REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4866-67  OF 2009            (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 29055-29056 of 2008)

D.D.A.              .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Rajendra Singh & Ors.       .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4868,4869,4870-71,4872-73,4874, 4875-76/ 2009

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos 30075, 30112, 31123-31124/2008, 4408- 4409, 6256, 6029-6030 of 2009)

J U D G M E N T  

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  

1

a Committee to enquire as to whether the 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 “DDA”) has filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 29055-

29056 of 2008,  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, Commonwealth  

Games  has  filed  S.L.P.(C)  Nos.  31123-31124  of  2008.  

Vinod 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 and Rajendra Singh & Ors petitioners in  

W.P.(C) No. 7506 of 2007 before the High Court have filed  

S.L.P.(C)  No.  6256  of  2009  praying  for  stopping  all  

2

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.

2) Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

3) Brief Facts:

Vinod Kumar Jain and Rajendra Singh and Others claiming as  

environmentalists approached the High Court of Delhi by filing  

W.P.(C) Nos. 6729 and 7506 of 2007 for the following reliefs:

“(a) Directing the respondents to remove any construction,  fill up, digging etc. made so far and restore the ecology  of Yamuna river bed.

(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  bed  will  permanently  destroy  the  ecology  of  river  Yamuna, its ground water recharge ability and will be  violative  of  public  trust  doctrine,  precautionary  principle  which  are  part  of  Article  21  of  the  Constitution.

3

(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.

(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 and  violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

(g) Directing  the  respondents  to  restore  the  ecology  of  river  Yamuna in  accordance  with  the  “Polluters  pay  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.   

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  

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.  

4

Complaining that the Governmental agencies and the DDA are  

effecting various steps including massive construction on the  

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 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  

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  DDA filed  separate  counter  affidavits  extensively  

dealing with 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  

5

from  specialized  agencies  like  Ministry  of  Environment  &  

Forests  (MoEF),  Delhi  Metro  Rail  Corporation  (DMRC),  

National  Environmental  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  

‘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  

petitioners  about  the  Yamuna riverbed  or  floodplain.   With  

handful of materials, both the writ petitioners and the official  

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  

Government,  is  to  examine  and  monitor  the  construction  

6

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 with the judgment prepared by A.K. Sikri, J. issued  

further  directions  castigating  the  Government  and  made  

serious  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 “post script” and held that the  

directions issued by Rekha Sharma, J. would be deemed as  

directions  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 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 by way of special leave petitions.

7

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  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.

CONTENTIONS BY BOTH SIDES:

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  

8

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  III  

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  

III 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  III  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/laches.  

9)  In addition to the above submissions, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,  

learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  of  India  and  Mr.  T.  

9

Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel for the Sports Authority  

highlighted  that  at  each  level  Ministry  of  Environment  and  

Forest  (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.   

10)   M/s.  Sanjay  Parikh  and  M.L.  Lahoty,  learned  counsel  

appearing  for  the  contesting  respondents  herein/petitioners  

before the High Court submitted that NEERI reports in 1999  

and 2005 does not permit the Government to proceed with any  

construction in the Commonwealth Games Village site and the  

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  the  river  zone  wherein  the  construction  

activities cannot be carried out without looking into the matter  

and evaluation by experts like Dr. R.K. Pachauri, as directed  

1

by the High Court.  They finally submitted that though they  

are not opposing the Commonwealth Games,  they are more  

concerned about the 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.   

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.

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 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 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 growing encroachments  in the  river  bed  area.   Also,  the  ecosystems  supporting  

1

migratory avifauna and ground water recharge are being  continuously degraded and require immediate attention  for  conservation.   Further,  the  aesthetic,  recreational,  and  navigational  potential  of  the  river  has  not  been  harnessed in planning for  development during the  last  three decades.

b) A number of development and other government agencies  have proposed plans for integration of river Yamuna in  the planning for development in NCT-Delhi.

c) Although  these  urban  planning  proposals  have  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 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 of bank erosion etc.  involve  direct  modification  of  the  river  channel.  Conventional  methods  for  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  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  sedimentation.   It  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  landscapes  are  comprehensively  surveyed  before  planning  for  restoration/  renaturalization/  channelization of the river Yamuna.

1

e) The Delhi Development Authority, therefore, decided that  an “Environmental Management Plan” for the stretch of  the River Yamuna in NCT, Delhi be formulated with an  overall objective of rejuvenation of the river.  It retained  NEERI  in  August  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  the  study  of  existing  situation  in  the  flood  plains  and  contiguous  areas.   The  proposed  DDA  plan  is  examined  for  its  conformance with the development 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.   

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 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 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.

