D. K. Jain ( 1 ) BY this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners seek a writ of certioran and mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order calling for records of Plot No. 3, B-Block Local Shoppingcenter-I I, Jhilmil, Vivek Vihar, Delhi and directing respondent No. 1, the Delhidevelopment Authority (for short the DDA) and No. 2, the Union of Indiarespectively not to allot public passage in front of petitioners Plot No. 4 and ifalready allotted, quash the allotment; direct the aforesaid respondents and respondent No. 3, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, not to permit respondent Nos. 4and 5 to carry out any construction or raise any structure on the said public passageand in the basement beneath the public passage. ( 2 ) THE issue involved would appear to be simple though arguments addressed would look rather complex. The dispute concerns a very small strip of landof the size of 8 x 20 leased to respondent No. 4 at a price, for him to construct a linkverandah for the use of the public in the shopping complex so that there is a wholelength of verandah in front of the shops in the complex. This disputed strip of landis of the size in length of the shop premises of respondent No. 4 though it would bein continuation of the verandah in front of the shop of the petitioners. The DDAallotted and gave the leasehold rights of this strip of land to respondent No. 4 at aprice calculated on certain basis with permission to have a basement underneath itwith stipulation that no construction even on the roof of the verandah would bethere, and that the verandah so constructed would be used as public passage. Boneof contention is perhaps the construction of the basement underneath this strip ofland, admeasuring 8 x 20 , and on that account challenge is as to how could thedda give leasehold rights of this strip to respondent No. 4 without there being apublic auction as per law. As to what is the infraction of law involved in the casewe will presently see. But it would at once appear to us that no one would bebenefited by buying this strip of land except respondent No. 4. As to what is the infraction of law involved in the casewe will presently see. But it would at once appear to us that no one would bebenefited by buying this strip of land except respondent No. 4. ( 3 ) WE may now advert to the circumstances leading to the filing of the presentwrit petition: ( 4 ) PETITIONER No. Vs husband purchased leasehold rights in Plot No. 4, b block, Local Shopping Centre-11, Jhilmil, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, admeasuring 89. 189sq. mts. (24 x 40 ), from the DDA in a public auction held on 30/06/1970. Perpetuallease deed in respect thereto was executed in 1972. A two-storeyed building wasconstructed on the said plot in the year 1974. On the death of the original lessee, theperpetual lease was transferred in favour of his widow, petitioner No. 1 in 1986. Petitioner No. 2, a Doctor by profession, is the son of petitioner No. 1 and is runninghis clinic in one of the shops constructed on the said plot. ( 5 ) IN October 1991, the DDA issued a public notice for auction of adjacent Plotno. 3 in the said shopping centre. The size of plot No. 3 mentioned in theadvertisement was 24 x 40 (89. 23 sq. mtr.) and the total floor area, excluding thebasement, was given as 350. 24 sq. mtr. In the auction held on 15/11/1991respondent No. 4 gave the highest bid for a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs approximately. Lease deed in respect of the said plot was executed in favour of respondent No. 4on 29/05/1992 and he thereafter started digging work for making a basement. Noticing that not only the entire plot admeasuring 24 x 40 but also a part of thepublic pavement in front of the said plot had been dug up to have 100 per centbasement, without leaving a two metre distance from their plot, the petitionersappear to have protested and lodged complaints with the DDA and the Police tohave the construction activity stopped but without any success. Alleging thatrespondent Nos. 4 and 5 were constructing basement on the entire plot No. 3,without leaving two metre distance from the petitioners adjacent building on plotno. Alleging thatrespondent Nos. 4 and 5 were constructing basement on the entire plot No. 3,without leaving two metre distance from the petitioners adjacent building on plotno. 4, in violation of the Delhi Master Plan 2001; the digging and construction infront of Plot No. 4, on the public land / passage was not in conformity with the Zonalplans, the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, bye-laws and the rulesmade thereunder; that there was a move on the part of some officials of the DDAto allot a portion of the public passage to the said respondents and if they succeedin this exercise and the basement and the building are allowed to be constructed onthis portion, it will block half portion of the petitioners building, no entry will be left to the clinic of petitioner No. 2, causing irreparable loss to them the petitionersfiled this writ petition. Some photographs, reflecting the site conditions were alsofiled with the writ petition. ( 6 ) WHILE issuing notice to the respondents to show cause why the petition benot admitted, it was directed that any construction which may take place will besubject to the outcome of the writ petition. ( 7 ) ON directions the DDA produced plans purporting to be lay out plans of1967 and 1974 of the market in question alongwith the relevant record. On 1/10/1992 the Bench perused the plans produced by the DDA and noted thedda s stand that respondent No. 4 raising construction was not unauthorised asan additional land had been allotted to the said respondent to construct a linkverandah to connect verandah in front of Plots No. 3 and 4 and that respondent No. 4 had been permitted to construct a basement underneath this verandah, for whichthe DDA had charged Rs. 1 lakh extra. After hearing the parties, the Courtconcluded that there was no infirmity in the action of the DDA and accordinglydismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim orders. