Delhi High Court Bars Religious and Commercial Activities on “Sensitive” Yamuna Floodplains

New Delhi: Citing the “interest of environmental protection”, Delhi High Court recently directed DDA to ensure that no activity, including parking of vehicles or any commercial use, is permitted on the Yamuna flood plain at Sur Ghat, observing that the area is “ecologically sensitive and falls under Zone-O”.Justice Jasmeet Singh, in the order, said that “in view of the interest of environmental protection and the area being ecologically sensitive, all types of commercial/religious activities for any purpose whatsoever shall be restricted from the said area.”The court told DDA that if there is a need to create alternative parking facilities during auspicious occasions, the same must be done away from the Yamuna flood plain without disturbing the sensitive ecological zone.The order came on a petition by Suresh Kumar, who sought restoration of a 2022 tender floated by MCD concerning maintenance of a parking site situated at Sur Ghat. Kumar had emerged as the highest bidder for the maintenance work.An MoU between DDA and MCD governed the management of parking sites, following which MCD issued a tender in Sept 2022 for the Sur Ghat and Adarsh Nagar cluster sites.Kumar said possession of the parking sites had been handed over to him and work under the tender had started.

However, the allotment was subsequently withdrawn in 2025 by MCD and DDA.During the proceedings, it emerged that DDA had informed MCD that only 2508 square metres of land had been transferred, whereas MCD had allotted 3,780 square metres to the petitioner. Following this, DDA withdrew the permission and the MCD cancelled the parking allotment in Jan 2025, the court recorded in its order.Rejecting the plea for restoration of the parking site, the high court observed that the petitioner had not challenged the cancellation order dated Jan 31, 2025, in the present proceedings. It 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.