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  

1

matter  (SPM)  189-722  (Mg/m3),  Sulphur  dioxide  (SO2)  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/l) and COD (135 mg/l).  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,  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  Zooplankton  only.  The fish fauna in the river, available in monsoon and non  monsoon  seasons  is  the  result  of  migrated  fingerlings  from the upstream, feeding on decayed vegetation from  swampy areas on the bank.

j) Flood discharges and levels at different gauging 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.

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  

1

River  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 studies, two proposals/alternatives were submitted for  

consideration  by CWPRS,  Pune.   Three Pockets  which were  

identified are as under:

Pocket-1

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.

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.

1

Pocket-3

It is proposed to be used for recreational and public  

and semi public uses.

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  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  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.”

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  funding  by  the  Government  of  India  

under  Yamuna  Action  Plan,  specially  with  

reference to the river bund and boulevard.

1

(ii) Planning  activity  for  spiritual  park,  hotels  &  

Convention Centre be immediately taken up after  

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 necessary clearances from the Ministry.

14)  As a follow-up action with regard to land use change for  

Pocket  III,  Phase I,  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Urban  

Affairs  &  Employment,  Department  of  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  

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 III, Phase  

I.    Pursuant to the same, Delhi  Development Authority  on  

23.06.1997 issued public notice.  It is relevant to mention the  

contents of the said notice:-

1

“DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

No.F.20(11)94-MP Dated 23.06.1997

PUBLIC NOTICE

       The following modifications which the Central Government  proposes  to  make  in  the  Master  Plan/Zonal  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-Secretary, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas  Sadan, ‘B’ Block, INA, New Delhi with a period of 30 days from the  date  of  issue  of  this  notice.   The  person  making  the  objections/suggestions should also give his name and address.

MODIFICATIONS

“The land use of an area, measuring about 2.0 hec. 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 and Semi Public facilities’.  

“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, Noida Link Marginal Bund  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, I.P. Estate, New Delhi on all  working days within the period referred above.

    (V.M. BANSAL)                 COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY”

1

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 III out of Pockets I, II and III 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  Government  proposes to make in the master plan for Delhi 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 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. 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  

1

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 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  the  Gazette  of  India; 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  South and proposed parking/camping site in the West falling in  Zone ‘O’  (River  yamuna)  Phase  I,  Pocket  III  is  changed from  ‘agricultural  and water body’  (A-4)  to public  and semi public  facilities.

(R.S. GUSAIN) Under Secretary to the Government of India”

Pursuant to the same, Master Plan for Delhi 2001 was also  

modified and the following Notification was issued:-

“THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY                                                                [Part II-Sec 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (DELHI DIVISION)

NOTIFICATION

NEW DELHI, THE 18TH AUGUST, 2006

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, 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  

2

11-A of the said Act, within thirty days from the date of the said  notice.

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, 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 the said Master Plan  for  Delhi-2001  with  effect  from  the  date  of  Publication  of  this  Notification in the Gazette of India.

Modification:

(i)        The land use of an area of 16.5 hec in Pocket-III, Phase-I  

in Zone ‘O’ is changed as per following description:-

Location Area in  

hec. (MPD- 2001)

Land Use Land use  Changed Boundaries

Pocket-III (i) 11.0  hec.

Agirucltural  and Water  Body

Residential East- Parking/Akshar  Dham Temple

Phase-1 South – Green/National  Highway 24 In Zone-‘O’

(ii) 5.5  hec.

Agricultural  and Water  Body

Commercial/ Hotel

West-45m wide  embankment  road. North-proposed  30m road.

2

                                           [No. K-13011/25/2005-DD1B]

                                         S. MUKHERJEE, Under Secy”

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  

Office Memorandum reads as under:-

“No. 731/2/1/207-Cab-III Government of India Cabinet Secretariat Rashtrapati Bhawan

                          New Delhi dated the 24th August, 2007 OFFICE MEMORANDUM

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, Govt. of NCT Delhi with  the Chief Minister of Delhi as Vice-Chair.    The composition of the  High Powered Committee would be as follows:-

1) Lt. Governor, Delhi                                    Chairperson 2) Chief Minsiter, Delhi                          Vice Chairperson 3) Secretary, M/o Urban Development                Member 4) Secretary, M/o Environment & Forests           Member

2

5) Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources           Member 6) Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi                       Member 7) Pr. Secy, Urban Development, GNCT of Delhi Member 8) CEO, Delhi Jal Board                                     Member 9) Vice Chairman, DDA                                      Member  

2. The terms of reference of the High Powered Committee shall be  as follows:

a)Commission studies on different aspects of the 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  plan  addressing  issues  of  both  quantity  in  terms  of  river  flow  and  quality in the Yamuna River. c)   Develop  an operational  plan for  implementation  of  the  river  action Programme. d)   Effect  intersectoral  coordination  for  planning  and  implementation  until  such  time  a  statutory  arrangement  is  in  place. e)  Suggest the design for statutory framework.

