MCD Official Cannot Decide Issue Related To Land Use, Approval of Corporation Is Required: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that any decision regarding use of land or change in the layout plan is to be considered by the Layout Scrutiny Committee of the MCD, after which approval of the Standing Committee/Corporation is required.

The Petitioners were the residents of Model Town, wherein the concerned land was situated and designated as School Land.

The Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed, “Any decision regarding use of land or change in the layout plan is considered by the Layout Scrutiny Committee of the MCD, after which approval of the Standing Committee/Corporation is required, before the same attains the character of a final determination in that regard. Therefore, any official of the MCD on his own accord cannot take decisions pertaining to any land use. 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.”

Advocate Rana Ranjeet Singh represented the Petitioner, while Advocates Prapti and Sunil Goel represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

A Writ Petition was filed to direct the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to comply with their undertaking whereby, the MCD had agreed to develop the land in Model Town-II, Delhi as an ornamental park.

The MCD had undertaken to develop an ornamental park and a compromise was recorded in 2011 between the MCD, the Petitioners and the residents of Model Town. However, later the MCD had erected a board designating the said land as “School Land” in 2017.

It was contended by the Petitioners that despite the clear direction of the Civil Court, the MCD has violated the terms of their undertaking given before the Civil Court and have not converted the land in question into an ornamental park. Furthermore, the MCD has started concretizing the said vacant land and building playground for the adjoining school, which is posing risk to the community living around the said area.

Court’s Analysis

The Court initially observed that the amendment in the layout plan by the MCD, was within the domain of its authority, and the same was in conformity with the Master Plan. The MCD has merely undertaken steps to bring the layout plan at par with the actual user of the land to which it has been put for a long time, i.e., MCD School

“It is undisputed that the land in question vests with the MCD, and as per the facts on record, the said land was allotted to the Education Department, MCD in the year 1969 for running a school”, the Court said.

Further, the High Court was of the opinion that the existence and running of a government school, i.e., MCD School, was established and the land vested with the MCD, the MCD was within its authority to put the land to use in accordance with the user of the land. “This Court finds justification in the use of the land appurtenant to the school, being part of one big plot, as playground for the school children. 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”, the Court observed.

Further, the Bench noted that the Petitioners were unable to show any legal or vested right with them for use of the land in question as an ‘ornamental park', by disregarding the need for a playground for school children. It was also highlighted by the Court that the site plan of the area in question shows existence of various parks, for use and enjoyment of the residents.

With regard to compromise recorded between the MCD and the Petitioner, the Court observed that said decision was at Zonal Level and was not approved by the competent authority viz. the Commissioner, MCD or the Standing Committee or the Corporation.

The Court was of the opinion that any official of the MCD on his own accord cannot take decisions pertaining to any land use. 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 is a settled law that noting in file culminate into executable or binding rights, only when due approvals are taken in order to reach at a final decision, which is communicated to the person concerned. In the present case, neither any final decision in the form of approval by the competent authority was taken, nor, any official communication in that regard after due approval from the competent authority, was made”, the Court held.

Consequently, it was held that any purported consent order on the basis of some purported decision taken without any dominion, or without approval of the competent authority, cannot be taken as a refuge by the Petitioners.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Mohit Goel & Ors. V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6992)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Rana Ranjeet Singh, Vivek Kumar Singh, Aditya Shekhar, Akanksha Singh, Ravish Singh

Respondents: Avni Singh, PC with Advocate Prapti for R-1; Sunil Goel, Standing Counsel MCD along with Ms. Dimple Aggarwal and Mr. Himanshu Goel, Advocates for the Respondent MCD

Click here to read/download Judgment