ANIL DEV SINGH ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the change of land use of the plot from Nursery School to setting up of a Telephone Exchange by the MTNL and also calls in question the construction which is being raised by the MTNL on the site. ( 2 ) THE third respondent was allotted land measuring 0. 5 acres adjacent to street No. D/7, F Block, Vasant Vihar by the second respondent-DDA. The allotment of the land was made in favour of the MTNL on August 3, 1977 and possession of the same was also handed over to it on November 26, 1987. The third respondent thereafter started construction sometimes in the year 1994. While the construction of the work at site was in progress, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the ground that the land use as indicated in the lay out plan had been violated and the DDA failed to follow the prescribed procedure to change the same. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land use of the plot in question has been changed by the D. D. A. without any authority of law. He contended that the change of land use could be effected only by the Central Government by following the procedure laid down in Section 11a of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short the Act ). He further canvassed that the modifications of the land use in the lay out plan without even inviting objections from the general public was illegal and violative of Section 11a of the Act. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that D. D. A. vide its resolution No. 140 dated October 29,1981 changed the land use in public interest and In doing so did not violate any provision of law. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that D. D. A. vide its resolution No. 140 dated October 29,1981 changed the land use in public interest and In doing so did not violate any provision of law. It was also submitted that the land use was merely indicated in the lay out plan of the colony and the aforesaid change effected by the D. D. A. did not require any change in the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan and therefore, the procedure prescribed by Section 11a of the Act was not required to be followed, ( 4 ) I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that there has been no violation of the provisions of the Act in permitting the MTNL to set up a telephone exchange at the site in question. The change in land use by the DDA was effected by means of a Resolution, being Resolution no. 140 dated October 29,1981. Describing the reasons for change the said resolution recites that: 1) There were 450 sites which were earmarked for Nursery Schools and a large number of these sites were not being utilised by the MCD or the Education Department of Delhi Administration or the other concerned Departments of the Government; 2) Even private institutions were not interested in setting up Nursery Schools as the present trend is towards comprehensive education at one location from KG to 12th standard. 3) The sites were likely to be encroached upon and it was necessary to change the policy so that the sites could be utilised for public purposes. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the respondents that setting up of a Telephone Exchange is the need of the hour and the land was allotted to the third respondent for the said public purpose. It was in the larger interest of public that the building is being constructed for the Telephone Exchange. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the respondents that setting up of a Telephone Exchange is the need of the hour and the land was allotted to the third respondent for the said public purpose. It was in the larger interest of public that the building is being constructed for the Telephone Exchange. Having regard to the fact that the land use was merely indicated in the lay-out plan and not in the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan, Section 11a of the Act was not attracted for effecting change in the user of the land nor does it violate Section 14 thereof as the user of the land by the MTNL is not in contravention of either the Zonal Development Plan or the Master Plan. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this court in East Punjab Railway Refugees Rehabilitation and House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Police and others 53 (1994) DLT 94. This decision is of no help to him as in that case there was a modification of the Zonal Development Plan and since the procedure prescribed under the Act was not followed, the change in land use was set aside. In the present case no change has been effected either in the Zonal Development Plan or the Master Plan. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the DDA referred to a Division Bench decision of this court in Shanti Devl Gupta and others Vs. D. D. A. and others AIR 1994 Delhi 299 wherein it was held that departure from the lay-out plan of a colony cannot be equated with the violation of the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan or the violation of Section 14 of the Act. ( 8 ) THE respondents have rightly pointed out that the change was merely being effected in the lay-out plan of the colony and no change was proposed or has taken place in the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan. Moreover the writ petition suffers from laches. As already seen, the land in question was allotted to the third respondent in the year 1977 and the possession thereof was given to it in the same year by the DDA. Construction was started some time in the year 1994. When the work was in progress the petitioner filed the present petition. Moreover the writ petition suffers from laches. As already seen, the land in question was allotted to the third respondent in the year 1977 and the possession thereof was given to it in the same year by the DDA. Construction was started some time in the year 1994. When the work was in progress the petitioner filed the present petition. There is no explanation why the petitioner had to wait for 9 years for filing the present petition except that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the land had been allotted to the third respondent. The explanation does not inspire any confidence. In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.