Delhi High Court
Dharampal Singh And Ors vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors on 10 October, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~27.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1798/2011
DHARAMPAL SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pooja Singh & Ms. Malyashree
Sridharan, Adv.
versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Megha Bharara for Ms. Ruchi
Sindhwani, Adv. for R-1,5&10.
Mr. L.K. Garg, Adv. for R-2 to 4 & 6
to 9.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, Adv. with Mr.
Harish Vats, Dy. Director
(Rehabilitation) of DUSIB.
Ms. Madhu Tewatia & Ms. Sidhi
Arora, Adv. for NDMC.
ASI Charan Dass, PS-Mandir Marg,
New Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 10.10.2011
1. The seventy petitioners, claiming to be residents along with their
families of the Jhuggi Jhopri Cluster at G-Point, Kali Bari Lane, Behind Dr.
RML Hospital, Ashok Road, New Delhi and whose hutments were
demolished on 22nd November, 2010, have filed this petition seeking
rehabilitation in accordance with the Relocation/Rehabilitation Policy of the
respondent no.1 GNCTD.
2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 18 th March,
2011 respondent Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) directed
to visit the area and to report the status thereof.
3. The respondent DUSIB did not comply with the order of this Court
and on 31st March, 2011 sought extension of time for complying with the
order. A Status Report dated 19th April, 2011 was filed by respondent
DUSIB reporting that the land on which the demolition activity had been
carried out continued to be occupied by seventy petitioners and of which
only sixty had shown and produced photocopy of their residential proof. It
was further stated that the said documents were required to be verified and
eligibility of each of the claimants as per the Policy required to be
determined.
4. This court from time to time issued orders for providing necessary
amenities of toilet, drinking water etc. to the petitioners and also directed the
respondent DUSIB to carry out survey and place its report before this Court.
5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid clear direction dated 6 th April, 2011 of
this court, the survey report has not been placed before this Court by the
respondent DUSIB till date. In the mean while, since the land on which
demolition was carried out had been allotted by the land owning agency i.e.
L&DO to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital for expansion of the said
hospital, the counsel for the respondent Hospital had been expressing
urgency since the work of expansion of the respondent Hospital was held
up.
6. In the circumstances, vide order dated 29th September, 2011 the
Director (Survey) of the respondent DUSIB was directed to appear before
this Court today. Notwithstanding the aforesaid clear direction and failure to
comply with the orders of this Court, the Director (Survey) namely Mr. J.K.
Jain has failed to appear. It is stated that he has proceeded on leave from 1 st
October, 2011 and is to join back only on 19th October, 2011.
7. The aforesaid is no explanation for the absence of Mr. J.K. Jain
especially since he has also not complied with the orders of this Court. Mr.
Harish Vats, Dy. Director (Rehabilitation) of respondent DUSIB appears.
8. On enquiry as to why the direction of this Court has not been
complied with till now, the counsel for the respondent DUSIB first states
that notice has been issued on 2nd September, 2011 to the respondent L&DO
and to the respondent Hospital to join in carrying out the survey. It is not
understandable as to why the said notice has been issued after nearly six
months of the direction contained in the order dated 6 th April, 2011. The
counsel for the respondent DUSIB then states that as per the Policy of
respondent GNCTD of rehabilitation, the land owning agency is required to
participate in the survey and the respondent Hospital has been asked to join
since the land has now been allotted to it. On further enquiry, it is stated that
it is necessary to join the land owning agency so that it is bound by the
report of the survey. However the counsel for the respondent DUSIB though
has some Policy in his file but is unable to point out therefrom any
requirement for the land owning agency as the L&DO to join in the survey.
Moreover, no such plea having been taken on 6th April, 2011 when a
direction was issued to the respondent DUSIB, the same cannot be a ground
for failure to comply with the order.
9. The counsel for the respondent DUSIB next states that the charges for
survey were not paid to the respondent DUSIB. However no such plea also
was taken earlier. The counsel for the respondent DUSIB however at the
time the order is being dictated states that no charges for survey are to be
received.
10. The counsel for the respondent DUSIB next states that survey is now
not possible since the petitioners have already been removed. The same is
controverted by the counsel for the petitioners who contends that all the
seventy petitioners and their families continue to occupy the land where the
demolition was carried out. The counsel for the respondent Hospital also
states that thirty odd families are still in occupation of the land and owing
whereto the work of expansion of the respondent Hospital is held up.
