contentions raised by Mr. G.E. Vahanvati,
learned Attorney General for India and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam,
learned Solicitor General of India are as follows:-
(i)
Commonwealth Games Village (CGV) site was not
situated either on a "riverbed" or on the "floodplain"
of the Yamuna River.
(ii)
Before proceeding with the formation of
Commonwealth Games Village, NEERI reports of
1999 and 2005 were duly considered. NEERI, which
is an expert and autonomous body, in its report of
January 2008, categorically observed that site in
question was not a "floodplain" or "riverbed".
(iii)
Remedial measures suggested by Central Water
Power Research Station (CWPRS) had been
,
accepted by the Government and being carried out.
(iv)
Commonwealth Games Village is located in
Pocket Ill which is beyond the embankment. This
Court, even in 2005, approved the construction of
Akshardham Temple which is 1.7 Km. away from
the river Yamuna in Pocket Ill area which is abutting
the present site of construction.
(v)
Based on the report of NEERI, change of land
measuring 42.5 hectares in Pocket Ill was notified
on 21.09.1999 and the petitioners have filed the
Writ Petitions only in 2007. Hence, the same are
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay/
!aches.
9. In addition to the above submissions, Mr. Parag P.
Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr.
H T. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel for the Sports Authority
'
I
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
175
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
highlighted that at each level Ministry of Environment and Forest
A
-\.
71
(MoEF) discussed with the environmental authorities and there
is no deviation or violation of the Masterplan or any other rules
relating to ecology and environment, more particularly, in relation
to river Yamuna.
B
10. M/s. Sanjay Parikh and M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents herein/petitioners
before the High Court submitted that NEER! reports in 1999
and 2005 does not permit the Government to proceed with any
~
construction in the Commonwealth Games Village site and the c
subsequent report in 2008 was not acceptable in view of its
earlier decision. They also submitted that inasmuch as the city
of Delhi is wholly depending on Yamuna River, its "riverbed" and
"floodplains" have to be protected. They further highlighted that
the site selected for Commonwealth Games Village falls within
D
the river zone wherein the construction activities cannot be
J
carried out without looking into the matter and evaluation by
I,
experts like Dr. R.K. Pachauri, as directed by the High Court.
They finally submitted that though they are not opposing the
Commonwealth Games, they are more concerned about the
E
ecology and environment of the people of Delhi. With regard
to the Akshardham Temple and the order of this Court in 2005,
it is stated that no elaborate study was conducted by any of the
)-
specialized agencies, hence, the said decision is not a binding
precedent.
F
11. We considered the relevant materials, NEERI reports
..
of 1999, 2005 and 2008, remedial measures suggested by
CWPRS, MoEF and other specialized bodies as well as the
rival contentions raised by either side.
G
A
12. Development Plan in Yamuna River Stretch:
(a)
From the materials placed by various specialized
bodies we gather that the river Yamuna is an
important natural feature of NCT, Delhi and a source
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
of major water supply to the city. It draws its water
from the upper reach of Yamunotri glacier and
~ '
traverses a distance of about 400 Km before joining
river Ganga at Allahabad. The river Yamuna in
NCT, Delhi cuts through the city from the North to
B
the South for a length of nearly 50 Km of which
about 22 Km is within the urban stretch and the
balance of about 28 km in the rural stretch. Over the
last few decades the water quality in the river has
deteriorated due to increased wastewater
discharges from 18 major storm water drains and
....
c
growing encroachments in the river bed area. Also,
the ecosystems supporting migratory avifauna and
ground water recharge are being continuously
degraded and require immediate attention for
D
conservation. Further, the aesthetic, recreational,
and navigational potential of the river has not been
harnessed in planning for development during the
~
last three decades.
E
(b)
A number of development and other government
agencies have proposed plans for integration of
river Yamuna in the planning for development in
!'JCT-Delhi.
(c)
Although these urban planning proposals have
...\
F
emphasized the integration of the river in the life of
NCT-Delhi, the ecological role ·of the flood plains
and its conservation imperatives, the land-water
interface phenomena, and aesthetic, recreational
'
and navigational potential have not been adequately
G
emphasized in any of the development proposal.
(d)
River channelization, as proposed through various
,.
plans for the purposes of flood control, drainage
improvement, maintenance of navigation, reduction
H
of bank erosion etc. involve direct modification of
...