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioners filed a Review Application (RA 7096/92) forrecalling the order dismissing the writ petition, averring that the DDA had not filedthe genuine 1967 lay out plan but a fake and forged one and it could not be assumedthat the lay out provided for construction of the "link verandah". By a speakingorder dated 8/01/1993 the review application was allowed and Rule D. B. issued. By a speakingorder dated 8/01/1993 the review application was allowed and Rule D. B. issued. While doing so the Bench also restrained respondent No. 4 from partingwith possession, selling, transferring, hypothecating or in any way dealing withany construction made on the additional plot of land admeasuring 8 x 20 or in thebasement constructed underneath that land. The said interim order still continues. That is how the matter is now before us for final hearing and disposal. ( 9 ) NONE of the respondents have cared to file answer to the writ petition. Respondent No. 4 had on 30 September, 1992, only filed a reply to the applicationseeking interim relief. ( 10 ) IT appears that in the lay out plan, the DDA provided for setting up of acommercial-cum-residential complex in Block B. Jhilmil Residential Scheme, Vivekvihar, Delhi and plots were carved out. Plot Nos. 4 to 8 of this Centre are in the samealignment while Plot Nos. 1 to 3 are extended beyond these. A covered corridorexists in front of Plot Nos. 4 to 8, overwhich the said plot holders have madestructures. A corridor in front of plot Nos. 1 to 3 was also provided but the linkcorridor by the side of plot No. 3, connecting the two front corridors aforesaid,scemingly did not exist. When plot No. 3 was allotted by auction to respondent No. 4, in the lease deed therefor, which was executed on 29/05/1992, there was nosite of the said link corridor was allotted to him by the DDA with the right to extendhe basement covering the site underneath the link corridor for a consideration ofrs. 1 lakh approximately. The legality of this transfer has been assailed in the writpetition. ( 11 ) MR. P. N. Lekhi, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has strnuously urged that (i) allotment of the aforesaid additional land to respondent No. 4 is in violation of Chapter III of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 (For short the Nazul Land Rules) inasmuch as transfer/allotment of Nazul land could only be by auction and not otherwise and no auction in terms of Rule 26 took place for its allotment;. (ii) the construction of the basement beneath the said additional piece of land is in contravention of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 inasmuch as it amounts to changing the key plan for the year concerned, and if there was to be any variation in the size of the plot, in terms of clause (vii) of the terms and conditions of allotment of commercial plots by auction, it could be made only before or at the time of execution of the perpetual lease deed and not later. He asserts that in view of Clauses XI and XII of the perpetual lease deed executed in favour of respondent No. 4, for any variation in the size of the plot thereafter, the DDA had to auction the additional plot in compliance with the provisions of the Nazul Land Rules which having not been done the proposal for alleged allotment was illegal and could not be put through. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 contends that there being no violation of the Master and Zonal Plan, there is no violation of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act; the said additional piece of land was allotted to respondent No. 4 because the DDA wanted the said respondent, allottee of plot No. 3, to construct the link verandah between Plot Nos. 3 and 4 and in terms of clause (vii) of the terms and conditions of auction of commercial lands, which respondent No. 4 was bound to accept and pay extra price which he did. He maintains that no construction having been permitted by the DDA above the verandah, the said respondent No. 4 was only compensated for extra expense on construction of link verandah by allowing him to have basement underneath the said verandah; and that no prejudice having been caused to the petitioners on account of construction of basement by the respondentno. 4 beneath the additional area of 8 x 20 , they could make no grouse of it. ( 12 ). Thus the question which falls for consideration is whether there has been any illegality or actionable impropriety in the DDA allotting additional land measuring 8 x 20 to respondent No. 4 and permitting him to have basement underneath it and if so whether the DDA should be directed to rescind the said decision. ( 12 ). Thus the question which falls for consideration is whether there has been any illegality or actionable impropriety in the DDA allotting additional land measuring 8 x 20 to respondent No. 4 and permitting him to have basement underneath it and if so whether the DDA should be directed to rescind the said decision. ( 13 ) THE transfer of the said additional plot is assailed mainly on the pleas that it violates the provisions of Rule 26 of the Nazul Land Rules and the provisions of section 14 of the Delhi Development Act. To understand the controversy involved, it would be convenient to notice the statutory provisions relevant thereto. 