3.  The committee would be free to co-opt expert members as felt  by the Committee.

4.       The committee would submit a three monthly report  on  action to the Prime Minister’s Office though the Cabinet Secretary.                                                                 (Rajive Kumar)                    Joint Secretary to the Government of India”

17)  It is also brought to our notice that at the request of the  

Chief  Engineer  (SEZ),  Delhi  Development  Authority,  New  

Delhi,  regarding  environmental  issues  of  Commonwealth  

Games Village, Dr. R. K. Pachauri has consented to head the  

2

panel to monitor the on-going construction at Commonwealth  

Games Village site.  The acceptance letter finds place at Page  

364, Volume-II of the paperbook.

18)  The above materials as projected and demonstrated by  

learned Attorney General and Solicitor General clearly show  

that,  at  every  stage,  ecological  integrity  of  the  river,  the  

concept of “riverbed”, “floodplain” and “river zone” were duly  

considered.   It also reveals that the expert bodies like NEERI  

and CWPRS were duly consulted and based on their expert  

opinion the land under Pocket III alone was reclassified and  

Master Plan Delhi 2001 was also suitably amended.   

19)  Now, let us consider the objections and contentions raised  

by  Mr.  Sanjay  Parikh  with  regard  to  NEERI  report  and  

subsequent changes such as classification of Pocket III  and  

modification in Master Plan Delhi 2001.  It  is his grievance  

that  though  in  the  reports  submitted  in  1999  and  2005,  

NEERI has not specifically permitted the Government or the  

DDA to use the land in question for any other activities, but in  

January,  2008 it  has changed its  view in order  to suit  the  

2

convenience of the organizers of the CGV.  In the light of the  

persistent claim made by Mr. Sanjay Parikh, we have carefully  

verified the reports submitted by NEERI in 1999, 2005 as well  

as in 2008.  In order to understand the reports of NEERI and  

other expert bodies, it is to be noted that the site selected for  

CGV falls in Khasra Nos. 48, 49, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63  

and 64 of Mauza Chiraga Zanubi.  It is located in Pocket-III  

and 1.2 kms away from Yamuna river.  It is not in dispute that  

the site located is adjacent to Akshardham Temple which had  

been approved by this Court in the order dated 12.01.2005 in  

Writ Petition No. 353 of 2004 which we will discuss in the later  

part of the judgment.  In 1999 report, NEERI has suggested  

that  the  area  beyond  the  bund  is  to  be  reclaimed  for  

development and construction.  It was brought to the notice of  

the High Court and highlighted before us that water recharge  

pond as suggested in the report  had not been disturbed or  

damaged.

20) Learned  Solicitor  General  of  India  has  clarified  that  

NEERI  report  of  1999  as  well  as  2005  are  silent  about  

2

Akshardham construction bund constructed in 2002 and the  

area marked in 2003 for CGV.  In those circumstances, it was  

pointed out that the general guidelines provided by NEERI in  

2005 are subject to what has been specifically approved.  It  

speaks  about  the  general  guidelines  for  development  of  

riverbed.  Though in the NEERI report 2005, it was observed  

that no residential or industrial facilities requiring permanent  

structure  should  be  provided  on  the  riverbed,  the  learned  

Solicitor General of India pointed out that the NEERI report of  

2008  clearly  takes  note  of  the  fact  that  the  final  report  

submitted  by  it  in  October,  2005  did  not  assess  the  

embankment within Akshardham bund which had come into  

existence later as it was not part of the original study carried  

out by NEERI in the year 1999.  It is relevant to mention that  

after taking note of the embankment, it clearly observed that  

the  area  does  not  form part  of  the  “floodplain”.   The same  

reads as under:

“Given the definition of  the project area,  as considered by  MoEF in  its  clearance  letter  dated  29th March,  2007,  the  boundaries of Yamuna River, which were considered in the  earlier  NEERI  report,  were  demarcated  by  East  and  west  bank bunds,  whereas  now the  river,  post  2002,  has  new  

2

boundaries in the project region, i.e. 45 m wide and about 1  Km  long  (Stretching  between  New  Railway  Bridge  and  Nizamuddin  road  bridge)  newly  constructed  bund  in  East  and original bund in West.  The reclaimed area, Pocket III is  deemed to be no more a part of the flood plain zone by the  Akshardham bund and MoEF has in principle approved the  bund.”

