Delhi High Court
Shankar Prasad vs Dda & Ors. on 23 September, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23rd September, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 7021/2011
% SITARE & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Versus
DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Rahul
Bhandari, Adv. for R-1/DDA.
Mr. O.P. Saxena & Mr. Vaibhav
Sethi, Advs. for R-3/DUSIB.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 917/2011
% SHANKAR PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Versus
DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Rahul
Bhandari, Adv. for R-1/DDA.
Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for GNCTD.
AND
W.P.(C) Nos.7021/2011, 917/2011, 1839/2011 & 2943/2011 Page 1 of 8
+ W.P.(C) 1839/2011
% MORBATI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Versus
DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Rahul
Bhandari, Adv. for R-1/DDA.
Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for GNCTD.
Mr. O.P. Saxena & Mr. Vaibhav
Sethi, Advs. for R-3/DUSIB.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2943/2011
% MUNNA SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.
Versus
DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Rahul
Bhandari, Adv. for R-1/DDA.
Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv. for GNCTD.
Mr. O.P. Saxena & Mr. Vaibhav
Sethi, Advs. for R-3/DUSIB.
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
W.P.(C) Nos.7021/2011, 917/2011, 1839/2011 & 2943/2011 Page 2 of 8
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. W.P.(C) No.7021/2011 has come up for consideration for the first
time today. The six petitioners claim to have earlier been residents, since
prior to the year 1994, of Jhuggi Jhopri Cluster (JJC) in Jasola Village where
demolition was carried out on 09.06.2009. They claim to be entitled to re-
location in accordance with the Policy of the respondent No.2 Govt. of NCT
of Delhi (GNCD). This petition has been filed seeking mandamus therefor.
2. The land underneath the said JJC of which the petitioners claim to
have been earlier resident of is stated to belong to respondent No.1 DDA.
The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) (wrongly mentioned
as Delhi Urban Centre Improvement Board in the memo of parties) which is
vested with the power to carry out the survey and determine the eligibility
for re-location in accordance with the Policy aforesaid has been impleaded
as respondent No.3.
3. The counsel for the respondent No.3 DUSIB appearing on advance
notice has stated that though DUSIB carries out the survey and determines
the eligibility on receiving reference from the agency owning the land
underneath the JJC but the respondent No.1 DDA has a separate Policy for
rehabilitation / re-location and the respondent No.1 DDA itself carries out
the survey / determination of eligibility also.
4. The counsel for the respondent No.1 DDA also appearing on advance
notice however denies that the respondent No.1 DDA has any separate
Policy or separate mechanism for carrying out the survey / determining the
eligibility and contends that it is also covered by the policies in this regard of
the respondent No.2 GNCTD. He also refers to several other petitions
where this Court has directed the DUSIB to carry out survey / determine
eligibility qua Jhuggi Jhopri Dwellers (JJD) on respondent No.1 DDA's land
also.
5. Undoubtedly, in the past in other matters no such plea has been taken
of respondent No.3 DUSIB being not required to or empowered to carry out
the survey / determine eligibility for re-location of squatters on DDA land
and this Court has issued several orders for such survey / determination.
6. Need is not felt to issue formal notice of the petition or to call for
affidavits / replies inasmuch as no mandamus as sought of re-habilitation /
re-location of the petitioners can be issued unless the entitlement of the
petitioners is determined by respondent No.3 DUSIB and which has not
been done till now. The only direction to be thus made in this petition, since
the petitioners have already been dispossessed, is of the eligibility if any of
the petitioners to be determined.
7. The counsel for the petitioners at this stage states that he has on behalf
of certain other erstwhile residents of the same JJC, also filed W.P.(C)
Nos.917/2011, 1839/2011 & 2943/2011 of which notices have been issued
and which are listed next on 01.12.2011. On request of the counsels, the files
of the said W.P.(C) Nos.917/2011, 1839/2011 & 2943/2011 also have been
requisitioned from the Registry and the next date of 01.12.2011 therein is
cancelled and the same are also taken up for hearing.
8. A counter affidavit of the department of Urban Development,
GNCTD is found to be filed in W.P.(C) Nos.917/2011 & 1839/2011. It is
stated therein that the respondent No.3 DUSIB has been nominated as the
nodal agency for implementation of the Scheme for re-location / re-
habilitation of JJC from the lands belonging to MCD and Delhi Government
and its departments / agencies and that in case of Central Government /
agencies like Railways, DDA, L&DO, Delhi Cantonment Board, NDMC
they are free to carryout the re-location / re-habilitation by themselves as per
the Policy of the Delhi Government or may entrust the job to respondent
No.3 DUSIB.
9. I am of the opinion that once the Policy of re-location / re-habilitation
is of the respondent No.2 GNCTD, no distinction can be made between JJDs
over land belonging to MCD and the JJDs over land belonging to respondent
No.1 DDA. Since this Court has in the past issued directions to respondent
No.3 DUSIB for determination of eligibility of JJDs on land of respondent
No.1 DDA also, no reason is found for not issuing similar order in these four
petitions also.
10. The petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The agency owning the land underneath the JJC at Jasola,
demolition action whereat was carried out on 09.06.2009,
whether DDA or otherwise, is deemed to have made reference
to the respondent No.3 DUSIB for determining the eligibility of
the petitioners in all the four petitioners for re-location / re-
habilitation in accordance with the Policy of the respondent
No.2 GNCTD;
(ii) The respondent No.3 DUSIB to accordingly so determine the
eligibility of the petitioners;
(iii) The petitioners to appear before the respondent No.3 DUSIB
along with all their documents in this regard, in the first
instance on 20.10.2011 and thereafter on such further dates as
may be necessary;
(iv) The respondent No.3 DUSIB to make endeavour to complete
the enquiry / determination within one year thereof;
(v) The department of Food & Civil Supplies and other concerned
departments from whom respondent No.3 DUSIB may need to
verify to determine the eligibility of the petitioners, are directed
to supply all information sought to respondent No.3 DUSIB and
to render other assistance if any sought;
(vi) If the petitioners or any of them are so found eligible, they be
re-located / re-habilitated in accordance with the Policy.
However, the petitioners or such of them who are not found
eligible, if not found eligible, shall have remedies in law.
The petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011
'gsr'