11. It has thus been enquired from Mr. Harish Vats, Dy. Director
(Rehabilitation) of DUSIB as to when was the site visited last so as to be
able to make a statement that the survey is not possible as the petitioners are
not in occupation of land. No plausible answer has been forthcoming.
12. From the aforesaid conduct of the respondent DUSIB, it is quite
evident that the respondent DUSIB has defied the order dated 6 th April, 2011
of this Court, not taken any steps in that regard and shown scant regard for
the order. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Chief Executive Officer of respondent
DUSIB is directed to look into the matter and to take appropriate
proceedings against the defaulting officers and to place a report before the
Registry of this Court within one month of today.
13. At this stage, the counsel for the respondent DUSIB states that in the
survey earlier conducted, only sixty persons had given their documents
which have been sent for verification; their eligibility shall be determined.
14. This Court is of the opinion that the expansion project of the
respondent Hospital is likely to affect a larger section of the population of
the city. It was in this spirit that directions were also issued from time to
time to the respondent DUSIB to submit the proposal for temporary
rehabilitation of the petitioners in the nearby places so that the public work
of expansion of the respondent hospital can be commenced at the earliest.
15. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate under instructions from Mr. Harish Vats
present in Court states that respondent DUSIB can accommodate the
petitioners only in the night shelters managed by it and has no other
resources to accommodate the petitioners even temporarily at any other
place. A suggestion is mooted to accommodate the petitioners at the night
shelter near Ajmal Khan Park at Karol Bagh.
16. Since the petitioners are already without a roof above their head, it
has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners as to why, till the
determination of the eligibility of the petitioners, the petitioners be not
accommodated in the said night shelter.
17. The counsel for the petitioners has stated that some of the petitioners
work at night also and need a place in the daytime as well. It is also stated
that even the family members need a place in daytime and which would not
be available in night shelter. It is also stated that the children of the
petitioners are studying in the nearby schools.
18. Mr. O.P. Saxena under instructions from Mr. Harish Vats states that
the petitioners, their families and children would be allowed to occupy the
night shelter in daytime as well. On enquiry as to whether there is any
vacancy in the said night shelter, it is stated that only about ten to twelve
persons are presently occupying the same as against the capacity of seventy
people. It is stated that even if all the petitioners cannot be accommodated in
the said night shelter, they would also be accommodated in other night
shelters in the nearby areas and would be allowed to occupy the same in the
daytime as well.
19. As far as the argument of the children studying in the nearby schools
is concerned, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners were/are in
unauthorized occupation of the land. The relief claimed by them is also of
relocation only. Even if relocated, they would have been required to change
the schools. Though temporary relocation pending final relocation if any
may entail change of school twice over but the said difficulty is found to be
minimal in comparison to the difficulty which a larger section of society will
suffer if the work of expansion of the respondent Hospital is further delayed.
20. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the following
directions:-
a. The petitioners to vacate the said site on or before 6 th
November, 2011;
b. If the petitioners or any of them or any other person in
occupation fail to vacate the site by the said date, the
respondent Hospital shall be entitled to use reasonable force for
their removal so that the land is available for the expansion
project of the respondent Hospital. The respondent no.10 SHO,
PS - Mandir Marg is directed to ensure that the respondent
Hospital has possession of the vacant site as on 7 th November,
2011;
c. The respondent DUSIB is directed to have the eligibility of all
the seventy petitioners for relocation under the Policy
determined on or before 15th December, 2011;
d. The Electoral Office and the Food Supply Office are directed to
immediately respond to the verification sought by the
respondent DUSIB;
e. The ten petitioners who are stated to have not submitted their
documents to the respondent DUSIB to submit the same on or
before 31st October, 2011;
f. The petitioners to appear before Mr. Harish Vats in the first
instance on 17th October, 2011 at 1100 hours and thereafter on
subsequent dates as may be required to. The respondent DUSIB
to submit its report to the land owning agency i.e. L&DO on or
before 20th December, 2011;
g. The respondent L&DO is directed to relocate such of the
petitioners as are found eligible as per the report and as per the
Policy of the Government;
h. The petitioners or such of them if remain aggrieved by the said
report shall have remedies in law;
i. The government schools near to the place where the petitioners
are re-located temporarily or permanently, to allow the transfer
of the children of the petitioners from the government school
which they are presently attending to the new school;
j. The CEO of the respondent DUSIB to comply with the
direction aforesaid.
No order as to costs.
Dasti under signature of court master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J
OCTOBER 10, 2011
pp..