14. Chapter III of the Delhi Development Act deals with the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plans; Section 7 of the Chapter deals with civic services of, and Master Plan for Delhi; Section 8 deals with Zonal Development Plan and section 9 which also defines the word plan for the purpose of this Section and sections 10,11,12 and 14, to mean as Master Plan as well as the development plan for a zone, deals with submission of plans to the Central Government for approval. Section 11 falling in Chapter III-A provides for modification of the said plans. Chapter IV refers to development of lands and Chapter V with acquisition and disposal of land. Section 15 falling in Chapter V refers to compulsory acquisition of land. It provides that after acquisition, the land may be transferred to the DDA or any other local authority which may dispose of the same after undertaking or carrying out development thereon. The land, other than the above, vests in the union and is called Nazul land and may be placed under Section 22 of the Delhi development Act at the disposal of DDA, to be dealt with under Nazul Land Rules. The land, other than the above, vests in the union and is called Nazul land and may be placed under Section 22 of the Delhi development Act at the disposal of DDA, to be dealt with under Nazul Land Rules. Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act lays down: ( 14 ) USER of land and buildings in contravention of plans - After the coming into operation of any of the plans in a zone no person shall use or permit to be used any land or build ing in that zone otherwise than in conformity with such plan: provided that it shall be lawful to continue to use upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf any land or building for the purpose and to the extent for and to which it is being used upon the date on which such plan comes into force. The plans referred to in Chapter III, of which Section 14 forms a part, refer only to the master Plans" and the zonal Development Plans . The master Plan serves as the basic pattern of the framework and it is within this framework that the Zonal development Plans are to function. It is a general and basic plan which indicates the trend and tendencies but does not enter into details. On the contrary the Zonal development Plan is a detailed exercise, specifying the purpose for which a particular area in a zone can be put to use, like commercial, residential, recreational etc. Section 14 deals with user of land and buildings in contravention of aforesaid plans. No violation of the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan has been alleged or is shown to exist. ( 15 ) THE DDA has produced a corrected traced copy of the lay out plan of 1967 and a copy of 1974 lay out plan, which do delineate the existence of the link corridor measuring 8 x 20 , now in question. The petitioners have challenged the authenticity of the traced copy of 1967 lay out plan and it is urged on their behalf that delineation of the link corridor therein, measuring 8 x 20 is a fabrication, which was not there in the original plan and that as a corollary its delineation in any subsequent plan would be without basis. The petitioners have challenged the authenticity of the traced copy of 1967 lay out plan and it is urged on their behalf that delineation of the link corridor therein, measuring 8 x 20 is a fabrication, which was not there in the original plan and that as a corollary its delineation in any subsequent plan would be without basis. It is maintained that the story of the link corridor now set up, is a made up affair. ( 16 ) AS noted, the thrust of the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners is the alleged violation of the lay out plan, which he terms as key plan . His contention is that there was no provision in any lay out plan, for the alleged link corridor, measuring 8 x 20 and the said additional space could not be allotted for the purpose and that the provision thereof now indicated in the later plans being nott in conformity with the earlier lay out plans and in any case these not being approved by the Central Government, tantamounts to violation of Section 14 of the delhi Development Act. We do not agree. As noticed above, the Delhi Development act in general and Section 9 of the said Act in particular, only refer to the master Plan and Zonal Development Plan and not the lay out plan, which is a sort of working drawings prepared by the DDA, Any departure from the lay out plan, strictly speaking, cannot be equated with the violation of the Master Plan or the zonal Development Plan, which are statutory and termed as a violation falling within the ambit of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act. ( 17 ) THE issue of genuineness of the traced copy of lay out plan of 1967, produced before us, is a complex question of fact, which, we feel, may require evidence for its determination and on that account the dispute cannot be appropriately resolved in these proceedings. At any rate, in view of our finding that any departure from the lay out plan does not tantamount to violation of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, it is unnecessary to further go into the question. At any rate, in view of our finding that any departure from the lay out plan does not tantamount to violation of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, it is unnecessary to further go into the question. ( 18 ) MUCH stress has been laid by learned Counsel for the petitioners, taking exception to the proposal for transfer of the additional