Holding

Land vacated by the relocation of hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries shall be used for community needs, with the Court‑prescribed percentages of surrender to the DDA for green belts and open spaces, and the remainder may be developed by the owners in accordance with the Master Plan, without amending the Master Plan.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which mandates the relocation of hazardous, noxious, heavy and large industries from Delhi and the subsequent use of the land vacated. Various committees (Alphons, Jain, Khanna) submitted schemes on how the land should be utilized. The Court held that the land must be used to meet community needs, specifically for green belts and open spaces, and directed a specific percentage split between land surrendered to the Delhi Development Authority and land that owners may develop under the Master Plan. It rejected the suggestion that the Master Plan be amended and limited the owners' entitlement to floor‑area‑ratio to one‑and‑a‑half times the permissible FAR on the portion they may develop. Consequently, the petition was disposed with the Court’s directions on land‑use percentages.

Issues considered

The extent to which land vacated by relocation of hazardous/noxious/heavy/large industries must be surrendered for community needs under the Master Plan.
Whether the Master Plan needs amendment to accommodate the proposed land‑use scheme.
The permissible percentage split between land dedicated to the community (green belts/open spaces) and land retained by the industry owners.
The entitlement of the owners to floor‑area‑ratio on the entire plot versus only on the portion they develop.

Legislation cited

Delhi Development Act, 1957s. 11A(2)

Subjects

Delhi Development ActMaster Plan 2001hazardous industriesland usegreen beltcommunity needsenvironmental lawfloor area ratiorelocation of industriesArticle 32

Judgment

A M.C. MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 10, 1996

B [KULDIP SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]

Delhi Development Act, 1957:

S. l IA(2)--Master Plan for Delhi-Shifting of hazardous/noxious/
C heavy/large i11dustries from the city of Delhi-Land becoming available by
shifting of industries-{]se of-Held owners/occupiers owning more than 2000
sq. mtrs. of land would surrender the part of lands as shown in the judgment
for the community need and would develop the remaining land in accordance
with the zoning regulations of the Master Plan-ft would be in confonnity with
the broader concept of 11con11nunity need" under the master plan, to pennit
D the owner to develop part of the land for his own benefit and surrender the
remaining land to the use of the community at large-Though housing, sport
activity and recreational areas ar_e part of 'conimunity need', the most impor-
tant community need which is wholly deficient and is needed urgently is to
provide for the 'lung spaces' in the city of Delhi in the shape of green belts
E and open space;-Totality of the land surrendered and dedicated to the
community by the owners/occupiers of the relocated/ shifted industries should
be used for the development of green belts and open spaces.

Environmental Law :

F Pollution caused by hazardous/noxious industries-Shifting of in-
dustries from the city of Delhi-Used of land becoming available on shifting
of industries-Directions given.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Interlocutory Application
G No. 22.

IN

Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985.

H Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
806
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 807

Petitioner-in-person and Ms. Seema Mirdha. A

Arnn Jaitly, Swaraj Kaushal, H.N. Salve, Anil B. Diwan, Gopal
Subramanian, N.N. Goswami, S.B. Sanyal, Ms. Shirla Sethi, D.N.
Goburdhan, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Saharaya & Co., R.K. Maheshwari, R.S.
Suri, Ms. Hamantika Wahi, S. Sukun1aran, R. Karanj\vala, Ravindra
Narain, Sumeet Kachwaha, Punit Singh, Bimal Ray, Ramji Srinivasan, J.B. B
Dadachandji, T.C. Sharma, Sushma Suri, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ramesh
Babu, M.R. for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The Master Plan for Delhi - perspective 2001 (the Master Plan) as c
approved by the Central Government under Section 11A(2) of the Delhi
Development Act, 1957 (the Act) was published in the Gazette of India on
. August 1, 1990. The Master Plan specifically provides that the hazard-
ous/noxious/heary/large industries are not permitted to operate in the city
of Delhi and the existing industrial units falling in these categories are to D
be shifted/relocated. One of the questions for consideration in this inter-
locutory application is how and in what manner the land made available as
a result of the shifting/relocating of these industries is permitted to be used
by the owners/occupiers of the said land.

