Delhi HC directs DDA to ensure no parking or commercial activity on Yamuna flood plains

New Delhi [India], May 12 : The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to ensure that no activity, including parking of vehicles or any commercial use, is allowed on the Yamuna flood plains at Sur Ghat, observing that the area is ecologically sensitive and falls under Zone-O.

Justice Jasmeet Singh said that all kinds of commercial and religious activities must remain restricted in the area in the interest of environmental protection. The Court further directed that if parking arrangements are required for devotees visiting the river on auspicious occasions, the DDA must create alternative parking facilities away from the Yamuna flood plains without disturbing the sensitive ecological zone.

The directions came while disposing of a plea filed by Suresh Kumar seeking restoration of possession of a parking site at Yamuna Sur Ghat allotted under a Municipal Corporation of Delhi tender.

The petitioner stated that the MCD had issued a Notice Inviting Tender in September 2022 for various parking sites, including Yamuna Sur Ghat, and he was declared the highest bidder. He claimed that after depositing security and advance licence fee amounts, possession of the parking site was handed over to him, and operations began in January 2023.

However, during the proceedings, it emerged that the DDA had informed the MCD that only 2508 square metres of land had been transferred, whereas the MCD had allotted 3780 square metres to the petitioner. Subsequently, the DDA withdrew the permission, and the MCD cancelled the parking allotment in January 2025.

The Court noted submissions made on behalf of the DDA that the site falls within the Yamuna flood plains under Zone-O and cannot be used for commercial purposes. It also took note of DDA's stand that the area was urgently required to be vacated for development purposes.

Rejecting the plea for restoration of the parking site, the High Court observed that the petitioner had not challenged the cancellation order dated January 31, 2025, in the present proceedings. The Court further held that questions relating to the validity of the cancellation and any claim for compensation involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in a writ petition.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies, including filing a civil suit for damages, if advised.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor