GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusANAND ARYA AND ORS.

                         [2016] 1S.C.R.1011



               GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.                              A
                                   v.
                     ANAND ARYA AND ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal No.888 of2016)
                         FEBRUARY OS, 2016                                 B

  [T.S. THAKUR CJI, A.K. SIKRI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
         Land laws: Change of land use - Matter pertains to the
  construction of bus depot by the appellants on an area situated
  next to Nizamuddin Bridge and behind J.P. Power Station - Writ
  petition in pub.lie interest seeking demolition of construction of bus
                                                                           c
  depot and restoration of area in its original condition on the ground
  that as per the Master Plan 2021 for Delhi, the Bus Depot popularly
  known as Millennium Bus Depot was shown as 'river flood plain'
  and on such area no construction could be carried out as per the
  Master Plan - High Court gave six months time to the authorities to      D
  change the Master Plan as per law if it was permissible, failing
  which the Millennium Bus Depot was to be removed from the site -
  After six months, the prayer for extension of time made by DTC -
  High Court rejected same - On appeal, held: High Court had given
  chance to DTC to get the MPD 2021 amended - This was done
                                                                           E
  keeping in view the submission of DTC that the Bus Depot was
· constructed to serve greater public purpose; the area was not falling
  on the river bed; that there was no threat to environment or ecology
   in having the Bus Depot at the given site - Exercise to consider the
  said aspect did not take place for some reason or the other -
  However, the development which took place in recent times,               F
   particularly the orders of the National Green Tribunal, pointed out
  to the fact that things started moving and it would be understood
  soon whether area in question where the Bus Depot stood was viable
   for this purpose or not - Therefore, directing the DTC to demolish
  the Bus Depot at this juncture may not be appropriate and the
                                                                           G
  decision in this regard is deferred - One year time granted to DTC
  during which period the DTC shall either get the MPD 2021
   amended failing which it shall shift the Depot.
         Disposing of the appeals, the Court
        HELD: 1. Though an opportunity was granted by the High             H
                                  I011
1012               SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2016] I S.C.R.


 A Court to the appellants to have the MPD-2021 amended, if the
   same was possible, even when almost four and a half years have
   passed, there is no amendment in the Master Plan. In the absence
   of said amendment, the legal position is that Millennium Bus
   Depot at the given site cannot operate. In the Contempt Petition,
   filed by respondents undertaking was given by the OTC to vacate
 B
   the Bus Depot by 31.10.2014. That undertaking is not adhered
   to. No doubt, application for extension of time was pending and
   because of this reason the Contempt Petition was adjourned from
   time to time, but the said application for extension was dismissed
   taking note of the fact that the appellants have failed to get the
 c Master Plan amended. [Para 18](1021-D-EJ
          2. Another material fact which is to be noticed is that in
   respect of this very issue, there was a meeting held under the
   Chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Government of NCT of
   Delhi wherein the background of the development of the
 D Millennium Bus Depot was explained by the Chief Secretary.
   After understanding this background, the Chief Minister pointed
   out the urgent need to protect the land along the river bed of the
   river Yamuna to increase recharge and to supplement the water
   needs of the cit) of Delhi. He was, therefore, of the view that
   OTC should vacate the land in question and move its buses to
 E some alternate location and the same be done in a time bound
   manner. As the minutes of the said meeting reflect, the demand
   of the Chairman of the OTC was that the DOA should immediately
   provide alternate land for relocating thousand buses which are
   parked and maintained at the said Depot. It was explained that if
 F no  alternate site is immediately made available, the DTC will
   face great difficulty in parking its fleet as there are huge
   constraints in its existing depots for the fleet in question. DTC
   submitted that it had got the Environmental Impact Assessment
   from WAPCOS (a Government of India body under the Ministry
   of Water Resources) and it was committed to following the said
 G Report in all respects. It also mentioned that the DTC was
   making efforts in creating greenery in the area and setting np of
   effluent treatment plants. Significantly, notwithstanding the above,
   the Chief Minister expressed that OTC should relocate to some
   other place. The entire discussion thereof proceeded on the
 H alternate land to be allotted by the DOA to the OTC. The chance
          GOVT. OF .NCT OF DELHI v. ANAND ARYA                             1013