This Court on November 24, 1995 passed the following order : E
"The industries to be relocated are to be assisted in every possible
manner. The question of utilisation of the land available as a result
of shifting of these industries has also to be examined. ft is,
therefore, necessary to have interaction with various Depart-
ments/Governments. We are informed that primary assistance has F
to come from the national Capital Region Planning Board. We
direct the Member Secretary of the Board to be present in this
Court on 30th November, 1995 at 2 PM to assist us in this matter.
We further direct the Urban Affairs Ministry, DDA, NCT-Delhi
and MCD to depute a responsible officer each to be present in G
this Court on 30th November, 1995 at 2 PM."

Pursuant to the order quoted above, Mr. Omesh Saigal, Member Secretary,
National Capital Region Planning Board (the Board) and Mr. K. J. Al-
phons, Commissioner, Land Management, Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) personally assisted this Court on November 30, 1995. The assis- H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A lance rendered by these officers was noticed in the following words:

"Mr. Sehgal states that the Planning Committee of the Board has
already framed a scheme (the scheme) regarding the re- use of the
land which is likely to be made available as a result of the shifting
of the industries from Delhi. The scheme is at present with the
B DOA for consideration. We have requested Mr. Sehgal to prepare
a short note of what he has stated before us and place the same
on the record for our assistance. He may do so within 2 days from
today. On behalf of the ODA, Mr. KJ. Alphonse, Commissioner
Land Management is present. He states that the Scheme sent by
c the Board is at present under consideration of the ODA. He
further states that after the Scheme is finalised it would be sent to
Urban Development Ministry, Government of India for finalisa-
tion. We have requested Mr. Alphonse to place the Scheme before
this Court along with a note. He may do so within 2 days."

D
On December 13, 1995 this Court passed the following order :

"Pursuant to this Court order dated November 30, 1995 Mr. K.J.
Alphons has placed on record the proposed scheme regarding
utilisation of land which would be available in the event of re-loca-
E tion of the hazardous/noxious/large scale induslries from Delhi.
The scheme has been discussed with learned counsel appearing
for various industries. We are of the view that it would be useful
for the representatives of the industries to have discussion with the
Committee which is to finally examine the proposed scheme. Mr.
F P.C. Jain, Additional Commissioner, ODA who is present in the
Court has explained to us various aspects of the scheme. He is
agreeable to the proposal that 5/10 representatives of the industries
may place the suggestions/objections of the industries to the
proposed scheme before the Committee. The representatives of
the industries may file their written suggestions before Mr. Jain
G within one week from today. Thereafter, Mr. Jain will infqrm them
about the date when the Committee is likely to meet. It would be
desirable that the Committee meets before the end of this year. Jn
any case, the meeting must take place before 10th J anliary, 1996
because all these matters have been listed for final hearing on that
H date. In any case, Mr. Jain will inform the representatives about
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 809

the date of the meeting before 25th December, 1995." A
4
Mr. K.J. Alphons was the chairman of the committee in the DOA which
examined the question regarding utilisation of land made available as a
result of relocation/shifting of the industrie£. The proposal of Alphons-
Committee was approved by the technical committee of the DOA on
November 21, 1995. The operative part of the said proposal is as under : B
"SI. EXTEI\'T Percentage to be Percentage of land Percentage to be
No. earnulrkcd for to be used for earn1arked and to
Recreation Ground providing Housing be developed for
playground or any facilities by the residential or
other open uses as owner at norn1s to con1n1ercial-user to
specified by the be detem1ined by be developed by the
owner.
c
Authority DDNGNCT Delhi.
1 2 3 4 5
!. Upto 2000 Sq. lOOo/o to be
.- n1tr. (including developed by the
owner in accordance
the first 2000
sq. mts. of the with the Zoning
larger plot) regulations of the
D
Master Plan.
2. 0.2 to 5 ha. 33 27 40
3. 5 lia. to 10 ha. 33 34 33 .
4. Over 10 ha. 33 37 30"
E
The Alphons-Committee almost agreed with the reuse of vacated land as
suggested by the Board.

Mr. V.K. Bugga, Town Planner, Municipal Corporation Delhi
(MCD), by way of a note placed on record, suggested that "considering the
increasing level of pollution in the city, the most vibrant need of the F
community today is a breath of fresh air which is only possible if more and
--~ more green spaces within the city could be created besides preserving
existing ones. 11 According to Mr. Bugga ngreen open areas upto an extent
of 50 to 60 per cent or a less intensive land use are the probable answer
to the question of the utilisation of the land made available on account of G
shifting of industries under reference."
'
Pursuant to this Court's order dated December 13, 1995 (quoted
above) several industrial units/organisations submitted their objections/sug-
gestions before Mr. P.C. Jain, Additional Commissioner (Planning) ODA.
The units/organisations were also hea~d by a sub-group under the chair- H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A manship of Mr. Jain. The operative part of the affidavit dated January 10,
1996, filed by Mr. P.C. Jain in this respect, is as under :
•
"Based on the observations/suggestions made by all the industrial
units/Organisations, Special Technical Committee in its meeting
held on 8.1.1996 modified/clarified its earlier decision of 21.11.1995
B as under: (Item No. 95/95 TC. File No. F.20(16)/93/MP under the
subject regarding utilisation of land of existing hazardous and
noxious units/large scale industry on their closure/shifting).

