Delhi High Court
Sushila vs Dda And Ors. on 19 April, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8476/2011
Decided on: 19.04.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
SUSHILA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
versus
DDA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for
R-1/DDA.
Ms. Sonia Arora, Advocate for R-2/GNCTD.
Mr. Akhil Purwar, Advocate for Mr. Parvinder
Chauhan, Advocate for R-3/DUSIB.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to
allot an alternative permanent plot/flat to her alongwith suitable
compensation on the ground that she was residing in a Jhuggi situated at
Sawan Park, New Delhi, for a long time and the same was demolished on
25.09.2000, without rehabilitating her.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
the year 1991, the petitioner alongwith 91 others had filed a writ petition
in this Court, registered as W.P.(C) 4052/1991 praying inter alia for
directions to the respondents not to evict them from the land situated in
Khasra No.646 to 650 situated in Sawan Park. Pertinently, the petitioner
herein was arrayed as petitioner No.35 in the aforesaid proceedings.
Vide order dated 07.03.2001, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of
with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners
therein in the light of the new policy formulated by the Government of
India for relocation of Jhuggi dwellers. It was further observed that DDA
would examine the case of each of the aforesaid petitioners and give
reason for the decision that would be taken thereon. It was lastly
directed that the interim order operating in favour of the petitioners
therein would continue till the matter would be decided by the DDA in the
light of the new policy. A copy of the order dated 07.03.2001 is enclosed
as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the interim
orders operating in favour of the aforesaid petitioners, in violation
thereof, the respondents demolished the slum clusters. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid action of demolishing the Jhuggies of the petitioner and others
without granting them alternative allotments, a contempt petition was
filed in this Court, registered as CCP No.499/2004, which was dismissed
on 09.11.2005. However, in the order dated 9.11.2005, the Court had
observed that petitioner No.1 therein (the petitioner herein) would be
entitled to an alternative accommodation. It is the grievance of the
petitioner that despite the aforesaid directions, she has not been allotted
an alternative accommodation by the respondent No.1/DDA till date.
4. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated
02.12.2011. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1/DDA
and respondent No.3/DUSIB. Respondent No.1/DDA has stated in its
counter affidavit that vide order dated 23.02.2011 passed in W.P.(C)
2632/2010 entitled Ram Chander & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., the
petitioners therein, who were similarly situated as the petitioner herein,
had approached the Court for being rehabilitated and relocated upon
being uprooted from Najafgarh Road pursuant to the execution of the
work of remodeling and covering of drain in the area. After considering
the respective stands of the respondents therein, the Division Bench had
directed that the petitioners therein should approach the respondent/MCD
with a representation and copies of relevant documents, which would then
be examined by the department in terms of the modified policy guidelines
issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for relocation of uprooted Jhuggi
dwellers, and if found eligible as per the policy guidelines, the
respondents would take appropriate action as per law.
5. As regards respondent No.3/DUSIB, it has averred in its
counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner had existed in the joint
survey list prepared at the time of removal/relocation of the Jhuggi
cluster in Sawan Park in the year 2000. It is further averred that as per
the joint survey list, the petitioner had furnished a ration card bearing the
date, 19.06.1997 and therefore, she was found eligible as per the then
existing policy for rehabilitation of J.J dwellers, but as she had failed to
produce the original documents, her case could not be processed further.
6. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by respondent No.1/DDA
and respondent No.3/DUSIB, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the
present petition with directions to the petitioner to appear before the
Deputy Director (Rehabilitation), DUSIB on 02.05.2012 at 3 PM alongwith
all the relevant documents she has in her possession for the purpose of
verification of her case for rehabilitation under the existing policy. The
said documents shall be examined by the aforesaid officer and if satisfied
by the documents produced, the case of the petitioner shall be processed
for rehabilitation, by allotment of an alternative plot/flat to her as
permissible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of granting a
hearing to the petitioner. However, if the respondent No.3/DUSIB is
dis-satisfied with the documents that are produced by the petitioner, she
shall be informed as to the deficiency in the documents, whereafter, the
same shall be produced by her, for the respondent No.3/DUSIB to re-
examine her case and take a decision thereon under written intimation to
her within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the said
documents by her. Respondent No.3/DUSIB shall endeavour to adhere to
the timeline indicated above. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by
the inaction/adverse decision, if any, taken by the respondent
No.3/DUSIB, she shall be entitled to seek her remedies as per law.
The petition is disposed of.
DASTI to the petitioner and respondent No.3/DUSIB.
(HIMA KOHLI)
APRIL 19, 2012 JUDGE
rkb