        (Emphasis supplied)

21) In  January,  2008,  NEERI  submitted  a  report  after  

considering the earlier reports and various relevant materials  

supplied  by  MoEF  and  analyzing  Environmental  Impact  

Assessment  Study  of  CGV  site  and  with  the  assistance  of  

Central  Water  Commission,  Ministry  of  Urban Development,  

Environmental  Management  Plan  for  Rejuvenation  of  River  

Yamuna.  The said report was based on relevant materials and  

by way of scientific study.  It is useful to refer the relevant part  

of the report.

“Commonwealth Games Village Complex by Delhi  Development Authority in Pocket III of Sub-Zone 6 of  

Yamuna River

Introduction

India will be hosting the prestigious Commonwealth Games  2010 in the City of Delhi.   For the accommodation of the  sports persons and the officials  of  various countries,  DDA  has  proposed  to  create  a  Commonwealth  Games  Village  (CGV) complex in Pocket III of Sub Zone 6 of Yamuna River.  The village complex is  designed to provide accommodation  for  a  maximum  10,000  persons  (during  and  post  commonwealth  games  2010).   It  will  also  provide  other  

2

facilities like parking, swimming pools, athletic tracts, police  station,  water  and  wastewater  treatment  plants,  electrical  substation and metro rail station.  To provide the safety of  Pocket III, against any flood of the highest magnitude, DDA  has constructed an embankment having top width of 20m  and  a  bottom  width  of  45m  connecting  the  new  railway  bridge and NH-24 Bridge.

Problem Statement

DDA  requested  NEERI’s  opinion  through  letter  no.  CE(SEZ)7(213)07/113  dated  14/01/08  on  three  aspects  given below:

a. It  is  correct  that  the  land  where  Commonwealth  Games  Village  is  being  constructed  is  not  a  part  of  the  Yamuna  Flood Plain, more so after the construction of embankment  (Akshardham Bund).

b. Whether after compliance of the conditions imposed by the  MoEF,  while  according  environmental  clearance  of  the  Commonwealth  Games  Village,  is  there  any  threat  of  environmental degradation/loss of ground water recharge.

c. Whether any further additional abatement/mitigation  measures are required to be taken.

Background NEERI  submitted  a  report  titled  “Initial  Environmental  Examination of Development Plan in Yamuna River Stretch  between Railway Bridge and Proposed ILFS Bridge” during  January 1999.  Figure 1 presents the proposed landuse for  riverbed development in Pocket III as recommended in the  report.   Block  10  (15  hec.)  and  11  (27.5  hec.)  was  recommended  for  public/semi  public  use.   Block  12  was  recommended as parking  area.   Block 13 (16.5  hec.)  was  recommended for campsite, which was expected to be open  to  the  river  front  and  Block  14  was  recommended  fro  groundwater recharge pond, to be filled up by Yamuna River  water.  Block 15 was recommendes as wooden community to  enhance terrestrial biodiversity.  NEERI further submitted a  complete rejuvenation plan for River Yamuna in NCT in April  2000.  Various central and state government ministries and  departments reviewed this report.  Based on the comments  

2

and  observations  NEERI  submitted  the  final  report  in  October, 2005.  However, NEERI report did not assess any  embankment  (Akshardham  bund),  which  came  into  existence  by  that  time,  as  it  was  not  part  of  the  original  study.

NEERI’s Assessment

DDA has  proposed  the  development  of  CGV in  Pocket  III  Block of Subzone 6 of the Yamuna River.  From the historical  development of Pocket III, we have the following details:

1. The  Ministry  of  Water  Resources,  which  is  the  supreme  authority  for  giving  permission  to  any  activity  in  India  pertaining  to  water  bodies,  etc.,  has  given  clearance  for  reclamation of Pocket III for the development (vide Noting No  16/1/YC/97/EM-1/376-88,  dated  28th May,  1997,  Item  56.2.1  of  Flood  Management-l  Dte,  Central  Water  Commission, Government of India).

2. The  Gazette  Notification  dated  August  18,  2006  by  Government of  India,  Ministry of  Urban Development,  has  notified  the  modified  Master  Plan  for  Delhi  indicating  landuse for 16.5 ha in Pocket III,  Phase I  in Zone “O” as  follows.

• Pocket III (area 11 ha) changed landuse-Residential

• Phase I in Zone “O” (area 5.5 ha), changed landuse- Commercial/hotel.

In this notification, the boundaries indicated for this pocket  are  Parking/Akshardham  Temple  in  East,  Green/National  Highway 24 in South, 45 m wide embankment road in West  and Proposed 30 m road in North.

