Bhola Nath And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 210 Del

ORDER

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. 12 out of these 30 petitions are for and on behalf of some individuals, Associations of Residential Colonies and Traders' Associations seeking direction against Municipal Corporation of Delhi not to convert the use of parks, open spaces, street pavements etc. for allotment to pavement dwellers or hawkers. Remaining 18 petitions are by various individuals jointly and separately for allotment on permanent basis tehbazari rights to carry on their business and also for restoration of the space, which is alleged to have been in their occupation, from which they claim to have been dispossessed. Common arguments were addressed before us on behalf of the petitioners.

2. The stand of Municipal Corporation has been that as the roads and streets vest in the Municipal Corporation a scheme was prepared and certain sites were proposed and brought to the notice of Supreme Court on the basis of guidelines mentioned in the order of Supreme Court in Sodan Singh Vs. N.D.M.C. and others and in the case of Gainda Ram Vs. M.C.D. and others . The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in accordance with the Scheme approved by the Supreme Court in Gainda Ram's case, (supra) started scrutinising the claims of eligible squatters/claimants and identifying the spots for the rehabilitation of the squatters in all the zones. There had been lot of agitation by the squatters squatting on their regular sites and various proceedings were initiated by the squatters, including contempt of court proceedings. Supreme Court passed various orders/directions. On 31.1.1994, the Supreme Court was pleased to direct the M.C.D. to furnish the following particulars:-

      (1)    The  number  of claims received by  the  M.C.D.  Committee within the time permitted by the Court; 
 

      (2)  The number of claim applications scrutinised by the  Committee; 
 

      (3)  The number of occasions on which the Committee met; for  the purposes  of  putting into effect Court's order dated  12th  May, 1993.  
 

 3.   Municipal  Corporation of Delhi filed requisite affidavit  in  Supreme Court  specifying  the  procedure for the scrutinising the  claims  of  the eligible saquatters in each zone. 
 

 4.   It  is  alleged that in the said affidavit filed  before  the  Supreme Court  M.C.D. stated that it had sold about 1,35,896 application forms  for the  allotment of tehbazari in all the 12 zones through the  zonal  offices and  from Headquarters at Town Hall out of which 85,631  application  forms were  submitted by the applicants. M.C.D. had divided the  applications  of 

the squatters into 12 zones as per Scheme submitted by MCD and approved by the Supreme Court in Gainda Ram and others Vs. M.C.D. and others 1993(3) SCC 176. It is stated by M.C.D. that under the directions given in the aforesaid judgment, each Committee of the Zone independently scrutinised the claims received from the squatters for the purposes of allotment of open tehbazari. After detailed scrutiny done by the zonal committees in their 66 meetings, so held, about 7500 squatters were found eligible as on 07.02.1994 in all the 12 zones for allotment of open to sky tehbazari sites measuring 6'x4', in accordance with the first and third category of squatters stated in the order passed by the Supreme Court. On 10.5.1994 and 11.5.1994, massive removal actions were taken against the squatters including the eligible squatters of Chandni Chowk, Khari Baoli, New Lajpat Rai Market, Parade Ground etc. Similar action was contemplated in other Zones in pursuance of the directions given by the Supreme Court for the implementation and rehabilitation under the scheme. Tehbazari rights were granted to the persons who were found eligible, as per the said scheme. Some of the areas like City Zone, which is the busiest Shopping Centre with narrow roads like Chandni Chowk, Khari Baoli etc. are so congested that there is difficulty in smooth movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Due to old buildings existing on both sides, the roads in those areas are incapable of widening. The width of the roads is inadequate to check the existing pedestrian and vehicular traffic, which in many cases is one way. Khari Baoli and Chandni Chowk areas thus were declared by the Municipal Corporation as non-squatting areas.

5. In view of the fact that the respondent/M.C.D. had started permitting squatting in some of the areas by which the Traders Associations and Residents Associations and certain individuals in some of the localities felt aggrieved, they filed petitions in this Court and direction was sought against Municipal Corporation of Delhi not to utilize the areas meant for common purposes like parks, payments etc. or the areas used for the purpose of parking of vehicles by traders in those areas. In the other petitions, individual hawkers sought direction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for extending the date for receipt of applications and for considering their cases also for allotment and not to disturb their possession from the spaces they have been in occupation and to restore their possession on the area they have been in occupation.

6. During the pendency of the petitions subsequent developments have taken place, which deserve to be noticed.

7. In the case of Gainda Ram and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, by virtue of the order dated 13.5.1994, a judicial officer was appointed to look into the question as to whether the implementation of the scheme by Municipal Corporation of Delhi had been consistent with the norms and procedure indicated by the Supreme Court and to submit his report. Shri R.C.Chopra was nominated to examine the scheme and submit his report. The report was submitted by him on 20.12.1996. The suggestions made in the report by Shri R.C.Chopra were considered and ultimately on 1.5.1997 directions were issued by the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court is reported as Gainda Ram and others etc. Vs. M.C.D. and others, .

