Central Vista: SC rejects petition to stall challenge over ‘change in land use’

On Monday (November 22), the Supreme Court of India rejected a petition that sought to problem the change in land use on a plot within the Central Vista space.
The petitioner named Rajeev Suri had alleged that the stated plot of land was a leisure space, which is for use for developing the brand new residences of the Prime Minister and Vice-President as a part of the Central Vista Project. He claimed that the change in land use, as directed by the Union of India, violated Article 21 (Protection of life and private liberty). Suri added that the notification denied leisure alternatives to youngsters and Delhi residents to entry inexperienced and open areas within the Central Vista space.
“Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) malafidely issued Notification S.O. 3848 (E) dated 28.10.2020 notifying the change in land use, which will deprive residents of Delhi and citizens of India a vast chunk of highly treasured open and green space in the Central Vista area available for social and recreational activity, stands against Article 21, Right to Life the right to enjoyment of a wholesome life,” the petition learn.
#SupremeCourt to listen to a petition difficult the change within the land use of a plot the place the brand new official residences of the vice chairman and the Prime Minister are stipulated as a part of the bold Centra Vista challenge in Delhi #CentralVista pic.twitter.com/j4BYU5hlwP— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) November 23, 2021
Rajeev Suri additionally claimed, “The Central Vista is the most cherished open space in New Delhi and perhaps India, a symbol of their nationhood, and the publicness of this cherished open spaces land is being compromised which is a great betrayal of the Public Trust Doctrine.” He had initially filed the petition, looking for quashing of notification permitting change in land use, in March final yr. It was rejected by the court docket on August 28, 2020.
Supreme Court rejects plea with 2:1 majority vote
However, the apex Court had requested the petitioner to strategy it when a remaining resolution on the matter could be taken. The contemporary petition was heard by a 3-Judge Bench, comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar. The Court said, “Petitioner has not argued that change in land use is in a malafide manner. It is the argument of the petitioner that since in the past it was a recreational area it should have been retained like that. This cannot be the scope of judicial review. It is for the authority concerned and is a matter of public policy.”