The court observed that the proposal was purely a policy call and cannot be said to be permitted in law.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging the proposed change in land use from the bus terminal and neighborhood park to new official residences of high dignitaries such as the Vice President as part of an ambitious plan Went. Central Vista Redevelopment Plan,
A bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar said the change was a policy decision recommended as part of the overall development of the entire region. The court observed that the proposal was purely a policy call and cannot be said to be permitted in law.
The petitioner, Rajiv Suri, appearing for advocate Shikhil Suri, submitted that the green area, called “plot forest”, should be protected as a green area in the public interest and alternative land should be explored for construction .
“So, suggestions have to be taken from the common people as to where the Vice President’s house is to be located? Show us a ruling that says the use of a plot once described as a recreational area cannot be changed? It is a matter of policy,” the court observed.
While giving its verdict on the order, the court said, “Change in the development plan is in a way a policy matter.” It is not the case of the petitioner that the alteration has been done for reasons of malice. Sufficient explanation followed to justify the change in use of plot number one. We do not find any reason to investigate the matter further and we want to pacify the matter by summarily dismissing the petition.”
The petition had questioned the validity of the notification issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs on October 28, 2020, proposing amendment in the Zonal Development Plan of Zone ‘D’ for Plot No. The change was notified. Area of Lutyens’ Delhi.
Mr Suri had argued that the proposed amendment “violates the right to life”.
“The change in land use will deprive the residents of Delhi and the citizens of India of the much-valued open and green space in the Central Vista… The right to life includes the right to enjoy a healthy life,” Mr Suri had protested. .
In January, the Supreme Court, in a majority decision, had given the government the go-ahead for the multi-crore project.
The judgment focused on the construction of a new Parliament three times larger than the existing 93-year-old heritage building and was related to the amendment to the use of 86.1 acres of land for India’s power corridor.
In their majority opinion, Justices Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari held that the government had not acted against public trust. The opposition had accused the government of spending public money on the redevelopment project at a time when the country was battling the pandemic and unemployment with scarce resources.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, in his minority, held that there should have been more public consultation.
However, the majority decision accepted the government’s view that the project was intended for an “integrated administrative block” and “collaborative functioning” of the ministries. .
,