(a) The policy would be applicable only to the hazardous/noxious
(as classified in Annexure H (a) and heavy and large industry (as
c classified in Annexure H(b) in the MPD 2001.

(b) The percentage breakup of the area is to remain unchanged
between the open area, housing facility i.e., facilities required for
housing, commerciaVresidential. The term 'Housing Facility' in the
decision of the Technical Committee refers to Community Facility
D
required for the population and as detailed out on page 150 of the
Gazette (MPD 2001).

(c) The shifting industry shall also be permitted to redevelop the
land for light and service industry as per the provisions of MPD
E 2001.

(d) The ownership of the pockets under open space and com-
munity facility would also remain with the shifting industry who
will develop/maintain these two.

F (e) The shifting industry would he given the benefit of FAR on the
entire plot of land, thus, vacated for utilisation as per the specified
land uses in MPD 2001. This is generally with the understanding
that the permissible FAR would be 60 as in case of extensive
industrial use zone. No construction of any nature shall be per-
mitted on the area identified as open spaces to be left as mandatory
G green area. A minimum of 10% of the total floor space shall have
to be used for community facility.

(f) For necessary modifications in the text of MPD 2001, these
pockets would be designated as SPECIAL AREAS with the con-
H trols as specified in the scheme.'
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 811

This Court on January 24, 1996 passed the following order : A

- "While we arc hearing, Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, learned counsel
appearing for the NCT, Government (Department of Land &
Building) states that the Lt. Governor Delhi has constituted a
committee headed by Mr. D.R. Khanna, judge, Delhi High Court B
(retired) to consider as to how and in what manner the land
eventually made available by relocation of the industries is to be
utilised. Needless to say that we are hearing the matter for the last
about 6 months and we are almost at the final stages. We, however,
welcome any assistance from any quarters. We direct the Registry
to send the draft scheme placed by Mr. Alphonse and the sugges- C
tions made by Mr. P.C. Jain to Justice D.R. Khanna through Mr.
D.N. Goburdhan, adv. within two days from today. Justice Khanna
may have deliberations with his committee and place his sugges-
tions/recommendations before this Court within 10 days there-
after." D
Justice D.R. Khanna (retired) Chairperson, Land Use Advisory Committee
appointed by the National Capital territory, Delhi Administration sub-
mitted a note pursuant to the above quoted order of this Court. It is stated
in the note that the time available with the Committee was short and as
such the deliberations of the Committee could not be finalised. Keeping in E
view the urgency of the matter, Justice Khanna states, the note contains an
ex-facie view which he gathered from various deliberations of the Commit-
tee. Regarding heavy and large industries Justice Khanna stated that "these
industries have to be shifted under the Master Plan. Their number is not
large but the lands occupied by them are substantial. One such occupies F
about 184 acres, another 112 acres, still another 37 acres and so on''. Paras
15, 16, 18 lo 21 & 29 of Justice Khanna's report are as under :

"15. The land prices in Delhi having phenomenally sky-rocketted.
In fact, their values may be many times more than the yields which
•
are presently being enjoyed by the operation of these industries G
and even what they might have totally enjoyed from the time of
the start of these industries. The protestations of the industries
that they are going to suffer because. of the shifting may appear
misplaced and may be more to draw as much of compensatory
relief from the government as may be possible. Left to their choice, H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A most of these industries would themselves shift and then
develop/dispose off their sites and structures, as there is least doubt
that they see gold mines them.

16. At the same time, it must be acknowledged here that none
should grudge in the high profits that the owners are likely to get
B by development/sale of sites of factories. They have been their
owners and did play needed roles during relevant time.s in the
industrialisation of NCT. Any spurt in the prices of real estate
enures for their benefiti. T.he same can only be circumscribed as
the need may dictate of social or environmental good and uplifting
c the face of capital city.