was given to the appellants to have the MPD 2021 amended.                  A
This was done by the High Court keeping in view the submission
of the appellants that the Bus Depot in question was constructed
to serve greater public purpose; the area in question was, as a
matter of fact, was not falling on the river bed; and there was no
threat to environment or ecology in having the Bus Depot at the
                                                                           B
given site. Exercise to consider the aforesaid aspect has not
taken place, or for some reason or the other, whether it was
because of dispute between L&DO and DDA 011 the issue of land
ownership or otherwise. However, the development which have
taken place in recent times, particularly the orders of the National
Green Tribunal, point out to the fact that things are started moving       c
and it would be known in near future as a result of study conducted
by the Expert Committee, whether area in question where the
Bus Depot stands, is viable for this purpose or not, directing the
DTC to demolish the Bus Depot at this juncture may not be
appropriate and the decision in this regard can be deferred for
                                                                           D
some time to await the outcome of the report of the identification
of floodplain. Accordingly, one year time is granted to DTC during
which period the DTC shall either get the MPD 2021 amended
failing which it shall shift the Depot. [Paras 19, 23, 24][1021-G-
H; 1022-A-D; 1024-D-H]
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 888 OF               E
2016
       From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2015 in CM No.
 1229912015 dated 20.10.2015 in Writ Petition Civil No. 5481/2011 by the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
                                  WITH                                     F
      C. A. No. 889 of2016
      K. K. Venugopal, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Chirag M. Shroff, Bhaski.r
Das, Rohit Kumar, Ashwin Reddy, Ankur, Kabir S. Ghosh for the
Appellants.
     Shanti Bhushan, Jayant Bhushan, Reena George, Kartik Seth;            G
Aankhi Ghosh, Manish K. Bishnoi for the Respondents.
       A.K. SIKRI, J. I. Notice, returnable forthwith.
      2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ·
"respondents"), who are the real contesting respondents, have appeared
                                                                           H
1014                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2016] I S.C.R.


 A     on Caveat and accepted notice. Keeping in view the nature of order
       which we propose to pass in these appeals, it was not found necessary
       to serve other respondents. Insofar as counsel for the appellants as well
       as counsel for the respondents are concerned, they were ready to argue
       the matter finally. Accordingly, we heard the matter finally at this stage
       itself.
 B
             3. Leave granted in both these matters.
          4. The appellants in these two appeals are Government ofNCT
   of Delhi and Delhi Transport Corporation respectively. They feel
   aggrieved by the orders dated October 20, 2015 passed by the High
 c Court of Delhi in CM No. 12299 of2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
   5481 of201 I. In order to have a glimpse of the controversy, we may
   state that the matter pertains to the construction of Bus Depot by the
   appellants on an area situated next to Nizamuddin Bridge and behind
   J.P. Power Station. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5481 of2011 was disposed
   of by the High Court vide orders dated September 13, 2015. It was
 D found that as perthe Master Plan 2021 (MPD 2021) for Delhi the aforesaid
   Bus Depot, popularly known as Millennium Bus Depot, was shown as
   "river flood plain" and on such are no construction could be carried out
   as per MPD 2021. The High Court, however, gave six months' time to
   the authorities to change the Master Plan, as per law, if the same was
 E permissible, failing which the Millennium Bus Depot was to be removed
   from the site. This has not happened, though the order of the High
   Court is dated September 13, 2012. The DTC filed an application for
   extension of time, i.e., CM No. 12299 of2015. By the impugned order
   dated October 20, 2015, the High Court has rejected the prayer for
   extension of time and dismissed the application. It is this order which is
 F the subject matter of the instant appeals.

              5. The matter has some history. Jn order to appreciate the position
       taken by the parties on the either side, it would be necessary to traverse
       the historical trajectory. As we unfold the events that have taken place,
       the narration thereof would not only reflect the position taken by the
 G     parties on either side, some of the answers which apparently flow from
       these facts would also automatically become available. For these reasons,
       we take note of these events that are material for these appeals but
       avoiding unnecessary details at the same time.
             6. As is clear from the glimpse of the lis mentioned above, the
 H     appellants have constructed Millennium Bus Depot at the site in question.
          GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. ANAND ARYA                                 1015
                      fA.K. SIKRI, J.l

