Delhi High Court
Ganga Sharan & Ors. vs Mcd & Anr. on 18 October, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5823/2010
Decided on: 18.10.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
GANGA SHARAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate with
Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate
versus
MCD & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nikhil Pillai, Advocate for
Ms. Shyel Trehan, Advocate for R-1/MCD.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate for R-2.
AND
W.P.(C) 6439/2010
LATA ..... Petitioner
Through: None
versus
MCD AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Saroj Bidawat,Advocate for R-1/MCD
Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petitions are filed by the petitioners praying inter
alia for directions to the respondents, restraining them from initiating any
coercive action of demolition and dispossession of the petitioners from
their respective Jhuggis/hutments situated at Gautam Puri, Badarpur,
Molar Band, New Delhi. The petitioners have also sought quashing of
any order passed by the respondents, cancelling the allotment/occupation
made in their favour in respect of their jhuggis under the Rehabilitation
Improvement Scheme of respondent No.1/MCD.
2. On a pointed query posed to the counsel for the petitioners as
to the basis of the allotment allegedly made in favour of the petitioners,
on the strength of which they are occupying the hutments in question, it
is candidly conceded that except for petitioner No.1 in W.P.(C) 5823/2010
to whom allotment of the hutment was originally made, all the remaining
61 petitioners in that petition are occupying the hutments in question
either after the same were vacated by the original allottees, or in some
cases, occupation of the hutments is on the strength of their illegal sale
by the original allottees. None appears for the sole petitioner in WP(C)
No.6439/2010. From a perusal of the averments made in the petition, it
can be ascertained that the petitioner herein is also not an original
allottee and has come to occupy the hutment through a power of attorney
executed in her favour.
3. Counsel for respondent No.2/Slum & J.J.Department states
that there is no question of the petitioners laying any claim on the
hutments in question as the same had been allotted for a period of ten
years only to the eligible jhuggi dwellers for the purpose of their
rehabilitation, on a license basis without granting any ownership rights to
them. It is submitted that when many of the original allottees vacated
the hutments in question, their licenses were cancelled by respondent
No.2 in the year 2007. It is further stated that the petitioners have
occupied the hutments in question by entering into illegal sale-purchase
agreements in respect of the hutments, which is not permissible under
the Rehabilitation Scheme because of which such transfers cannot be
recognized by respondent No.2. It is further stated that none of the
petitioners, except for petitioner No.1 in W.P.(C) 5823/2010, have any
ownership rights in the hutments in question and no proof of allotment
has been placed on record by any of them.
4. It is further stated that reliance placed by the learned counsel
for the petitioners on the order dated 17.11.2009 passed in W.P.(C)
10567/2009 entitled Naresh Kumar & Ors. vs. MCD & Anr. is misplaced
inasmuch as the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the original allottees
and not by parties like the present petitioners, who have no legal claim to
the allotted plots and furthermore, the opportunity of hearing which was
claimed by the petitioners therein, was granted based on the facts of that
case. In the present case, the petitioners are admittedly not recognized
by respondent No.2 as the original allottees and hence, the question of
granting an opportunity for hearing does not arise.
5. Counsel for respondent No.2/Slum & J.J. Department further
states that no policy has been formulated by respondent No.2 for persons
like the petitioners, who claim to be below the poverty line, for allocation
of hutments to them. He states that as per the current policy in place,
only those persons are eligible for allocation of hutments who were
occupying jhuggi clusters, up to the cut-off year of 1991 and the
petitioners who have admittedly come into possession only after the year
1991, would not be eligible. It is stated submitted that irrespective of the
cut-off date of the year 1991, the present petitioners would still not be
entitled to apply under the scheme for relocation as they are admittedly
residents in a relocated area and are not living in a jhuggi cluster, for
being eligible to apply.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel for
respondent No.2/Slum & J.J. Department, which remain uncontroverted
by the other side, it has to be held that the petitioners are in possession
of relocated plots, in which hutments had been constructed for original
allottees who were removed from jhuggi clusters and in the light of the
fact that their possession is post the year 1991, which is the cut-off date
under the scheme of the Government for relocation, the petitioners
cannot be granted the relief as prayed for by them in the present petition.
However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners propose to make a representation to
respondent No.2 for being considered for grant of a license to occupy the
hutments in their possession, on payment of license fee, the petitioners
are permitted to make such a representation within two weeks, which
shall be duly considered and disposed of, by respondent No.2 as per its
prevalent policy in a time bound manner preferably within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of such representations, under written
intimation to the petitioners through their counsel. It is further directed
that respondent No.2/Slum & J.J. Department shall not take any coercive
steps against the petitioners for a period of two weeks from the date their
representation is disposed of.
7. The petitions are disposed of while leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 18, 2011
rkb