18. l am informed that some hearings were provided to the repre-
sentatives of the industries before formulation of these schemes,
and then the percentages in column 3 to 5 on the user of land were
arrived at. l .have no occasion to fully grasp the justification of
D these percentages but treating them as they are, l proceed to make
illy comments.

19. Firstly, so far as percentages mentioned in column 5 of
categories 2, 3 & 4 industries, some grievances is made in the
Written representations received by me that they are too low. Be
E
that as it may, still the percentages of column 5 would leave very
big areas of lands with these industries which would still be gold
mines with them. A three bed rooms residential flat in Delhi would
fetch anything between 20 to 50 lacs, and in commercial ar.ea, much
smaller would fetch much more.
F
20. It must be essentially taken note of that those industries which
are located in residential areas, the development may have lo be
residential in nature. Similarly lands located in commercial areas
should receive development of commercial nature. Lands located
in industrial areas shouM retain their user. This would ensure
G development in accordance .with the zoning regulations of the
Master Plan.

21. The first category of the draft scheme concerns land up to 2000
sq. mts. Their 100% development is left to the owners in accord-
H ance with the Master Plan. More than 95% of the industries in •
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.l. 813

Delhi would fall in this category and would thus be substantially A
benefited. There is almost a unanimity on this.

29. Adverting to the FAR, normally it has to be confined to the
areas that are. being built up on and developed. There should
therefore, be no reason why it should not be confined to FAR of
the lands in col. 5 only. To extend that for the ·benefit of Col. 5 B
so as to include areas of col. 3 and 4 would deprive areas of col.
3 & 4 of t):ie FAR for all time to come and would thus.be greatly
determinantal. to them (especially when col. 4 has to be inde-
pendently built upon), while giving overwhelming benefit to Col. 5
lands. It has to be kept in view here that 2000 sq. mts. of larger . C
plots have still been reserved for col. 5 while dealing with category
1 industries. 11

Justice Khanna submitted a supplementary note dated February 2ti, 1996.
On March 27, 1996 ·we. h.eard. learned counsel for the parties:. We also
examined .and discussed Alphons Committee report, Jain Colninittee D
report and the two notes placed on record by justice Khanna. We were
informed that Khanna Committee was to submit its final report. by April
10, 1996. We, therefore, adjourned the hearing of the case to April 12, 19%.
The matter was, however, taken up for consideration on April 30, 1996 .. We
finally heard the matter on that day and passed the following order : . E
"Mr. P.V. Jai Krishnan, Chief Secretary, NCT Delhi has filed: an
affidavit dated April 29, 1996. We have heard learned counsel on
the question of land-use, which may be made available as a result
of relocation/shifting of the industries from Delhi. We have before
us Alphone's Committee Report. We have also before us the F
Report submitted by Jain Committee in this respect. The Khanna
Committee appointed" by NCT Government Delhi has not .as ,y_et
completed its work. We have been adjourning hearing ofthes~ ·
matters from time to time to await the Khanna Committee Report.
Jn the affidavit it is stated by the Chief Secretary that the tenure G
of Khanna Committee has expired. It is stated that the NCT Del&.i .
Administration is taking steps to renew the tenure of the Commit-
tee for further period.

We are of the view that no useful purpose \viii be served to
look for any assistance in this respect from the NCT Delhi Ad- H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A ministration.

We have finally heard the matter today. Needless to say that
the Master Plan is the Charter for this purpose and we have to lay
down the land-use keeping in view the provisions of the Master
Plan. In this view of the matter, we direct the NCT Delhi Ad-
B ministration not to proceed \vith this matter any further. It shall
not constitute or e>.1end the tenure of any committee. We shall
finally decide the issue and the said decision shall be binding on
all concerne<l. 11

C We have given our thoughtful consideration to the point at issue
before us. We have had elaborate discussion with the learned counsel
representing various industries which are to be relocated/shifted. The basic
charter for the land-use in the city of Delhi is the Master Plan. The
provisions of the Master Plan are statutory and binding. The relevant
provisions regarding hazardous/noxious/heavy/large industries under the
D Master Plan are as under :

HAZARDOUS AND NOXIOUS INDUSTRIES

Refer Annexure III H(a).
E (a) The hazardous and noxious industrial units are not per-
mitted in Delhi.

(b) The existing industrial units of this type shall be shifted on
priority within a maximum time period of three years. Project
F report to effectuate shifting shall be prepared by the concerned
units and submitted to the Authority within a maximum period of
one year.