As per the respondents, the site is river flood plain and as per Master       A
Plan - 2021, no construction can be carried out on such an area. The
area in question is next to Nizamuddin Bridge and behind l.P. Power
Station and falls in Sub-Zone-06. Zone-0, between Nizamuddin Railway
Bridge and National l-lighway-24 measuring 390 hectares. This prompted
the respondents to file Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5481 of 2011 by way of
                                                                              B
Public Interest Litigation. The petition was filed at a time when the
construction was sti 11 underway. The respondents wanted stay of
construction as well. However. no such interim prayer was grant~d.
By the time the matter came up for final hearing, the construction had
been completely carried out and OTC Bus Depot had sta1ted functioning
therefrom. Under these circumstauces, the respondents pressed their           c
re Iief for demo! ition of the construct ion and restoration of area in its
original condition.
       7. It was averred by the respondents that the construction in
question amounted to encroachment on river flood plain/river front
resulting a change in the land use. It was also stated that as per the        D
Master Plan, the area is earmarked for recreation purposes on the West
Bank (Clause 9.2.1). It \\US pointed out that Draft Zonal Plan of1he
area was published in July, 2008 for the purpose of inviting objections.
The Zonal Plan has specified the land use of the River and confirmed
that it would be only for recreational use such as Biodiversity Park,
Botanical Park, Forest etc. which would help in regenerating the               E
environment. The respondents also pointed out that the ODA vide its
communication dated December 2, 2010 in response to RTJ query had
confirmed that a 6 hectares strip of land between Akshardham Complex
and the Commonwealth Games Village was indeed designated as
'Parking' in the approved lay out plan. The Delhi Urban Art Commission         F
(hereinafter referred to as 'the DUAC') after its inspection carried out
on November 02, 201() had directed both the DOA and the OTC to
vacate the river bed and to ensure the removal of all the constructinns
carried out in the past Even the Shunglu Committee which was set up
to go into the conduct of Commonwealth Gam~s-20 I0 had advc'"S•?l]
commended upon the construction of the said structur~ and in its report       G
by observing as under:-
       "All clearances were provided by the Lieutenant Governor for
       construction of a 'temporary' structure which was ostensibly to
       be dismantled after the conclusion of the Games. But this Project
                                                                              H
1016                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2016] 1 S.C.R.


 A           was iniplemented by the Transport Department, GNCTD and OTC
             right from the beginning as a 'permanent' structure. It appears
             as if the hosting of CWG provided a pretext for 'land grab' by
             various Government agencies after short circuiting the established
             rules and procedures."
 B              In its affidavit tiled by the DUAC, it also categorically mentioned
       that no proposal regarding the alleged construction was ever referred to
       the DUAC at any time and no sanction or approval was thus obtained.
       It was also mentioned that site was inspected by the DUAC and
       thereafter matter was considered by the DUAC in its meeting held on
       November 10, 2010.
 c
               In nutshell, the case set up by the respondents was that the
       construction of Bus Depot is contrary to Master Plan; it would affect
       the ecology and environment of the area; by ignoring the same the
       appellants were violating the principle of Puyblic Trust, principle of
       Sustainable Development, Polluter Pays Principle, Principle of Inter-
 D     Generational Equity; and all this amounted to infuriation of Articles 21,
       48A, 5 lA of the Constitution.
              8. The OTC and Delhi Government tiled their respective affidavits
       explaining that the land in question was allotted for the development of a
       Bus Deport to be used during the Commonwealth Games which where
 E     to be held in New Delhi in October, 2010. The position taken by the
       OTC was that it was imperative to have such a bus depot which was
       utilised for operating buses in the city of Delhi and almost 900 buses
       were providing services from this Depot which was serving major bus
       terminals. Since it was serving public purpose, there was necessity for
 F     such a depot. At the same time, OTC also accepted the position that as
       per Master Plan, the area was shown as river bed and no such construction
       could be carried our on river bed. In view of such a situation, it was
       stated in the affidavit that the OTC vide letter dated November 09, 2010
       had requested the DOA for change of land use.

