Nandlal Prasad Prajapati & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4974 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 10th October, 2011.

+                         W.P.(C) 705/2011

%      NANDLAL PRASAD PRAJAPATI & ANR            ...Petitioners
                   Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.

                                    Versus

       GOVT. OF NCT & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents
                    Through:            Ms Sana Ansari, Adv. for Ms. Zubeda
                                        Begum, Adv. for R-1, 7 & 8 with ASI
                                        Charan Dass.
                                        Mr. O.P. Saxena with Mr. Vaibhav
                                        Sethi, Advocates for R-2 & 3.
                                        Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for R-4 NDMC.
                                        Mr. Rajeev Saxena with Mr. Rajat
                                        Mittal, Advocates for R-5, 6 & 9.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may        Not necessary
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?              Not necessary

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported             Not necessary
       in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The sixteen petitioners claiming to be residents of the Jhuggi Jhopri

Cluster at Kali Badi Road, G Point, New Delhi-110001 have filed this petition seeking relocation in accordance with the Policy of the Government. They claim that their Jhuggis/Jhopris in existence since the year 1980 were in contravention of the said Policy and other laws partly demolished on 22 nd November, 2010, though they claim to be still in possession.

2. Notice of the petition was issued. On 29th April, 2011 the counsel for Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) informed that a joint survey will have to be undertaken by the Land & Development Office (L&DO) and the DUSIB in coordination with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) because the area falls within the jurisdiction of the NDMC; accordingly a joint survey was directed to be undertaken with notice to the petitioners. On 31st May, 2011 directions for providing basic amenities to the petitioners were issued.

3. The respondents L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development and CPWD have in their counter affidavit stated that on 7th January, 1997 a plot of land admeasuring 2.257 acres was allotted by the Ministry of Urban Development to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for construction of residences for Doctors of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital; that at that time only 115 single storied quarters existed on the said land; that on survey only 62 Jhuggis were found to be eligible for relocation and charges wherefor were deposited on 21st February, 2002; that some of the other residents filed certain cases in other Courts; that other surveys were conducted in the year 2002 and thereafter in the year 2008 and as per which only 40 Jhuggis were

found entitled to relocation and it is only thereafter that the programme for eviction was fixed. It is stated that no other person has been found eligible. The counsel for the said respondents also contends that owing to passage of time new encroachers have been settling on the land after the earlier encroachers have been removed and are making repeated claims for relocation.

4. The SHO, Police Station-Mandir Marg has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the demolition action for removal of Jhuggi Jhopri Cluster was undertaken on proper authorization.

5. Though no rejoinder has been filed, the counsel for the petitioners today states that the land of which the petitioners are in occupation is different though near to the land of which survey was earlier undertaken. He contends that the claims of the petitioners have never been adjudicated and they are entitled to have their eligibility determined.

6. The counsel for the respondent DUSIB states that the petitioners were not found in occupation during the earlier surveys and are thus in all probability not eligible for relocation. He further contends that without the instructions from the land owning agency i.e. L&DO, the respondent DUSIB would not be in a position to carry out a survey.

7. This Court cannot wait endlessly for the land owning agency i.e. L&DO to give instructions to DUSIB and for DUSIB to conduct a survey thereafter. It cannot be lost sight that the land is meant for construction of residences for Doctors of a public hospital and which project is held up for

the reason of the petitioners being in occupation. The need for residences of Doctors is of public importance being necessary to attract the best talent to employment in public hospitals. The rights if any of the petitioners are thus to be weighed against the rights of the public.

8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) L&DO being the land owning agency is deemed to have made a reference to DUSIB to carry out the survey of the land in occupation of the petitioners;

(ii) The petitioners to appear before the DUSIB in the first instance on 16th November, 2011 at 1100 hours and thereafter on such dates as may be necessary along with all their documents in proof of their eligibility for relocation;

(iii) DUSIB to after intimating the L&DO carry out a survey of the land in occupation of the petitioners. It is clarified that DUSIB to go ahead with the survey irrespective whether the L&DO joins therein or not;

(iv) DUSIB to prepare its report on the eligibility of the petitioners on or before 25th February, 2012;

(v) Needless to state that if any of the petitioners are found eligible for relocation, they shall be relocated in accordance with the Policy;

(vi) If the petitioners are not found eligible, they would have their remedies in law;

(vii) Though the counsel for the petitioners had stated that there is an interim order protecting the possession of the petitioners but on record no such interim order is found though provision was made as aforesaid for providing amenities to the petitioners. Now when this Court has fixed the time schedule for adjudication of the claims of the petitioners, it is deemed expedient that the petitioners be not disturbed till 21st February, 2012. However thereafter, the respondents shall be entitled to use reasonable force to remove the petitioners/such of them who have not been found eligible for relocation. Even if any of the petitioners are found eligible for relocation, it shall be open to the respondents to temporarily relocate them in any other site to ensure that the public project aforesaid is not delayed further.

The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) OCTOBER 10, 2011 Bs..