(e)
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
177
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the river channel. Conventional methods for
A
channelization involve enlargement of the channel
by widening and/or deepening to increase the
channel capacity to carry the water that would have
otherwise spread onto the floodplain. The principal
consequences of channelization are physical and
B
include disturbances to existing equilibrium in
channel hydrology. The environmental impacts
include reduction in the complexity of habitat by
elimination of pools, riffles and non-uniformities in
channel geometry; and downstream flooding and
C
sedimentation. It is therefore necessary that the
landscapes are comprehensively surveyed before
planning for restoration/ renaturalization/
channelization of the river Yamuna.
The Delhi Development Authority, therefore,
decided that an "Environmental Management Plan"
for the stretch of the River Yamuna in NCT, Delhi
D
be formulated with an overall objective of
rejuvenation of the river. It retained NEERI in August
E
1998 to undertake this study. This document
delineates the summary of the study providing
recommendations after Initial Environmental
Examination of the proposed activities in Phase I
of DDA's River Front Development Plan. The IEE
report delineates guidelines for development in the
flood plains of 3 Km stretch between new railway
bridge and proposed ILFS - NOIDA bridge through
F
the study of existing situation in the flood plains and
contiguous areas. The proposed DOA plan is
examined for its conformance with the development
G
guidelines. The areas of non-conformance are
altered and the actions to be taken for easing the
stress on Yamuna river from the activities in the
contiguous areas delineated.
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
(f)
Due to guide bunds at ITO barrage, Bhairon Marg
\
and Pantoon bridge besides the proposed New Rail
Bridge for Mass Rapid Transit System between
Nizamuddin bridge and New Rail Bridge the
waterway in this stretch from New Rail Bridge in the
B
north upto proposed ILFS-NOIDA Link Bridge in the
south is almost channelized and confined to a width
of 550m.
(g)
The total flood plain area in this stretch between left
c
and right banks is 490 ha. The dominant land use
in these areas is agriculture and other land uses
viz., vegetation, grasslands, settlements, a
monument, horticulture, flyash deposition are also
found.
D
(h)
The ambient air quality in the contiguous areas of
river stretch is characterized by the concentrations
~
of primary gaseous pollutants in the range:
Suspended Particulate matter (SPM) 189-722 (Mg/
E
m3), Sulphur dioxide (S02) 9.2-271 (Mg/m3) and
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 18-34 (Mg/m3) exceeding
the CPCB standards for residential areas.
(i)
The existing water quality in this stretch of the river
has very high values of BOD (19 mg/I) and COD
F
(135 mg/I). The biological communities that have
developed in the flood plains have characteristics
of pollution tolerance and cleaning up. The
vegetation on the flood plain area is characterized
by grass lands, bushy and shrub vegetation,
G
plantations and cultivation. The aquatic vegetation
is very poor in this stretch due to degraded water
quality of the river water. The species diversity has
severely degraded resulting in existence of five
species of Phytoplanktons and one species of
H
Zooplankton only. The fish fauna in the river,
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
179
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
available in monsoon and non monsoon seasons
A
'I
is the result of migrated fingerlings from the
upstream, feeding on decayed vegetation from
swampy areas on the bank.
0)
Flood discharges and levels at different gauging
..
B
stations in river Yamuna during 1978, 1988 and
1995 indicate that the discharge and levels
decrease by about 6 and 5.7% respectively along
the stretch in NCT-Delhi.
~
c
13. Delhi Administration even as early as on 29.03.1989,
by virtue of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 12
of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 read with the notification
of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health Family
...
Planning and Urban Development dated 14.02.1969, the
Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi declared Yamuna River
D
Front, as described in the Schedule as "Development Area" for
~
the purpose of the said Act. Thereafter, several uses of
...
reclaimed lands in Phase I of "River Yamuna" was considered
and discussed in several meetings. As a result of various
E
studies, two proposals/alternatives were submitted for
consideration by CWPRS, Pune. Three Pockets which were
identified are as under:
_,._
Pocket-1
F
Due to the site constraints and presently non-availability
of site, it is proposed to be used mainly for public and S.P.
recreational & parking purposes. The parking proposed will
take care of the spill over of parking required for Pragati
Maidan during the peak days, mainly for heavy vehicles.
G
,:..
Pocket-2
It is proposed to be used for recreational and public &
semi-public district (convention centre) and office complex
(GNTCD Offices), and race course etc.
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A Pocket-3
It is proposed to be used for recreational and public and
i'
semi public uses.