 G              The public purpose was highlighted by stating that the Millennium
       Park Bus Parking acts as a life line for nearly one fourth of the bus
       commuters of Delhi. It caters to approximately ten lakhs people every
       day and is immensely beneficial to lower and middle class se.ctions of
       society who cannot afford a means of transport other than public bus
       service. Shutting down the Millennium Park Bus Parking would deprive
 H
           GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. ANAND ARYA                                 1017
                       [A.K. SIKRI, J.l

lakhs of people of cheap and convenient bus service and would render           A
jobless nearly 2,000 employees of the OTC such a drivers, conductors,
mechanics, etc.
       9. The OTC also denied that there is a construction on the flood
plains ofYamuna River. As per the OTC, the Millennium Park Bus is
situated at a suitable distance from the river bund. It was submitted that     B
before development of the said land into a bus depot, the same was used
by the Indraprastha Thermal Power Plant for dumping of residual fly-
ash. Almost 20 meters of fly-ash spared over many acres were leveled,
compacted and covered with granular sub base to enable the ground to
bear the 13 .5 ton weight of each Low Floor Bus. Incidentally, a high
tension electricity transmission tower-which is an essential part of the       c
infrastructural needs of the city, is situated right in the center of this
area. The OTC also sought to project that no commercial activity to the
detriment of the ecological balance of the said land or the Yamuna River
is'taking place as a result of the operation of the bus depot. It emphasized
that the OTC had spent an amount of approximately ' 100 crores on the          D
development of this infrastructure.
       I 0. An additional affidavit was filed by the OTC giving certain
material to support its contention that the scientific study conducted by
an expert body like NEER! recommended the area in question for usage
as. parking space.                                                              E
       11. After taking note of the respective stand of the parties the
High Court went into the question as to whether the aforesaid Bus Depot
could be constructed at the given site. ·It was found that since there was
no dispute that as per MPD-2021 the land use of the site was shown as
"River Water Body" on which construction of the type qirried out by             F
the OTC was impermissible as law mandates construction in conformity
with the Master Plan. Because of this reason the High Court disposed
of the writ petition by giving six months' time to the appellants to get the
Master Plan amended, if it was possible in law.
       12. The flavour of the said order and the manner in which the writ      G
petition was disposed of can be gazed from paras 17 to 19 thereof,
which we reproduce hereunder for sake of clarity:
       "17. The moot question, however, is as to whether this Bus Depot
       could be constructed atthe given site? The petitioners have sought
       to demonstrate that the construction is carried out at the place
                                                                               H
1018             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] I S.C.R.


 A     which forms part of flood plains/river built (sic - bed) and this id
       denied by the OTC/Government ofNCT of Delhi. On the other
       hand, the respondents argue that it is not a river bed and having
       regard to previous user of the site for fly-ash for last number of
       years, use thereof as bus depot is appropriate, it is in public interest
       and no other suitable site is available or at least identified by DOA
 B
       so far. We are, however, of the view that it may not be necessary
       even to go into these questions. The stark reality is that as per
       MPD-2021 the land use of the site is ·'River Water Body"'.
       Admittedly, any construction has to be in conformity with the
       Master Plan. May be for this reason, when the land was allotted
 c     to the OTC to take care of the need of Commonwealth Games, it
       was for the purpose of 'temporary' parking, that too, in view of
       the security threat perceptions prevailing in the region. The
       <ioverument was conscious of the fact that there cannot be a
       permanent Bus Depot without amendment of the Master Plan,
       2021. It is for this reason, even during the argument, Mr. Waziri
 D
       made a submission that the Government was planning to make
       :nodifict•tion in ihe Master Plan.
       18. In view of th~ .o.bove, we are of the opinion that these petitions
       can be disposed of by permitting the respondents to take steps for
       amendment in the Master Plan, as per law, if it is permissible.
 E     There is a specific procedure for effecting the change in the Master
       Plan which includes notice to the public st large and inviting
       objections. Once this procedure is followed and objections are
       invited, it would be open to the petitioners to file their objections
       and raise issue of ecology and environment which will have to be
 F     considered. Thus, arguments raised before us by the petitioners
       in this behalf can be duly taken into consideration at that stage.
       Naturally, if there is any substance in the contention of the
       petitioners, it may not result change in the Master Plan. On the
       other hand, at that stage it wi II also be open to the respondents,
       particularly DTC, to put forth its case that the site in question was
 G     used as fly-ash purposes since 1960s and on the construction of
       bund, the area was segregated and, therefore, it is not going to
       have any impact on river built/flood plains. What we are
       emphas.izing is that the respective contentions on this aspect can
       be considered and looked into and decision thereupon taken.
 H
          GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. ANAND ARYA                                  1019
                      fA.K. SIKRI, J.l