land measuring 8 x 20 by the DDA, on the plea that this being a Nazul land, transfer thereof is governed by the provisions of Nazul Land Rules, Rule 26 whereof stipulates those allotments only by public auction, which method having not been adopted for the impugned transfer, its allotment to respondent No. 4 is illegal. ( 19 ) RULE 26 falling in Chapter III of the Nazul Land Rules reads thus: "26. Allotment by auction. Subject to the plans, such Nazul land as the authority may decide, with the previous approval of the Central Government, may be allotted by auction in the manner provided in this Chapter. " ( 20 ) IT is clear from the above Rule that Nazul land has to be allotted by auction in the manner provided in the said chapter. It is common ground that the said transfer is sought to be made without putting the additional plot measuring 8 x 20 to auction. This is in violation of Rule 26 of the Nazul land Rules. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 4 however, submitted that the proposed allotment of additional land is not being made independently requiring auction but as a part of auctioned plot No. 3 by way of variation of size of the plot put to auction, which variation is permissible under and is covered by Clause (vii) of the terms and conditions of allotment by auction, published for auction of plot no. 3 and allotted to the said respondent on auction. In this context, learned counsel referred to supporting notings in the record produced by the DDA and in particular he invited our attention to an office memo dated 20 February 1992 marked to the Dy. Director (CL) by Mr. V. P. Nangia, Sr. Architect (EZ), a copy whereof was also placed on record by him. In this context, learned counsel referred to supporting notings in the record produced by the DDA and in particular he invited our attention to an office memo dated 20 February 1992 marked to the Dy. Director (CL) by Mr. V. P. Nangia, Sr. Architect (EZ), a copy whereof was also placed on record by him. ( 22 ) CLAUSE (vii) of the terms and conditions of auction of plot No. 3 is reproduced as under: " (VII) - The size of the plot announced by the DDA being only approximate, bidder whose bid is accepted shall have to accept variation upto 15% either way in the area of the plot for which the bid has been offered subject to payment or refund, as the case may be, of the amount of premium of such varied area at the auction rate. The auction rate per sq. mtrs. for this purpose shall be calculated by dividing the amount of the premium offered as the highest bid by the area of the plot announced. " ( 23 ) HAVING regard to the clear language of the aforesaid clause, we are of the opinion that the argument of learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 is misconceived. Clause (vii) aforesaid refers to the variation upto 15% either way in the area of the plot for which the bid has been offered and not the F. A. R. The area of the additional plot sought to be allotted and transferred, as contended, is more than 15% of the size of the plot put to auction on 15 November 1991. The proposed transfer, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of Clause (vii) of the terms and conditions of the said auction and cannot be justified on that score. In any case variation in the size of the plot, if any, could have been shown in the lease deed for plot No. 3 executed on 29 May 1992, particularly when the so-called discrepancy was allegedly detected and allotment recommended by way of variation of size of plot No. 3 much prior to the execution of the lease deed in respect of plot No. 3. ( 24 ) HAVING come to the conclusion that the allotment of the said additional plot measuring 8 x 20 is not in accord with Rule 26 of the Nazul Land Rules, the next question which falls for consideration is whether the DDA should be directed to rescind its decision to transfer the said piece of land to respondent No. 4. ( 25 ) IT is true that there has been technical breach of Rule 26 of the Nazul Land rules and in the normal course we would have quashed the DDA s action in allotting the said additional piece of land to respondent No. 4. The breach was rectifiable by the Union of Ind ia - Respondent No. 2, under Section 41 (3) of the Delhi development Act but no action in that behalf has been taken or objected toby them. Having seen the latest photographs of the site in question, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where we should exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. From the said photographs it is clear that neither any obstruction is likely to be caused to the free flow of pedestrians in front of the petitioner No. 2 s shop on account of construction of basement underneath the verandah covering the link corridor nor the said verandah is blocking half portion of the petitioners building, as alleged. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 has also given an undertaking to the Court on behalf of the said respondent that no obstruction, temporary or otherwise, shall be caused in the verandah in front of petitioners building on plot No. 4, which undertaking we hereby accept. It may be that there might be slight diminution of the day light to the clinic of petitioner No. 2 on the ground floor on account of construction of verandah on the corridor but inconvenience, if any in this behalf, when compared with the convenience of the public at large, we feel, will also be immaterial. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The Rule is discharged and the interim orders stand vacated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we, however, make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.