B This subject was considered in the Technical Committee
Meeting held on 26.09.1995, wherein the following
recommendations were made:-
'The proposal on the land to be reclaimed under phase-I
along river Yamuna was discussed in detail and the
c
Technical Committee suggested in view of Authority
resolution on the subject, the broad land use pattern as
worked out be placed before the next Authority meeting
as an agenda item. Land use pattern once agreed by the
Authority would be detailed out in house in consultation with
y'
D
Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Flood Deptt. Total land
utilization plan could be worked out by holding National
Competition taking into consideration the inputs from the
;.
on going studies."
"
E
Ultimately, a Resolution was passed with the following
observations:-
(i)
Presentation of the scheme be also made before
the Ministry of Environment & Forests for possible
F
funding by the Government of India under Yamuna
Action Plan, specially with reference to the river
bund and boulevard.
(ii)
Planning activity for spiritual park, hotels &
Convention Centre be immediately taken up after
G
consultation with the Ministry along with action in
parallel for completion of procedural formalities
....
relating to change in land-use etc.
(iii)
International competition be invited after receipt of
H
necessary clearances from the Ministry.
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
181
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
14. As a fotlow-up action with regard to land use change
A
"'
for Pocket 111, Phase I, Government of India, Ministry of Urban
\
Affairs & Employment, DepartmenLof Urban Development
(Delhi Division) addressed a letter dated 08.05.1997 to the
Commissioner (Planning), Delhi Development Authority, Vikas
Minar, New Delhi. In the said communication, the Ministry
8
requested Delhi Development Authority to issue public notice
inviting suggestions/objections in respect of approval of ;the
Yamuna Committee for change of land use of Pocket Ill, Phase
-!-
I. Pursuant to the same, Delhi Development Authority on
23.06.1997 issued public notic~. It is relevant to mention the c
contents of the said notice:-
"DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
No.F.20(11 )94-MP
Dated 23.06.1997
D
~-
PUBLIC NOTICE .
. I.
;'
The following modifications which the Central
Government proposes to make in the Master Plan/Zonal
E
Plan for Delhi are hereby published for public information.
Any person having any objections/suggestions with,respect
to the in writing to the Commissioner-cum-Seqetary, Delhi
...
Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, ·~· Block, INA, New
Delhi with a period of 30 days from- the date of issue of
F
this notice. The person making the objections/suggestions
should also give his name and address.
MODIFICATIONS
....,._
"The land Lise of an area, measuring about io hec.
G
falling in Zone 'C' (Civil Line Area), bounded by Sewerage
'
Treatment Plant in the North and West, transmission site
in the East and 'Recreational Area' in the South, is
proposed to be changed from 'recreational' to 'Public arid
Semi Public facilities'.
H
A
B
c
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
'The land use of an area, measuring about 35 hec.
falling in zone 'O' (River Yamuna) bounded by Railway line/
proposed 'Recreational' (Green Belt) in the North, NH-2
proposed Recreational Green Belt, in the South, Naida
Link Marginal Sund Road and proposed 'Recreational'
(Green Belt) in the East and the River Yamuna in the West,
is proposed to be changed from 'Agricultural and Water
body' (A-4) to 'Public and Semi Public facilities'.
The plans indicating the proposed modification will
be available for inspection at the office of the Joint
Director, Master Plan Section, 6th Floor, Vikas Minar, l.P.
Estate, New Delhi on all working days within the period
referred above.
(V.M. BANSAL)
COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY"
It is pointed out that certain comments have been received and
all were duly considered. The Central Water Commission also
-..
conveyed the approval of the Yamuna Committee only for
Pocket Ill out of Pockets I, II and Ill which were submitted by the
Delhi Development Authority for consideration.
15. After considering all the materials, a Notification was
issued on 21.09.1999 which reads as under:-
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF URBAN AFFAIRS & EMPLOYMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(DELHI DIVISION)
...
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated 21.09.1999
...
NOTIFICATION
WHEREAS certain modification which the Central
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
183
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
...
Government proposes to make in the master plan for Delhi
A
I
regarding the areas mentioned hereunder were published
with notice No. F.20(11 )94-MP dated 23.06.1997 in
accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Delhi
Development Act, 1956 (61 of 1957) inviting objections/
suggestions as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 11A
B
of the said Act, within thirty days from the date of the said
notice.
2.
WHEREAS· 3 objections/suggestions were
received with regard to the said modification.
c
3.
AND WHEREAS the Initial Environmental
Examination Study (Phase-I) Report has been
submitted by National Environmental Engineering .
Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur and based on
D
which the Central government have decided to
~
modify the Master Plan.
_>.
4.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 11A of the
said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the
E
following modification in the said Master Plan for
Delhi with effect from the date of publication of this
;.
Notification in the Gazette of publication of this
Notification in th,e Gazette of India;
F
MODIFICATION
""
Land use of an area measuring 42.5 hact. (105.0 acres)
-··
bounded by green buffer/Railway line in the North, green
buffer/marginal bund in the East, green buffer/NH-24 in the
G
South and proposed parking/camping site in the West
·"
falling in Zone 'O' (River yamuna) Phase I, Pocket Ill is
changed from 'agricultural and water body' (A-4) to public
and semi public facilities.
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
(R.S. GUSAIN)
..
I
Under Secretary to the Government of India"
Pursuant to the same, Master Plan for Delhi 2001 was also
B modified and the following Notification was issued:-
"THE GAZETIE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY
[Part I I-Sec 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(DELHI DIVISION)
c
NOTIFICATION
NEW DELHI, THE 18TH AUGUST, 2006
D
S.O. 1321 (E). -Whereas certain modifications which the
Central Government proposed to make in the Master Plan
for Delhi-2001 regarding the area mentioned hereunder
~
were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, as
•
Public Notice vide No. S.O. 273 (E) dated 2nd March,
E
2006 by the Delhi Development Authority in accordance
with the provisions of Section 44 of the Delhi Development
Act, 1956 (61 of 1957) inviting objections/suggestions as
required by sub-section (3) of Section 11-A of the said Act,
within thirty days from the date of the said notice.
F
2. Whereas a number of objections/suggestions were
received in response to the above stated public notice
dated 2nd March, 2006 with regard to the proposed
modifications and whereas the Central Government have,
after carefully considering all aspects of the matter,
G
decided to modify the Master Plan-2001.
3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
Sub-section (2) of Section 11-A of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby makes the following modifications in
H
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
185
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the said Master Plan for Delhi-2001 with effect from the
A
.J(
date of Publication cif this Notification in the Gazette of
India.
Modification:
B
(i) The land use of an area of 16.5 hec in Pocket-Ill, Phase1 in Zone 'O' is changed as per following description:-
Location
Pocket-Ill
Phase-1
South -
Green/
National
Highway
241n
Zone-'O'
Area in Land Use
Land Use
hec.
Changed
(MPD2001)
(i) 11.0 Agricultural Residential .
hec.
and Water
Body
(ii) 5.5
Agricultural Commercial/
hec.
and Water Hotel
Body
[No. K-13011 /25/2005-001 BJ
S. MUKHERJEE, Under Secy"
Boundaries
EastParking/
Dham
Temple
West-45m
wide
embankment
road.
Northproposed
30m road.
c
D
E
F
16. It is also brought to our notice that the Cabinet
Secretariat, Government of India issued an Office
Memorandum dated 24.08.2007 constituting a High Powered
Committee for Yamuna River Development Authority. The said
G
Office Memorandum reads as unqer:-
"No. 731/2/1/207-Cab-lll
Government of India
Cabinet Secretariat
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 12 S.C.R.
A
Rashtrapati Bhawan
,C.,
New Delhi dated the 24th August, 2007
I
..
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
B
Sub: Constitution of Yamuna River Development Authority
As approved by the Prime Minister, it has been
decided to constitute a High Powered Committee for
Yamuna River Development Chaired by the Lt. Governor,
c
Govt. of NCT Delhi with the Chief Minister of Delhi as ViceChair. The composition of the High Powered Committee
would be as follows:-
(1) Lt. Governor, Delhi
Chairperson
D (2) Chief Minister, Delhi
Vice Chairperson
(3) Secretary, M/o Urban Development
Member
\
(4) Secretary, Mio Environment & Forests
Member
,
(5) Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources
E
Member
(6) Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi
Member
(7) Pr. Secy, Urban Development, GNCT of Delhi Member
(8) CEO, Delhi Jal Board
Member
-I
(9) Vice Chairman, DOA
Member
F
2. The terms of reference of the High Powered Committee
shall be as follows:
(a) Commission studies on different aspects of the
G
development of the river, viz., hydrology, ecology,
environmental pollution, sustainable use of the river front,
etc., to feed into the policy frame work.
...
(b) Develop a policy framework and prepare an integrated
H
plan addressing issues of both quantity in terms of river
flow and quality in the Yamuna River.
D.D.A. v. RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS.
187
[P.