(c) The land which would become available on account of shifting
as administered in (b) above, would be used for making up the
G deficiency, as per the needs of the community; based on norms
given in Master Plan; if any land or part of land, so vacated is not
needed for the deficiency of the community services, it will be used
as per prescribed land used; however the land shall be used for
light and service industries, even if the land used according to the
H Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan his extensive industry.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.l. 815

(d) ········································· A
·+· .HEAVY AND LARGE INDUSTRIES
Refer Annexure Ill H (b)

(a) No new heavy and large industrial units shall be permitted in
Delhi. B

(b) The existing heavy and large scale industrial units shall shift to
Delhi Metropolitan Area and the National Capital Region keeping
in view the National Capital Region plan and National Industrial
Policy of the Govt. of India.
c
(c) The land which would become available on account of shifting
as administered in (b) above, would be used for making up the
deficiency, as per the needs of the community; based on norms
given in the Master Plan; if any land or part of land so vacated is
not needed for the deficiency of the community services, it will be D
used as per prescribed hmd use; however the land shall be used
for light and service industries, even if the land use according to
the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan is extensive industry.

(d) ···················································
E
(i) ···························· ·······················

(ii) ......... ~ ....................................... "

It is thus obvious that the land which would become available on account
of shifting/relocation of the industries can only be used for making up the F
deficiency, as per the needs of the community, based on the norms given
in the Master Plan. If any land or part of the land, so vacated is not needed
for community services it can be used as per the prescribed land use. To
appreciate the concept "need of the community" under the Master Plan it
would be useful to have a look at the following provisions of the Master G
Plan:

"In General it would be desirable to take up all the existing
deve1oped residential areas one by one for environmental improve-
ments through (i) plantation and landscaping (ii) provision of
infrastructure-physical and social and proper access where lacking H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (iii) possibility of infrastructure management of the last tier
through the local residents.
·+·
Conservation and revitalisation is required in case of traditional
areas and environmental upgradation and improvement is needed
in other old build-up areas.
B
LUNG SPACES

The Master Plan for Delhi in 1962 had indicated 9101 ha. of
recreational area al the Master Plan level. Within this area the city
has 18 major district parks from different periods of history i.e.
c Roshanara and Qudsia gardens of Mughal period. Talkatora gar-
den of British period and Budha Jayanti park of post independence
era. Out of this area 6012 ha. of district park and regional park
area is now available. During the implementation of the plan
approximately 34 percent of recreational area has been Jost to
D other uses. On the basis of the land use surveys conducted in 1981
about 2710 ha. of additional recreational area at the Master Plan
level has been earmarked in •.he land use plan in the DUA-81 and
the urban extension indicated in the plan. Thus in the urban areas
sho\vn in the land use plan the total recreational area indicated is
8722 ha. for a population of about 9 million by 2001 @ 9.7 sqm.
E per person. Part of this area is required to be developed for sports
activities as per policy.

Further conversion of recreational areas to other uses should
be permitted only under extraordinary circumstances. Areas in lieu
of such conversion may be provided e1sc\vhere in order to n1aintain
F
the over all average for the city.

Within DUA-81, the following special activity area for recrea-
tion are proposed for development.

(a) Additional special children parks of 4 ha. each (of the type of
G
India Gate children park) 7 nos.
,_
Location of Special Children park in DUA-81 to be in the
district parks of Dhaula Kuan, Pitam Pura, Keshopur, Sanjay Van
Trilok Puri, Gulabi Bagh, Feroz Shah Kotla and Coronation
H Memorial.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 817

·(b) Children traffic training parks of 5 ha. each, 6 nos. A
... Location of children Traffic Training Park in DUA-81 to be in
the district parks at Punjabi Bagh, Baba Kharak Singh Marg,
Pragati Maidan Dilshad Garden, Wazirpur and Loni Road.

(c) Picnic huts 5 nos. B
About 30% of the district park areas should be· developed, as
wood lands,-where picnic hut tould also be located.

Location of Picnic Huts in DUA-81 to be in the district parks al
Paschimpuri, Pitam Pura, Bidiwala Bagh, Kalkaji and Mehrauli. C
Preferred species of the trees to be planted in parks, gardens,
\Vood lands and roadside c~c. to suit local conditions are given in
Anneimre II.

