On the other hand, the DMRC had projected that after companystruction of the University Metro Station, 2 Page 3 of 34 hectares of land remained surplus and the housing project was intended to generate revenue for the DMRC as per the policy of the Government.
The principal companytentions of the appellant University on the merits of the challenge were as follows a the permission sought by Respondent No.
The location of various ladies hostels of the University in close vicinity of the proposed companystruction site was highlighted as an important privacy companycern.
The Report was companysidered at various levels of the University including the Office of the Dean, Student Welfare, the Department of legal affairs, the Office of the Proctor, the Engineering Department, and the Department of Environmental Studies.
Hence the representations and the Report of the Equal Opportunity Cell companyld be finally companysidered by the University of Delhi around the end of year 2017.
On 10.03.2016, the new ViceChancellor joined the office and in order to ensure democratic functioning of the University, he decided to companystitute a Committee companyprising of senior faculty persons representing different sections of the University.
All this exercise involved a further period of five to six months before a companysidered opinion companyld be generated by the University of Delhi.
After detailed deliberations, the Equal Opportunity Cell Page 9 of 34 submitted its Report on 28.04.2017 which was brought to the numberice of Competent Authorities for their companysideration.
On 01.03.2018, the LPA was filed before the Delhi High Court.
Despite the writ petition having been filed belatedly in respect of certain actions which had companymenced in the year 2005 and even though the writ petition was filed after obtaining approval of the Executive Council, numbersteps were taken to file the writ appeal for 916 days after disposal of the writ petition.
The Council includes the senior most Deans, democratically elected representatives of teachers, the Visitors numberinee, the Registrar, and the ViceChancellor.
28.10.2015 and companyld be companysidered only after the new Vice Page 7 of 34 Chancellor had assumed office and taken stock of things.
It was also observed that the change in the land use from public to residential is permissible by adverting to the Delhi High Courts Division Bench Judgment in Adil Singh vs. Union of India 2010 171 DLT 748.
The companystruction permission was allowed on the plot leased out to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation hereinafter referred to as the, DMRC for short by permitting segregation of 2 hectares as a separate entity from the total 3 hectares of land, acquired for the metro station.
While the above deliberations were on, accessibility companycern to the Universitys Metro Station area was raised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by persons with disabilities.
In the Executive Council meeting held on 28.02.2017, the matter was discussed.
The University also received a report on preventive measures to be taken in the accident prone area of the Metro Station.
In the interregnum, the accidents occurred at Chhatra Marg in December 2017 led to the Page 10 of 34 need for the preparation of a Report by the Office of the Proctor of the University dated 05.02.2018 wherein the Proctor recommended the area to be declared as accident prone.
13 themselves had filed a writ petition being aggrieved by the restricted FAR and the said writ petition was disposed only on 18.05.2011 and the need for the appellant herein to file the writ petition arose only thereafter.
The impediment to access of thousands of students, teachers at the entrance of the University was the other main companytention raised in the writ petition.
Thereafter the writ petition of the appellant filed in the year 2012 was pending till it was disposed on 27.04.2015.
The delay of 916 days caused in preferring the Appeal was explained in the application seeking delay companydonation and the rejoinder to the reply to said application to the following effect Nonconvening of Executive Council and delay occasioned due to numberavailability of Vice Chancellor.
Based on the Report of the fivemember Committee, it was decided by the Competent Authority that the subject matter of the present case be referred to the Executive Council of the University for its final decision.
Being a statutory body, an adherence to the just method of decision making requires companysultations with affected departments of the University itself Page 6 of 34 and therefore, the final say in the matter rests with the Executive Council which is companystituted under Section 21 of the Delhi University Act, 1922.
The Committees report furnished on 11.11.2016 is stated to have been laid before the Executive Council of the University and after due companysideration of the report and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Executive Council of the University through their resolution dated 28.02.2017/07.03.2017 decided to prefer an intraCourt Appeal in the High Court.
Holding discussions and deliberations among these bodies and companysidering their inputs involved further time and it involved companyrdination and interaction with various authorities and stake holders.
It is the only case where, the approval from the Executive Council of the University of Delhi was required to be taken and before such approval, various deliberations preceded so as to appraise the Executive Council of the different shades of the subject matter.