      I 9. These petitions are accordingly disposed of by granting             A
      six months time to the respondents to take steps for the change
      in the Master Plan, if it is possible, thereby changing the land
      user and bringing it in conformity with the present use. In
      case, the Master Plan is amended in this manner, the natural
      consequence thereof would be that the Bus Depot would continue
                                                                               B
      to operate from the given site. On the other hand, if attempt to
      amend the Master Plan fails, there would be no option to re-locate
      the Bus Depotto some other place. In that event, it will be forthe
      OTC to ask the DOA to allot alternate site and feasibility of site
      at Mayur Vihar can also be considered at that stage."
      13. Following aspects are discernible from the aforesaid order:
                                                                               c
     (a) The construction of Millennium Bus Depot is on the land,
which according to MPD-2021 is shown as 'River Water Body'.
      (b) Position in law is clear, on which there is no dispute, that any
construction has to be in conformity with the Master Plan.                     o
      (c) If the land use of the site in question is 'River Water Body' as
per MPD-2021, construction thereupon is not permissible and such area
cannot be used as Bus Depot.
       (d) The OTC, however, contended that land site was wrongly
shown as 'River Water Body' in the MPD 2021 as it was actually not             E
so. It contended that the previous user of the site was for fly-ash and
the argument of the appellants in the High Court was that it was not a
river bed and, therefore, same could be used as Bus Depot, which user
was in Pl\blic interest. The respondents herein, on the other hand,
contended that the user of the site as Bus Depot was a threat to ecology
                                                                                F
and environment.
      (e) Since as per the MPD-2021, the land use of the site is 'River
Water Body', on which construction was not permissible without
amendment of the Master Plan, the appellants conceded that in order to
continue the Bus Depot, amendment in the Master Plan was needed.
                                                                                G
        14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects, the High Court granted
six months time to the authorities to take steps for change in the Master
Plan, ifit was possible in law, thereby changing the land user and bringing
it in conformity with the present use. It was pointed out that the procedure
that has to be followed for change of Master Plan included giving
                                                                               H
1020                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016] 1 S.C.R.


 A opportunity to the respondents herein to file their objections and raise
       the issue of ecology and environment and for OTC to put forth its case
       that the site in question was used as fly-ash purposes since 1960 and on
       construction of the Bund the area was segregated and, therefore, use of
       site as Bus Depot wa" not going to have any impact on the river bed/
       flood plains. The purpose was, thus, to give an opportunity to the appellants
 B
       to establish that area could not be treated as 'river bed' and if that is
       proved, it could pave way for change of MPD 2021.
               15. There is no amendment in the MPD-2021 till date on the
       aforesaid aspect and as per the said Master Plan, land use remains the
       same, which has not been altered. The OTC has its own explanation as
 c     it is contended that though steps were taken by the ODA to change the
       lanci use, but it was taking time because of the dispute that had arisen
       between DOA and the Land and Development Office (L&DO) about
       ~ne cwnership of the land in question. Be as it may, the Master Plan
       remains unaltered.
 D              16. Since time of six months granted by the High Court expired
       and the consequence thereof was that as per the directions contained in
       ~1e order dated 13 .09.2012 the appellants had to relocate the Bus Depot
       to .'Gille other place, ;ind the same was.not done, the respondents herein
       filed Contempt Petition No. 474 of2013 in Writ Petition No. 5481 of
 E     2011. Some significant developments which took place in the Contempt
        Petition need to be mentioned at this stage.
               17. On receiving the notice of contempt, in which Chairman-cum-
        Managing Director (CM D) of OTC was imp leaded as respondent/
        cont~mnor, the CMD filed an affidavit dated 23.01.2014 on behalfofthe
        DTC wherein undertaking was given to the Court to vacate the site in
  F
        question on or before 31. l 0.2014. lt was also mentioned by the OTC in
        the affidavit that the problem could be solved by the ODA with the
        al!otment of alternate land. Since the officials of the ODA was also
        rm pleaded as a contemnor in the said Contempt Petition, they filed periodic
        Status Reports in respect of allotment of land. The ultimate result was
        that the DOA allotted 8.25 acres of additional land at Sarai Kale Khan,
         IO acres of land at Narela, 16.33 acres of land at Anand Vihar and 20
        acres of land at Rohini Phase-V. The stand of the OTC was that some
         portion of the land allotted by the DOA had been encroached upon illegally
        and the land use had also not been changed because of which the DTC
         was unable to shift.
  H
           GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. ANAND ARYA                                1021
                       fA.K. S!KRI, J.l