3. For  the  proposed  CGV  in  this  pocket,  environmental  clearance  has  been  obtained  by  DDA  from  MoEF  by  submitting necessary documents.  The documents included  a report  titled  “Environmental  Impact  Assessment  study  of  Commonwealth  Games  Village” prepared  by  M/s.  EQMS  India  Pvt.  Ltd.  Delhi  on  behalf  of  DDA.   MoEF  granted  environmental clearance to the project vide its letter dated  Dec  14,  2006  subject  to  specific  conditions  under  development/construction  phase,  operation  phase  and  general conditions.  The Ministry also sought clarification on  upstream flooding and further  directed DDA to conduct a  study (vide  its  letter  dated Jan 22,  2007).   DDA engaged  

2

Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS), Pune  for the study on “Hydraulic Model Studies for Assessing the  Effect of Akshardham Bund on the Flow Conditions in the  River Yamuna at Delhi” and submitted that report to MoEF  in March 2007.  The CWPRS study indicated that the bund  would cause insignificant flood problem in the upstream as  well as in the region of the bund.  The study indicated that a  free board of 2.2 m would be available as the top elevation of  this  embankment  is  208.3  m  above  MSL,  whereas  the  highest  water  level  for  severest  flood,  with  magnitude  of  12,750 cum/s, is estimated as 206.1 m above MSL.  These  ensure the complete safety of Pocket III  against any flood.  On  submission  of  this  report,  MoEF  emended  its  environmental clearance letter of 14/12/2006 and issued an  amended letter on March 29, 2007.  This letter mentions the  total  project  domain  and  directed  DDA  to  undertake  mitigation/abatement  measures,  as  identified  by  CWPRS.  MoEF  further  directed  DDA  to  comply  with  the  following  conditions.                    • To raise and strengthen the embankments along the river  

in the UT of Delhi, to cater safely for a discharge of 9,910  cum/s and also  to  check  that  the  embankment  is  not  over  topped,  in  case  the discharge  increases  to 12,750  cum/s.

• Strengthen the existing embankments and guide bund,  up to a minimum free board of 1.8 m.  The guide bund  should also be strengthened to check flood discharge of  12,750 cum/s.

• In  order  to  protect  the  Akshardham  Bund,  the  left  upstream guide bund of Nizamuddin road bridge, the left  downstream of Nizamuddin Railway Bridge and the right  bank between Nizamuddin  Railway  Bridge,  Nizamuddin  road  bridge,  provide  a  layer  of  stone  crates  of  1.0m x  1.0m x 0.85m on the sloping portion as well as an apron  over geofabric filter shall be laid.  On the rear side of the  bunds, turfing shall protect the slope.

NEERI reviewed the above-mentioned reports and necessary  documents supplied by DDA.  NEERI did not do any further  study.  NEERI has the following observations:

3

a. Given  the  definition  of  the  project  area,  as  considered by  MoEF  in  its  clearance  letter  dt  29  March,  2007,  the  boundaries of Yamuna River, which were considered in the  earlier  NEERI  report,  were  demarcated  by  East  and  West  bank bunds,  whereas  now the  river,  post  2002,  has  new  boundaries in the project region, i.e. 45m wide and about 1  km  long  (stretching  between  New  Railway  Bridge  and  Nizamuddin  road  bridge)  newly  constructed  bund  in  East  and original bund in West.  The reclaimed area, Pocket III, is  deemed to be no more a part of the flood plain zone by the  Akshardham Bund and MoEF has in principle approved the  bund.

b. The mitigation measures prescribed by MoEF in its clearance  letter dated 14 December, 2006, if implemented, should be  adequate for environmental safeguards.  The concern about  groundwater  recharge  in  this  region  can be  addressed by  creating  an  appropriate  water  body  in  the  project  area.  Therefore, a detailed action plan including artificial recharge  for the same should be formulated to avoid any depletion in  the groundwater level.

   c. A  monitoring  committee  should  be  constituted  to  review  periodically  the  post  project  environmental  quality.   The  committee should guide DDA on mitigation measures.”

