Where land earmarked in a sanctioned layout plan for a public purpose has been de-reserved and the de-reservation was never questioned before any forum, does it continue to retain the character of being reserved for a public purpose?

Not in the absence of material to that effect. Where there is no material on record to show that notwithstanding such de-reservation the land would continue to retain the character of being reserved for a public purpose, and registered conveyances have changed hands over time with the issue of title never agitated, a finding that the land was required to be retained for a public purpose is unsustainable on the face of the record.

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — s.312 — s.313 — Layout plan — Incorporation of plots — Perpetual injunction — Finality of a civil decree — Letters Patent Appeal — Proof of title — Public purpose — Perpetual injunction — Decree attaining finality — Division Bench cannot unsettle — Held: Where a decree of perpetual injunction against the Corporation has attained finality, its appeals having been dismissed as time barred, a Division Bench is not justified in rendering observations so as to virtually unsettle that decree and thereby cause the title to be brought under dispute. (¶23, 24) Letters Patent Appeal — Scope confined to the direction appealed against — Title not in issue — Held further: Where the writ petition sought only a direction to consider incorporation of the plots in the layout plan, the issue of title neither arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge nor warranted adjudication, and the appeal had to be confined to that direction and nothing beyond. (¶29, 32) Proof of title — Entry in the immovable properties register — De-reserved land — Public purpose — Held further: A mere entry in the list of properties maintained by the Corporation cannot by itself constitute a valid proof of title; and once the land stood de-reserved, a finding that it must still be retained for a public purpose, unsupported by material, is unsustainable. (¶27, 28) Custodian of public interest — Not the same as title — Direction of the Single Judge restored — Held further: The right to manage as a local body in the character of custodian of public interest is not title, and observations to that effect, the issue of title having never been raised before any forum, are wholly perverse. Single Judge's direction restored; appeal allowed. (¶25, 29, 34)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of PAWAN GARG & ORS v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India