         In the meantime, the application for extension of time was filed,    A
as aforesaid, which was pending consideration by the Division Bench of
the High Court and because of this reason, the Contempt Petition was
adjourned from time to time to await the result of the said application.
          Whet\ the Division Bench dismissed the application for extension
 of time vide impugned order dated 20.10.2015, the Contempt Petition          B
 was taken up by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and taking
 note of the said dismissal, the High Court pointed out that the DTC had
 to forthwith comply with the order dated 13.09.2012. As on that date,
 the DTC informed the Court that 500 out of 800 buses that were being
 parked at the Millennium Bus Depot had already been shifted to other
 Bus Depots. In this scenario, the Court granted the DTC two months           c
·further time, i.e. till 27.01.2016, to vacate the Bus Depot by shifting
 remaining buses as well to some other Depots.
       .            .               '
     18. The position that emerges from the aforesaid events can be
summed up as under:
                                                                              D
         Though an opportunity was granted by the High Court to the
appellants to have the MPD-2021 amended, ifthe same was possible,
and the time of six months was granted for this purpose, even when
almost four and a half years have passed, there is no amendment in the
Master Plan. In the absence of said amendment, the legal position is
that Millennium Bus Depot at the given site cannot operate. In the             E
Contempt Petition, undertaking was given by the DTC to vacate the
Bus Depot by 31.10.2014. That undertaking is not adhered to. No
doubt, application for extension of time was pending and because of this
reason the Contempt Petition was adjourned from time to time, but the
said application for extension has been dismissed taking note of the fact      F
that the appellants have failed to get the Master Plan amended. In the
impugned order, while dismissing the said application, the High Court
has taken note of the circumstances because of which there is no
amendment to the Master Plan.
        19. Another material fact which is to be noticed is that in respect    G
 of this very issue, there was a meeting held under the Chairmanship of
 the ChiefMinisterofGovernmentofNCT of Delhi on 15.01.2014 wherein
 the background of the development of the Millennium Bus Depot was
 explained by the Chief Secretary. After understanding this background,
·the Chief Minister pointed out the urgent need to protect the land along
 the riverbed of the river Yamuna to increase recharge and to supplement       H
1022                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2016] 1 S.C.R.



 A the water needs of the city of Delhi. He was, therefore, of the view that
   DTC should vacate the land in question and move its buses to some
   alternate location and the same be done in a time bound manner. As the
   Minutes of the said meeting reflect, the demand of the Chairman of the
   DTC was that the DDA should immediately provide alternate land for
   relocating thousand buses which are parked and maintained at the said
 B
   Depot. It was explained that if no alternate site is immediately made
   available, the DTC will face great difficulty in parking its fleet as there
   are huge constraints in its existing depots for the fleet in question. DTC
   even gave the explanation by submitting that it had got the Environmental
   Im pact Assessment from WAPCOS (a Government oflndia body under
 c the Ministry of Water Resources) and it was committed to following the
   said Report in all respects. It also mentioned that the DTC was making
   efforts in creating greenery in the area and setting up of effluent treatment
   plants. Significantly, notwithstanding the above, the Chief Minister
   expressed that DTC should relocate to some other place. The entire
   discussion thereof proceeded on the alternate land to be al lotted by the
 D
   DDA to the DTC.
              20. If only the aforesaid features are to be kept in mind, there is
       hardly any reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.
       In fact, Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior
       counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that
 E     the aforesaid circumstances, as pointed out by the appellants, had no
       bearing on the issue and having regard to the solemn undertaking given
       by the DTC in its affidavit to shift the Bus Depot by 31.10.2014, which
       had already been flouted, and the DTC was in clear contempt, no further
       chance should be given to the appellants in this behalf.
 F            21. Notwithstanding the above position, Mr. K.K. Venugopal,
       learned senior counsel appearing for the DTC, and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,
       learned senior counsel appearing for the Govt. ofNCT of Delhi, made a
       passionate plea for grant of some more time as according to them there
       was still a possibility ofamending the Master Plan suitably in near future.
 G     Such a plea was predicated on the developments which have taken place
       after the passing of the impugned order. Explaining the position, it was
       submitted that no amendment in MPD 2021 would be carried out earlier
       because of the following three hurdles:
              1)        L&DO land ownership issue.
 H            2)        Yamuna Standing Committee approval.
           GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. ANAND ARYA                                   1023
                       fA.K. SIKRI, J.l