22) We have already referred to the notification of the Delhi  

Administration  dated  29.03.1989  declaring  Yamuna  River  

Front  as  “Development  Area”  for  the  purpose  of  Delhi  

Development Act, 1957.  After due deliberations and various  

studies,  three  pockets  were  identified  and  submitted  to  

CWPRS, Pune.  Based on its report, the matter was discussed  

with  NEERI  and  finally  the  DDA  after  hearing  public  

objections/suggestions  in  respect  of  change  of  land  use  of  

3

Pocket-III Phase-I issued a notification in the Gazette of the  

Government  of  India  on  21.09.1999.   The  said  notification  

makes  it  clear  that  land  use  of  an  area  measuring  42.5  

hectares (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 south and proposed parking/camping site  

in the west is changed from “agricultural and water body” to  

“public and semi-public facilities”.  In addition to the same,  

Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Urban  Development  also  

issued a notification modifying the land use from “agricultural  

and water body” to “public and semi-public facilities”.  Based  

on  the  above  materials,  a  High-Powered  Committee  for  

Yamuna  River  Development  Authority  was  constituted  with  

the approval of the Prime Minister by the Cabinet Secretariat  

on 24.08.2007 consisting of the Lt. Governor, Government of  

NCT as Chairperson, Chief Minister, Delhi as Vice-chairperson  

and  Secretaries  of  Urban  Development,  Environment  and  

Forests, Ministry of Water Resources, Chief Secretary, GNCT of  

Delhi, Principal Secretary, Urban Development, GNCT of Delhi,  

Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Vice Chairman, DDA  

3

as Members to go into the aspects of development of the river,  

ecology, environmental pollution, sustainable use of river front  

and quality of water in the Yamuna river.  We were told that  

the said Committee in association with Dr. R.K. Pachauri is  

monitoring  the  ongoing  construction  of  CGV.   In  such  

circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr.  

Sanjay Parikh.  We are equally of the view that the High Court  

is  not  justified  in  making  comments  on  the  NEERI  report  

presented in January, 2008.          

23) It  is  brought  to  our  notice  that  during  the  course  of  

hearing in  view of  certain doubts raised by counsel  for  the  

petitioner before the High Court, NEERI filed an affidavit dated  

29.01.2008 wherein it clarified the entire aspects and asserted  

that the site in question is not even “floodplain” much less a  

“riverbed”.  It is also pointed out in its report that 85% of the  

land at the present site is being used for recreational purposes  

and 15% for development purposes (including residential and  

commercial).   We have already pointed out that the present  

3

site falls within Pocket-III, the NEERI and Yamuna Standing  

Committee gave clearance only for development of Pocket-III.  

24) Though there is no statutory definition for “riverbed” and  

“floodplain”  from the statute,  the  dictionary  meaning of  the  

same is as under:  

“Riverbed” has been defined as the area over which the  river flows.  In the  Thames Conservators Case [1897] 2  QB  335  at  337  it  was  held  that  the  word  riverbed  denotes that portion of the river which in the ordinary or  regular course of nature is covered by the waters of the  river.

The “bed of the river” was defined as the area covered by  the river and is the space sub-adjacent to the river over  which  it  flows  between  the  banks.   It  is  the  space  between the  banks  occupied  by  the  river  at  its  fullest  flow.

The Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (Pg 154) describes  a river bed as the hollow channel of a water course; the  depression between the banks worn by the regular and  usual  flow of  water;  The land which is  covered by the  water  in  its  ordinary  low  stage;  The  area  extending  between the opposing banks measured from the foot of  the bank from the top of the water at its ordinary stage.   

P. Ramanatha Aiyer’s Advanced Law Lexicon, Volume 4,  2005 Edition (Pg. 4157-4158) has described the bed of a  river  as  the  space  contained  between the  banks;  river  bank in turn has been defined in the same law lexicon as  the boundaries of a river throughout its width when the  water flows to its maximum quantity.

3

“Floodplain’” – Land adjacent to rivers, which, because of  its level topography, floods when river overflows. [Black’s  Law dictionary, 6th Edn., p.641]

It is also been defined as ‘a low, flat area in either side of  a  river  that  can accommodate  large  amounts  of  water  during  a  flood,  lessening  flood  damage  further  downstream’ [Fredd Michaels, ‘Dictionary of Environment  Studies’]  

In  view  of  the  literal  meaning  and  in  the  light  of  the  

clarification by NEERI in their affidavit dated 29.01.2008, the  

site in question is neither a “floodplain” nor a “riverbed”, hence  

contrary  arguments  of  the  writ  petitioners  before  the  High  

Court and in this Court  and the ultimate conclusion of the  

Division Bench for appointment of a fresh Committee cannot  

be sustained.  