In the Urban Extension wherever possible water bodies (lakes) D
should be developed to act as major lung spaces and to attract
migratory birds and for improving the micro-climate. A special
recreational area on the pattern of Disneyland/amusement park
could be developed in the land becoming available for the chan-
nelisation of river Yamuna. E
The district parks in the Urban E'tension would be @ 9 sqm
per person which would also include special parks given as under:

Special Children Park 4 Nos.
(4ha. each) F
Children Traffic Training Parks 4 Nos.
(3 ha. each)

Picnic Huts 4 Nos.
G
In new developments the neighbourhood park of at least 1.5
ha. for 15,000 population should be planned with flowering trees
and shrubs so as to achieve colourful pleasant enyjronment
throughout the year."

Delhi is one of the most polluted cities in the world. The quality of H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A ambient air is so hazardous that lung and respiratory diseases are on the
increase. The city has become a vast and unmanageable conglomeration of
commercia1, industrial, unauthorised colonies, resettlement colonies anc.l
.•.
unplanned housing. There is total lack of open spaces and green areas.
Once a beautiful city Delhi now presents a chaotic picture. The most vital
"community need" as at present is the conservation of the environment and
B
reversal of the environmental degradation. There are virtually no "lung
spaces'' in the city. The Master Plan indicates that "approximately 34
percent of ri.;creational areas have been lost to other uses 11 • We are aware
that the housing, the sports activity and the recreational areas arc also part
of the "community need" but the most important community-need which is
c wholly deficient and needed urgently is to provide for the "lung spaces" in
the city of Delhi in the shape of greenbelts and open spaces. We arc,
therefore, of the view that totality of the land which is surrendered and
dedicated to the community by the owners/occupiers of the relo-
cated/shifted industries should be used for the development of greenbelts
D and open spaces.

The core question for consideration, however, is how much of the
total land which would become available from each of the industrialists is
to be taken away by the community for its use and how much is to be left
E in the hands of the industrialists for the community use. The suggestions
given by Alphons Committee in this respect have been noted by us in the
earlier part of the order. Mr. Omesh Saigal, Mr. P.C. Jain and Justice
Khanna by and large agree \vith the suggestions of the Alphons Committee.
We are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining
two categories as suggested by Alphons Committee in Col. 3 and 4. After
F leaving the part of the !and with the owner for developing the same in
accordance with the permissible land-used under the Master Plan the
remaining land should be surrendered to the Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) for developing the same to meet the community needs. When the
Master Plan permits the use of the land only to meet the community-needs,
G it obviously means that the land has to be surrendered and dedicated to
the community. While meeting the community needs it is necessary to make
suitable provision for the owner to enable him to meet the expenses of
relocating/shifting the industry. It would, therefore, be in conformity with
the broader concept of .,community nee<.f1 under the Master Plan, to permit
H the owner to develop part of the land for his own benefit and surrender
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 819

the remaining land to the use of the community at large. A
We, therefore, order and direct that the land which would become
available on account of shifting/relocation of hazardous/noxious/heavy and
large industries from the city of Delhi shall be used in the following
manner:
B
"SI. E'<tent Percentage to be Percentage to be
No. surrender and dedicated developed by the owner
to the DDA for for his own benefit in
development of accordance with the user
greenbelts and other pern1itted under the
spaces Master Plan
l 2 3 4 c
I. Upto 2000 Sq. n1tr. lOOo/o to he developed by
(including the first 2000 the own~r in accordance
sq. n1ts. of the larger plot) with the Zoning
regulations of the Master
P1<1n ..

2. 0.2 to 5 ha 57 43 D
3. 5 ha. to 10 ha 65 35
4. Over 10 ha 68 32"

We do not agree wilh !he learned counsel for the induslrialists that
Floar Area Ratio (FAR) be permitted to them on the total area of the plot.
We however, direct that on the percentage of land as shown in Col. 4 the E
owners at serial No. 2, 3 and 4 shall be entitled to one and half time of the
permissible FAR under the Master Plan.

The DDA has suggested that it may be necessary to amend the
Master Plan for regularising the land use as directed by us. We do not
agree with the suggestion. The totality of the land made available as a result F
of the relocation}shifting of the industries is to be used for the community
needs. The land surrendered by the owner has to be used for the develop-
ment of greenbelt and open spaces. The land left with the owner is to be
developed in accordance with the user permitted under the Master Plan.
In either way the development is lo meet the community needs which is in G
conformity with the provisions of the Master Plan.

We are, therefore, of the view that it is not necessary lo amend the
Master Plan.

R.P. Petition disposed of.