      3)         Foresh Department approval.                                     A
         Mr. Venugopal submitted that on all three fronts, the ground
realities had undergone a total change. It was pointed out that even
when L&DO had raised the issue of land ownership, it had in principle
accepted to grant No Objection Certificate for the retention of DTC
Bus Depot. Even Yamuna Standing Committee had granted its approval               B
in principle, which was evident from the Minutes of the Meeting held on
17.09.2013 and 04.10.2013. Likewise, Forest Department approval was
under consideration, which was clear from the correspondence that was
exchanged in this behalf and it was explained that no prior environment
clearance was needed in this case as the built up area in the complex is
less than 20,000 sq.nits. The learned counsel also reterred to the minutes       c
of the meeting held under the Chairmanship ofA.S. (UD) in the Ministry
of Urban Development, on 17.10.2015 wherein following was agreed:
        (i) DDA will take immediate steps, possibly within a period of one
month, for demarcation of 'O' zone area after collecting the required
statistics from the Irrigation & Flood Control Department ofGNCTD.               D

        (ii) MD, DTC will actively coordinate with DDA for facilitating
collecting the data and also in whatever way possible for conducting the
demarcation of 'O' zone and also approaching the Principal Committee
for its permission.
                                                                                 E
      (iii) Once the required permission from the Principal Committee
is available and the court cases are disposed of, L&DO will take
necessary action for issuing the required NOC for land use for the Bus
Depot.
        It was submitted that Minutes of the said Meeting were prepared
                                                                                  F
only on 28. 10.2015 and, therefore, could not be placed before the High
Court when the matter was taken up on 20.10.2015 and impugned order
passed.
       22) Another significant development which was pointed out was
the order dated 13.01.2015 of the National Green Tribunal passed in OA
                                                                                 G
No. 6/2012 and MA Nos. 967/2013 and 275/2014 in the matter of Manoj
Mishra v. Union of Jn<fia & Ors. That case pertains to cleaning of
River Yamuna. In the aforesaid order, after comprehensively reviewing
the situation in the light of various technical reports etc., the Tribunal has
given some directions which, inter alia, include the direction to all
concerned authorities, including the DPA, Municipal Corporations and             H
1024                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2016] I S.C.R.



 A the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, to take immediate and effective steps for
       identification of floodplain. The Tribunal has directed preparation of a
       map in this regard and physically demarcate the entire floodplain. There
       is also a direction to the Principal Committee to identify which structures
       were to be demolished and which ones were to be retained, in the interest
       of ecology and environment. The public interest in retaining the said
 B
       Bus Depot was again emphasized and it was submitted that once the
       aforesaid exercise of demarcation of the entire floodplain is carried out
       by the Principal Committee, the stand of the appellants would be
       vindicated that the area in question where the Bus Depot has been
       constructed does not fall within the floodplain thereby paving way for
 c     the amendment of the Master Plan.
              23. We have considered the respected submissions of learned
       counsel for the parties on either side. As is clear from the tenure and
       spirit behind the orders dated 13.09.2012 passed by the High Court, the
       chance was given to the appellants to have the MPD 2021 amended if it
 D     was permissible in law and the period of six months was given for this
       purpose. This was done by the High Court keeping in view the submission
       of the appellants herein that the Bus Depot in question was constructed
       to serve greater public purpose; the area in question was, as a matter of
       fact, was not falling on the river bed; and there was no threat to
       environment or ecology in having the Bus Depot at the given site.
 E     Exercise to consider the aforesaid aspect has not taken place, or for
       some reason or the other, whether it was because of dispute between
       L&DO and ODA on the issue ofland ownership or otherwise. However,
       the development which have taken place in recent times, particularly the
       orders of the National Green Tribunal, point out to the fact that things
 F     are started moving and it would be known in near future as a result of
       study conducted by the Expert Committee, whether area in question
       where the Bus Depot stands, is viable for this purpose or not, directing
       the OTC to demo] ish the Bus Depot atth is juncture may not be appropriate
       and the decision in this regard can be deferred for some time to await
       the outcome of the report of the identification of floodplain.
 G             24. Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals by granting one year
       time to the OTC during which period the DTC shall either get the MPD
       2021 amended, failing which it shall shift the Depot in question. We make
       it clear that no further time on any ground whatsoever shall be granted
       in this behalf.
 H     Devika Gujral                                            Appeals disposed of.