25) AKSHARDHAM TEMPLE:

We have already pointed out and in fact not in dispute  

that the present CGV site is situated adjoining to Akshardham  

temple.   When  land  was  allotted  for  construction  of  

Akshardham Temple, U.P. State Employees Confederation and  

Anr.  filed  Writ  Petition  No.  353  of  2004  before  this  Court  

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.  At the relevant  

3

time,  the  land was  in  the  hands of  the  State  of  U.P.   The  

petitioners therein also challenged the allotment of  the said  

land by the DDA to the third respondent (Akshardham) on the  

ground  that  the  same  would  adversely  affect  recharging  of  

underground water and the allotment is contrary to the land  

user as declared in the development plan.  It was also objected  

by  the  State  of  U.P.  that  the  land  allotted  to  the  third  

respondent  on  the  condition  that  there  shall  be  no  

construction in the land in question and the first respondent  

(UP  Government)  has  not  put  up  any  construction  but  is  

developing the same as a green belt and there is no violation of  

the terms of allotment.  On behalf of the DDA, it was stated  

that  the  construction  that  was  being  put  up  by  the  third  

respondent is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the  

same  is  nearly  1700  metres  away  from  the  Yamuna  River  

bank.   It  was  also  placed  before  this  Court  that  the  

construction  there  on  was  permitted  after  obtaining  the  

opinion of the Central Water Commission and NEERI which is  

an  autonomous  body.   Accepting  the  above  statements,  

supported by the report of NEERI and in terms of sanctioned  

3

plan approved by the DDA, this Court declined to entertain the  

writ  petition and dismissed the same.  After hearing all  the  

parties,  the  said  order  was  passed  on  12.01.2005.   The  

reading  of  the  order  of  this  Court  makes  it  clear  that  the  

present CGV site and the site allotted for Akshardham temple  

form part  of  the  same area  and both  are  adjacent  to  each  

other.  It is also clear that on perusal of the sanctioned plan  

by the DDA and opinion of the Central Water Commission as  

well  as  NEERI,  this  Court  rejected  the  contention  of  the  

petitioner therein by dismissing their writ petition.  In the light  

of the reasoned 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.  

26) Delay/Laches:

Now, let  us consider  whether  the  writ  petitions filed in  the  

High Court in the year 2007 is justifiable and ought to have  

been dismissed on the ground of delay/laches.   Though an  

objection was raised by all the official respondents before the  

High  Court  about  the  inordinate  delay  in  filing  the  writ  

3

petitions  by  the  petitioners,  the  said  aspect  was  not  either  

adverted to or considered by the  Division Bench.  We have  

already  referred  to  the  fact  that  the  site  in  question  was  

changed to “public and semi-public” way back on 21.9.1999.  

Before  re-classifying  the  site,  the  DDA  and  the  concerned  

authorities  issued  public  notice  calling  for  

objections/suggestions.   The  particulars  furnished  by  the  

official bodies clearly show that after getting the suggestions  

from the public change of land use for the site falling in zone  

‘O’  was changed on 21.9.1999 from “agricultural  and water  

body” to “public and semi-public” purpose.  Apart from this,  

the  decision  of  hosting  the  Commonwealth  Games  at  

Commonwealth Games Village site was taken in 2003.  The  

Department  also  issued  a  Global  Tender  process  for  Public  

Private  Partnership  (“PPP”)  participation  in  the  residential  

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  to  the  effect  that  

Environmental  Clearance  was  granted  on  14.12.2006  

3

permitting permanent structures on the site after taking into  

consideration that the MoEF had stated “since environmental  

significance and public open space amenity of the river flood  

plain should be recognized, it was urged that the concerned  

authorities (DDA) that an extension of similar development in  

the area between Yamuna and its flood protection bunds must  

not  be  proposed  without  due  environmental  planning  and  

prior environmental clearance.” It was 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.  Unfortunately, the High  

Court has lost sight with regard to these material aspects.  In  

Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC  

664 para  229,  this  Court  has  held  that  the  PIL  should  be  

thrown  out  at  the  threshold  if  it  is  challenged  after  the  

commencement of execution of the project.  It was also held  

that no relief should be given to persons who approach the  

Court without reasonable explanation under Articles 226 and  

32 after inordinate delay.  We reiterate that the delay rules  

3

apply to PILs also and if there is no proper explanation for the  

delay, PILs are liable to be summarily dismissed on account of  

delay.   In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that both the  

petitioners  though  claiming  that  they  are  very  much  

conversant  with  environment  and  ecology,  approached  the  

High Court only in the middle of 2007, hence on the ground of  

delay  and  laches,  the  writ  petitions  were  liable  to  be  

dismissed.

27) In  view  of  our  discussion,  the  conclusion  of  the  High  

Court that whether present construction is on the “riverbed”  

or  “floodplain”  requires  further  consideration  of  an  Expert  

Committee  cannot  be  sustained.   In  view  of  the  abundant  

materials, which we discussed above, there is no ground for  

consideration by another Expert Committee, when admittedly  

the  High  Powered  Committee  with  the  assistance  of  Dr.  

