HC upholds MCD move to develop land for children’s playground
The plea said THAT during 1987-1988, the owners of the houses in F Block of Model Town-II submitted a representation to the MCD opposing the conversion of the park into a multi-storied school building for MCD primary school
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld an MCD decision to develop a land as a children’s playground instead of an ornamental park, calling it “indispensable” for physical development and growth.
Justice Mini Pushkarna on August 19 found no justification in the prayer of the petitioners to use the parcel of land, meant for playground for students of an MCD school, as an ornamental park for public.
“There are already many parks nearby within the vicinity of Model Town-II, including a 100 acres park, for the petitioners to use and enjoy...requirement of the said parcel of land for the school students as a playground is indispensable for their physical development and growth. No error is found in the decision of the MCD,” the order said.
The high court, therefore, dismissed the plea of the owners of properties facing the land in question and members of the Model Town Owners and Residents Society. The plea said during 1987-1988, the owners of the houses in F Block of Model Town-II submitted a representation to the MCD opposing the conversion of the park into a multi-storied school building for MCD primary school.
MCD assured the residents that only a temporary shed for the school would be constructed and the permanent structure was being erected elsewhere.
However, despite such assurance, construction activities persisted and the residents filed a suit seeking injunction against MCD.
Later, the parties compromised and the suit was withdrawn.
The petitioners said they repeatedly requested the MCD to develop the rest of the land into an ornamental park in terms of the undertaking given before the court in 2011.
However, though the MCD constructed the multi-storied school building, it did not undertake the development and construction of the rest of the land as an ornamental park. As the MCD awarded a contract to construct the 6-feet boundary wall and four concrete staircases in and around the subject park or lawn, the petitioners moved the high court against it.
MCD opposed the plea saying the petitioners have no locus standi to file the plea. The agency further argued the petitioners have not shown how they were affected by use of the land vested in its education department as a playground for the school and there was no obstruction to light and air by using the land as a playground.
The court found justification in the use of the land belonging to the school, being part of one big plot, as a playground for the school children.