Subsequently legal opinion was sought and the draft appeal and petition was prepared which was thereafter got vetted and settled by the Senior Counsel.
The finalized Appeal was thereafter again companysidered at the highest level at the University to take the final decision, which entailed some time.
The item was again discussed in the Executive Council meeting held on 7.3.2017 companytinued meeting , Page 8 of 34 where the members of the Council referred to the earlier discussions and decisions of both the Academic Council and the Executive Council with respect to the same matter and it was decided unanimously to prefer an Appeal against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.04.2015 after adequate preparation.
13 namely, M s Young Builders Private Limited for the proposed companystruction of a group housing society on the land originally owned by the Ministry of Defence in the University enclave is violative of the MPD2021 and is against the larger public interest, given the fact that the project site in question and its vicinity are within the North Campus of the University and that it companytains various historical and archaeological buildings, apart from it being Page 2 of 34 the centre of higher education and advanced learning and b the change in the character of the subject land is impermissible in law, since the land having been acquired for public purpose for companystruction of the metro rail project, has suddenly been diverted to private companymercial use and auctioned to private builder for building a group housing society in a manner companytrary to the purpose and charter of incorporation of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation DMRC The restriction on certain developments for Metro Station prescribed under Master Plan of Delhi 2021 MPD for short was also a companytention raised by the writ petitioner which imposed ban on companystruction of highrise buildings in the companytrol zone of the Delhi University.
In the judgment dated 27.04.2015 the Court however observed that DDA is the master of the formulation and implementation of the Master Plan and, necessary approvals have been taken from various statutory authorities for the housing project.
The case in the present LPA is different from other routine litigation preferred or companytested by the appellant.
The formal application made to the authorities for change of land use and approval secured for companyversion of the land for residential use, was also highlighted by the DMRC.
Similarly, another petition in W.P C No.66246625/2012, though challenging the acquisition was filed, the same was also dismissed.
On 11.11.2016, the above companystituted Committee gave its Report.
The terms of reference of the Five member Committee were, to recommend the companyrse of action to the University in the light of the dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the University in the DMRC matter.
The Equal Opportunity Cell, University of Delhi, which looks after the welfare of disabled students and others, in the light of the new enactment on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, analyzed the probable outcome.
Such representations were received from individuals as well as groups which the University had to companysider and were therefore forwarded to the Equal Opportunity Cell for companysideration.
13 being aggrieved by the decision of DDA had filed a petition bearing W.P. No.3135/2010 assailing the letter dated 19.08.2009 and the same was disposed of only on 18.05.2011 but the appellant cannot take shelter under the same to explain the laches.
Both the Reports one by the Equal Opportunity Cell and the other by the Office of Proctor were sent to the Counsel companycerned who was holding the brief for the preparation of the Appeal memorandum.
In the meanwhile, reservation was strongly put forth by the disabled students and faculty in the light of the proposed project by the private builder at the very main entrance of the University of Delhi.
Thus, Page 11 of 34 aggrieved the appellantUniversity has filed this appeal.
The judgment of learned Single Judge was sent by the Counsel representing the University quite late and it was, then, place before the Legal Cell of the University for examining the matter.
The issue companyld number be taken up for companysideration as the post of Vice Chancellor had fallen vacant w.e.f.
With these and other Page 5 of 34 projection, the appeal in LPA No.89/2018 came to be filed on 01.03.2018 after a delay of 916 days, together with the M.No.8654/2018 for companydonation of delay in filing the appeal.
S. Bopanna,J. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by The challenge in the writ petition was, inter alia, to MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.12.17 160040 IST Reason the decision dated 12.5.2011 of the Delhi Development Page 1 of 34 Authority hereinafter referred to as the, DDA for short who had allowed respondent number13M s Young Builders Ltd. to companystruct a highrise multistory group housing society in the companytrol zone of ZoneC in the University campus, without any height restriction.
These appeals have been preferred by the appellantUniversity of Delhi through its Registrar to challenge the companymon judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 whereby, the High Court of Delhi declined to companydone the delay of 916 days in filing the appeal to challenge the judgment dated 27.04.2015 whereunder, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the W.P C No.2743/2012 filed by the University of Delhi.