8. Pursuant to the directions issued in Gainda Ram's case (supra) fresh exercise was to be done in some of the matters by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. All applicants held ineligible were to be given an opportunity by M.C.D. to make representations for review of their cases. Each of the Zone head in the 12 Zones of M.C.D. was directed to re-examine the cases of all eligible applicants with a view to weed out those who had wrongly been held eligible. Fresh exercise was ordered to be carried by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to identify new approved squatting sites in all the zones. The zonal Heads, Administrative Officers of the Zones, representative of the Traffic Police and two or three representatives of the hawkers of the zones were to identify fresh squatting zones so that squatters are properly rehabilitated and not simply uprooted to derive them of their livelihood. After finalising the list of eligible squatters and approved squatting zones, fresh preference applications were to be invited and thereafter allotment was directed to be made in accordance with the preference given in the applications and thereafter on the basis of seniority cum place of squatting criteria. Those of the squatters who had earlier submitted their applications but had not furnished requisite proofs were permitted to produce all such documents referred to in their earlier applications. Six months time was given to the Municipal Corporation to carry out the directions. Another direction was issued that before proceeding to embark upon this exercise, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi would publish in three local daily newspapers a notice informing all concerned about the gist of the Supreme Court's order and also to issue individual notices to show cause to such of the squatters who earlier were found eligible, before rejecting their applications. Persons aggrieved by rejection of their claims were given an option to file written representation before the same judicial officer.

9. In view of the directions, as enumerated in Gainda Ram's case (supra) the 18petitions, which have been preferred by the squatters/hawkers for various reliefs will not survive for consideration since the same will have to abide by the directions and their grievances, if any, are to be taken care of under the directions of the Supreme Court.

10. Needless to add that in addition to Gainda Ram's case (supra) the Supreme Court in the related case for the area falling within the New Delhi Municipal Committee on 4.2.1998 has issued directions finally disposing of the litigation, which originated with the case decided by Constitution Bench on 30.8.1989 reported as Sodhan Singh Vs. N.D.M.C. . Second limb of the directions issued by Supreme Court are reported as Sodhan Singh Vs. N.D.M.C. . Thereja Committee's report submitted subsequently was considered and on 4.2.1998 after considering objections against the same report of Thareja Committee was accepted. The judgment is reported as Sodhan Singh Vs. N.D.M.C. and others, .

11. The order of Supreme Court takes note of the areas selected for allotment and the manner of making allotment. We need not make reference to various directions issued but will reproduce only a part thereof, which says:-

"We have heard these submissions and have also gone through the elaborate reasons given by the Thareja Committee in regard to each of these 33 places. We do not propose to record our reasons nor to deal with each item independently. We are indeed not sitting in appeal. Further, we are keeping, in mind the recommendation as to 'finality' made in the Lok Adalat on 19.11.1989. Further the plea of the NDMC that certain areas fall under development scheme' was a plea not raised before the Thareja Committee and has been raised for the first time before us. We find that the Redevelopment Scheme prepared by the DDA is of March, 1993 and the NDMC had full knowledge thereof long before May 1996 when the Thareja Committee Report was submitted to this Court. Hence this ground is liable to be rejected. We are satisfied that Mr.Thareja has based his conclusions on valid material and on the existing factual position at the grass root level. He has also relied upon factual information gathered from personal visits made by him to these places and kept in mind the manner in which, the NDMC had itself already granted certain kiosks, squatting or tehbazari rights in these very areas earlier. In our view no exception can be taken to the reasoning and conclusions of the Thareja Committee in regard to these items and to its ultimate recommendations as to the suitability (or otherwise) of these areas. We do not find any grounds to modify or set aside the recommendations in regard to these sites. In the result, we accept the recommendation, reject the objection of the N.D.M.C. and therefore these 33 sites would get added to the 76 and 7 sites already mentioned resulting in 116 sites. (In this connection, our order in IA No.114/97 may also be seen).

XXX XXX XXX

Therefore, the allocation of places, if any, done by the Thareja Committee in individual cases, is only tentative inasmuch as new places have been added, seniority is now fixed and three options are to be now given by each person and question of reservation is also to be considered. Now that the IAs Regarding claims of squatters whose claims have been rejected by the Committee have also been disposed of by us and the seniority list stands acceptd and the objections of the NDMC for excluding certain areas stand rejected, while some new areas suggested by the NDMC have got added, the stage is therefore set for final allocation of the sites to the various claimants. While making allotments for squatters tehbazari the proportion as to reservation mentioned in the scheme will also have to be followed. We are, therefore, proposing that after a public notice to be issued by the authority whom we propose to nominate, claims will be filed in Part I by the eligible claimants."

12. In so far as the remaining 12 petitions of the Associations of Residential Colonies, traders etc. it is only after final approval of the squatting zones that they can be said to be having any grievance. Till the sites are approved and final allotment is made, no cause of action can be said to have arisen in their favour. They can make their grievances and agitate only after the sites are duly approved and finally allotted. Any directions issued are prayed in these petitions at this stage is likely to go counter to the directions issued by the Supreme Court under which the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has still to implement the directions made in Gainda Ram's case (supra) and the Sodhan Singh's case (supra).

13. In view of the final orders passed by the Supreme Court in Gainda Ram's case (supra) and Sodhan Singh's case (supra), no further directions are required to be issued in these petitions by this Court, which stand disposed of.