Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a writ petition, instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to restore possession of the parking site situated at Yamuna Sur Ghat in terms of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. 907 dated 27 September 2022 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J., disposed of the writ petition with directions that:
-
no commercial or parking activity shall be permitted on the Yamuna Flood Plains area in question;
-
DDA should protect the ecologically sensitive land from any such use;
-
alternative parking arrangements, if required, may be made away from the flood plains; and
-
petitioner was at liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies for damages.
In the instant matter, the dispute arose out of a memorandum of understanding executed between DDA and MCD concerning handing over and management of parking sites, including the parking site at Yamuna Sur Ghat. Pursuant thereto, possession of land measuring 2508 sq m at Yamuna Sur Ghat was handed over by DDA to MCD.
Thereafter, MCD issued a NIT dated 27 September 2022 for allotment of several parking sites, including the Yamuna Sur Ghat and Adarsh Nagar cluster sites. In response to the said tender, the petitioner participated in the bidding process and emerged as the highest bidder. Consequently, an allotment/possession letter was issued in his favour for operating the parking site for a period of 3 years on payment of monthly licence fee of Rs 10,11,100.
The petitioner deposited a security amount of Rs 30,33,300 and advance licence fee for 4 months amounting to Rs 40,44,400. Physical possession of the site was thereafter handed over to him, and he commenced operation of the parking site from 17 January 2023.
Subsequently, DDA issued a communication dated 23 January 2023 informing MCD that only an area measuring 2508 sq m at Parking Site No. 1 had actually been transferred, whereas MCD had allotted an area of 3780 sq m to the petitioner. Following this discrepancy, DDA withdrew the permission earlier granted to MCD, and MCD, by letter dated 31 January 2025, cancelled the parking site allotted to the petitioner.
The Court’s attention was also drawn to a letter dated 9 June 2023 issued by DDA to the Commissioner, wherein it was stated that the parking site at Sur Ghat, Yamuna, was urgently required to be vacated for developmental purposes. DDA further contended that the land in question formed part of the Yamuna Flood Plains and fell within Zone—O. However, the petitioner argued that no developmental activity had actually taken place and therefore the tender ought to be restored and possession of the site should be returned to him immediately.
At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner’s allotment had already been cancelled by letter dated 31 January 2025 and possession of the land had reverted to DDA. Importantly, the petitioner had not challenged the cancellation order in the present writ petition.
The Court observed that questions concerning the correctness and legality of the cancellation, as well as the petitioner’s claim for compensation, involved “disputed questions of fact” which could not appropriately be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that such disputes required adjudication in appropriate civil proceedings.
The Court further accepted DDA’s stand that the land in issue fell within Zone—O and formed part of the Yamuna Flood Plains. The Court emphasised that the area was ecologically sensitive and therefore unsuitable for commercial activities.
In view of environmental concerns, the Court directed DDA to ensure that no activity whatsoever was permitted on the said land, including parking of vehicles or any commercial use, “even if it may be for the convenience of people coming to pay respect/homage to the river on any auspicious occasion”.
The Court additionally directed that all commercial and religious activities in the area should remain prohibited in the interest of environmental protection and preservation of the ecologically sensitive Yamuna Flood Plains. However, if DDA considered it necessary to provide parking facilities for visitors or worshippers on special occasions, it was directed to create alternative arrangements away from the flood plains so that the environmentally sensitive area remained undisturbed.
The Court also clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies for damages.
[Suresh Kumar v. DDA, W.P.(C) 5894/2026 with CM APPL. 28920/2026 and CM APPL. 28921/2026, decided on 30-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Raghav Saluja and Mr. Daksh Tomar, Advs., Counsel for the Petitioner
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC with Mr. Bir Inder Singh Gurm, Adv., Counsel for the Respondent 1/DDA
Mr. Tushar Sannu and Ms. Pulak Gupta Joshi, Advs., Counsel for the MCD
