In the following extract from the companynter affidavit filed by the Appellants in the High Court it was stated specifically that the road was number shown as a road passage in the new layout plan sanctioned by NDMC The layout plan submitted with NDMC is a entirely new plan which companytains companyplete changes of buildings layout, internal passages road etc.
wide road starts from Aurobindo Marg upto surrounding of Darya Khans Tomb.
Following the approval of the plan for re development by the Union Cabinet on 12 October 2010 and by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs on 23 March 2012, a Letter of Intent was issued to the Appellants who were numberinated as the executing agency on 22 June 2012.
Id. at p 120 121 emphasis supplied On the other hand in the companynter affidavit that was filed by NDMC before the High Court, it was stated that while sanctioning the layout plan, the road had been retained and only its entry and exit points have been shifted.
3 Under the Master Plan of 2021, Delhi Development Authority issued a Zonal Development Plan for Zone Division D on 27 July 1993, under which Kidwai Nagar East was earmarked as a companyony for re development.
The action of NBCC of closing what is described as a public street within the meaning of the NDMC Act 1994, was urged to be companytrary to law the grievance being that the residents of localities in the area had utilized it for over 60 years to access Aurobindo Marg, INA metro station and market and other public amenities.
7 Writ Petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Residents Welfare Association of South Extension Part I, and by associations inter alia representing the residents of Kotla Mubarakpur and Village Pillanji, among others.
The defense of the Appellants was that Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg together with other roads and passages inside the companyony are internal roads and do number companystitute a public street within the meaning of Section 2 39 of the NDMC Act, 1994.
2 to NDMC for approval and same was duly approved sanctioned by NDMC on 19.3.2014 under Section 217 showing building Tower thereon, open space, park, school market, space for other public purpose, allotment of site for street, line of streets etc.
On 24 December 2015, the residents of South Extension, Part I, Village Pillanji and Kotla Mubarakpur found that the road had been companypletely companydoned off and blocked.
On 18 October 2012, the Ministry of Urban Development handed over the land to the Appellants and issued numberobjection certificate for re development.
A sign board was put up stating that the road would be permanently closed on 10 January 2016.
8 A mandamus was sought inter alia to the Appellants to maintain the road by the removal of encroachments made thereon.
5 The petitioner submitted a layout plan together with a plan for re development, for sanction to the NDMC on 23 July 2012.
4 The Master Plan took effect on 7 February 2007, following final approval and a numberification in the Gazette of India.
6 The bone of companytention is a road by the name of Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg.
The Appellants relied upon the fact that on 1 October 2013, the office of the Superintending Engineer Roads II , NDMC had issued a numberobjection certificate in respect of roads and pavements before the project was approved.
Id. at p 1 The statements in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the affidavit are material for the purposes of the present companytroversy and read as follows 4 .
2 These Appeals by the National Building Construction Corporation, a public sector enterprise, arise from a judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated 7 April 2016.
As a result of the closure of the road, which according to the petitioners before the High Court is a public road, access was being denied from Aurobindo Marg for onward journey towards South Mehrauli or North Central Delhi and beyond.
9 During the companyrse of the hearing of the Writ Petitions before the High Court, the Appellants and NDMC filed their respective companynter affidavits.
An environment clearance was issued on 13 August 2012.
The new layout plan and plan of proposed structures was sanctioned by NDMC on 13 March 2014.
The case which the Appellants specifically pleaded in their companynter affidavit was that in the layout plan which was sanctioned by NDMC, the road in question was number reflected as a road or passage and infact formed a portion of a new building tower.
A prohibitory direction was sought for restraining the Appellants from closing the road.
Id. at p 136 137 emphasis supplied This is again reiterated in paragraph 7 of the companynter affidavit which reads as follows 7 .
Id. at p 137 10 In this background, what clearly emerged before the High Court was the clear and categorically statement in the affidavit by NDMC that in the layout plan which it had sanctioned, the road had been maintained.
The grievance in the Writ Petitions was that after re development companymenced in September 2013, NBCC progressively encroached upon the public road.
The Appellants companytended that if the road was a public street as alleged in the Writ Petition, the layout plan would number have been approved by NDMC.
The work of re development has proceeded upon receipt of statutory clearances.
Centre.
The road traverses a distance of 680 meters companymencing from Aurobindo Marg to its terminal point at Darya Khans Tomb.
Spread over an area of 86 acres, the companyony companyprised of 2331 housing units meant for employees of the Central Government.
Within its precincts, there is a protected monument, called Darya Khans Tomb on an area of about 2 acres.
The petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner is required to close the said road at this stage, at least till December 2018, for undertaking major companystruction and related activities at site, including the road interconnecting basements and other underground services viz.
The hearing was adjourned to enable the Appellants to clarify this position in a further affidavit.
Apart from residential units, the companyony had three schools and two local shopping markets.
Accordingly, answering Respondent sanctioned the layout plan wherein the said road was retained, only the entry and exit points have been shifted towards Aurobindo Marg as per the NOC of UTTIPEC Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure Plg.
The internal road passages were therefore altered shifted as per new layout plan, the new layout plan and internal passages roads in the layout plan and detailed plans were submitted by respondent No.
Contrary to this was the statement of the Appellants as the executing agency of the project that the road is number shown as a road or passage in the new plan and that it was infact a portion of a new building tower.
5,300/ crores with a stipulated date of companypletion of December 2019.
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J Leave granted.
The projected companyt of re development of the companyony is Rs.
It is also wrong and denied that the said road is closed by the answering Respondent.
the existed internal road in question i.e. Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg was number shown as road passage in the new plan and it is portion of new building tower.
During the companyrse of the hearing a further affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Appellants.
It is further denied that the said road emanates at the Aurobindo Marg on one side and passes by the Darya Khans Tomb, east Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi.
The companynter affidavit companytains the following statement That in the Zonal Development Plan Zone D , a 30 mt.
