Delhi High Court
Jasola Vihar Residents Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 116 (2005) DLT 286
Bench: D Jain, M B Lokur
ORDER
1. These two cross-appeals by the writ petitioner and the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA' for short) are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge directing the DDA to take necessary action within a period of four weeks for removal of 119 persons, who are in unauthorised occupation on a piece of land in Dwaraka with a further direction that in case any decision is taken to make allotment of plots to these 119 persons, the same principle should be applied for resettlement of 446 other unauthorised occupants, the writ petitioners, who were also residing in Jasola Vihar and had allegedly been removed from there along with the said 119 persons.
2. While dismissing the writ petition filed by an association, claiming to be the representative of the said 446 persons, the leaned Single Judge has taken note of the stand of the DDA that all of them were encroachers on the Government land in Jasola Vihar and that no allotments of any land had been made in favor of 119 evictees from the said land.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Insofar as the appeal of the DDA is concerned, it is submitted by Ms. Salwan, that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate that since 119 families are in occupation of the land at Dwaraka for the last over 15 years, it will not be practical to remove them. It is also urged that a decision has been taken by the Lt. Governor to allot these plots to the occupants on payment of some amounts.
4. We are unable to appreciate the stand of the DDA. Apart from the fact that the decision now taken to regularise the unauthorised occupation of the encroachers on the public land, from where they have been directed to be removed, may amount to contempt of the impugned order, it does not lie in the mouth of a governmental agency, headed by the Lt. Governor himself as its Chairman, at whose disposal the land in question has been placed for planned development to throw up its hands in despair. The proposed decision, if any, not only amounts to rewarding an encroacher, it is also tantamount to playing a fraud on the original owner whose land was acquired for a specific purpose. We are not oblivious of the fact that removal of encroachers on public land in Delhi is indeed a daunting task but just because the work involved is difficult cannot be the reason for inaction on the part of the authority concerned. We say no more at this juncture. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned direction.
5. As regards the appeal of the writ petitioners, being rank encroachers as such they have no right of alternative accommodation. Nevertheless, if the authorities formulate any scheme for their rehabilitation, they will receive the same treatment as would be given to the similarly situated encroachers. This is what the learned Single Judge has directed.
6. Both the appeals are misconceived and are dismissed accordingly.
