SC seeks reply on ‘change in land use’ for Central Vista

The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Centre on the issue of the proposed change in land use of a plot where the new official residences of the Vice-President and the Prime Minister are stipulated as part of the Central Vista project in Lutyens’ Delhi.

A Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Centre, to file a short affidavit on the issue within three days. The court now posted the matter for hearing on 29 October. The top court was hearing a petition filed by one Rajeev Suri challenging the change in land use of plot number one from recreational area to residential, saying the authorities have not demonstrated any public interest as far as the change in land use from recreational to residential for the plot is concerned.

Solicitor General told the apex court that official residences for the Vice-President and the Prime Minister are stipulated on the plot. To this, the Bench asked SG, “So, the public recreation area is not available now? Is the public recreational area going to be transposed to some other place or transferred to some other plot? What is your stand, we would like to know about it?”

Solicitor General replied, “Considering that Parliament and other things would be coming up nearby, from a security point of view it would not be possible to have a recreational area in the vicinity.” In September 2019, the government had announced Central Vista, which will have a seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs, which is to be constructed by August 2022 when the country will celebrate its 75th Independence Day. The common Central Secretariat is likely to be built by 2024 under the project that covers a 3-km stretch from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate in Delhi. The top court in January this year had held that the grant of environmental clearance and the notification for change in land use for construction of new Parliament building under the project was valid. The apex court order had come on various pleas challenging several permissions given to the project by authorities including the grant of environmental clearance and the nod to change of land use.