Delhi High Court
Smt. Nargis & Ors. vs Dda & Anr. on 16 August, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 546/2010 & CMs 13876/2010 & 13879/2010
SMT. NARGIS & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. P. Chakraborty, Advocate
versus
DDA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Standing
Counsel for R-1.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, Standing
Counsel for R-2.
Reserved on : 5th August, 2010
% Date of Decision : 16th August, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 24th May, 2010 passed in WP(C) 13309/2009 whereby
appellants-petitioners' prayer for allotment of alternative plots after
demolition of jhuggis has been rejected by the learned Single Judge on
the ground that appellants-petitioners did not meet the eligibility
criteria.
2. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for appellants stated that
when the appellants were evicted on 16th January, 1988, they were in
possession of ration cards. He further contended that after the survey of
all the jhuggis, the claims of the appellants had been verified and they
had been issued slips for alternative plots. Accordingly, Mr.
Chakraborty submitted that respondent-DDA was under an obligation
to hand over possession of plots bearing Nos. B-1/134, B-1/139, B-
2/34, B-2/218, C-5/46 and C-5/54, Kondli Resettlement Colony to the
appellants on the basis of specific draw held on 29th June, 1993.
3. Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that the learned Single Judge
was not justified in relying upon the policy dated 8 th May, 1989 of
respondent-DDA as it was to apply to jhuggis removed on or after 1 st
January, 1989 whereas the appellants' jhuggis had been removed on
16th January, 1988. Mr. Chakraborty lastly submitted that the learned
Single Judge while passing the impugned order had travelled much
beyond the scope of the direction given by another learned Single Judge
of this Court on 19th August, 2002 in W.P.(C) 3124/1999.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having
perused the paper book, we are of the opinion that jhuggi dwellers have
no legal vested rights to claim allotment of an alternative residential
plot. The right for an alternative plot only flows from the policy, if any,
framed by the respondent-DDA. Consequently, the appellants would
be entitled to an alternative plot only if they are so eligible under the
respondent-DDA's policy in vogue, namely, the policy dated 8th May,
1989 read with policy dated 12th September, 2003. We are further of
the opinion that allocation of a demolition slip or allotment on the basis
of draw would not entitle the appellants to an alternative plot
irrespective of the fact whether they fulfil the condition precedent
stipulated in the policy framed by the respondent-DDA.
5. We are further of the opinion that if the aforesaid two policies are
read together, it is apparent that the jhuggi dwellers would only be
entitled for allotment of an alternative plot if he/she possesses the ration
card issued on or before 30th April, 1986. We are in agreement with the
view of learned Single Judge that possession of a ration card on the date
of demolition i.e. January, 1988, would not entitle the appellants to an
alternative plot.
6. In our view, the conditions stipulated by the respondent-DDA is
based on sound logic because if the cut off date of settled possession is
not much prior to the date of demolition, then many individuals on
coming to know about the proposed demolition in a particular area
would erect jhuggis in the said area. This Court cannot lose sight of the
fact that even a small plot of land in Delhi is extremely valuable.
7. We are also not impressed by the argument that the learned
Single Judge by way of the impugned order has acted contrary to the
decision of another learned Single Judge's order dated 19 th August,
2002. Upon a perusal of the order dated 19 th August, 2002, we are of
the view that the said order only directed respondent no. 1 to intimate to
the appellants the decision with regard to the issue of eligibility of a
person to be allotted an alternative plot. It, in no manner, restricted the
grounds on which respondent-DDA was to decide the plea of
alternative allotment. In view of aforesaid, present appeal, being
devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 16, 2010
rn