Pachauri is monitoring the entire work.  As pointed out earlier,  

the observation of the High Court about the decision of this  

Court in respect of Akshardham temple stating that the same  

is not a binding precedent is also not acceptable.  We have  

4

already pointed out that before rejecting the writ petition filed  

by  the  U.P.  State  Employees  Confederation  and  Ors.,  this  

Court, based on the sanctioned plan and noting the distance  

between Yamuna river and the site in question (Akshardham  

Temple) is nearly 1700 metres and taking note of the fact that  

the construction thereon was permitted after obtaining opinion  

of  the  Central  Water  Commission  and  NEERI  which  is  an  

autonomous body, dismissed the said writ petition.  Inasmuch  

as the present CGV site is adjacent to Akshardham Temple,  

the  earlier  decision  of  this  Court  with  reference  to  

Akshardham Temple cannot be ignored,  on the other  hand,  

the same is applicable to CGV site also.

28) In  the  light  of  the  above  discussion,  the  following  

conclusions would emerge:

(a) In view of notification in the Gazette of the Government of  

India  dated 21.09.1999 relating  to  change of  land use  

and  to  the  fact  that  the  site  in  question  for  the  

construction  of  CGV  had  been  chosen  and  widely  

published  way  back  in  the  year  2003  itself,  the  writ  

4

petitions which were filed before the High Court of Delhi  

only  in  the  year  2007,  in  the  absence  of  proper  

explanation, the High Court ought not to have probed the  

matter at this juncture.

(b) On a conjoint reading of NEERI reports 1999, 2005 and  

January, 2008 coupled with its assertion in the form of  

an affidavit dated 29.01.2008 clearly show that the CGV  

site is not either on a “riverbed” or on the “floodplain” of  

the Yamuna river.   

(c) The decision of  expert  and autonomous body –  NEERI  

supported by materials placed by other bodies such as  

CWPRS and MoEF, the same cannot be lightly interfered  

with by the Court without adequate contra materials.  

(d) After  due  deliberations  by  the  DDA  with  other  

departments  including  the  Yamuna  Committee  and  

pursuant  to  the  elaborate  discussion  on  10.11.1997  

itself, 35 hectares of land were recommended for change  

4

of land use and the same was approved (Pocket-III) on  

21.09.1999 for “public and semi-public purpose”.

(e) 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  proposal  and  

permitted the DDA to use the area covered under Pocket-

III for “public and semi-public purpose”.   

(f) The observation and conclusion of the High Court that  

the  site  in  question  is  on  a  “riverbed”  cannot  be  

sustained.   The  High  Court  disregarded  and  ignored  

material  scientific  literature and the opinion of  experts  

and scientific bodies which have categorically held that  

the CGV site is neither located on a “riverbed” nor on the  

“floodplain”.  Further, in view of the change of the land  

use  which  was  approved  way  back  in  1997  by  the  

Yamuna Committee and by NEERI permitting the DDA to  

use Pocket-III for “public and semi-public purpose”, the  

4

contrary conclusion arrived at by the High Court is liable  

to be set aside.  

(g) Inasmuch as Akshardham Temple site is adjacent to CGV  

site, the decision of this Court dated 12.01.2005 in Writ  

Petition (C) No. 353 of 2004 has bearing on the issue and  

it is a binding precedent for all purposes.

(h) The direction of  the  Division Bench for  formation of  a  

fresh  Committee  by  the  Government  to  examine  and  

monitor the construction carried out by the DMRC is also  

liable  to  be  set  aside.   However,  as  assured  by  the  

Attorney General for India, the Committee approved by  

the Prime Minister of India consisting of Lt. Governor of  

Delhi  as  Chairperson,  Chief  Minister  of  Delhi  as  Vice-

chairperson and other members who are all representing  

various departments should monitor the entire activities  

in association with Dr. R.K. Pachauri.   

(i) In view of our conclusion, the DDA and other authorities  

are free to proceed with the work at CGV site.

4

29) With the above directions and observations, we set aside  

the  common  judgment  and  order  of  the  Delhi  High  Court  

dated 03.11.2008 in W.P. (C)  Nos. 6729 and 7506 of 2007.  

Consequently,  Civil  Appeal  Nos.4866-4867,  4868,  4872-73,  

4875-4876 & 4870-4871 of 2009 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.  

29055-29056  of  2008,  30075 of  2008,  4408-4409  of  2009,  

6029-6030 of 2009 and 31123-24 of 2008 are allowed on the  

above  terms  and  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  4869  &  4874  of  2009  

arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 30112 of 2008 and 6256 of 2009  

are dismissed.  No order as to costs.  

…….…….……………………CJI.                                                    (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

...…………………………………J.     (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.  (B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; JULY 30, 2009.     

4