Mumtaz & Ors vs The Chairman Delhi Development ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 985 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) 880/2012 & C.M.No.1953/2012


                                            Decided on: 13th February, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF
MUMTAZ & ORS                                               ..... Petitioners
                                    Through : Mr. G.P. Singh, Adv.

                        versus

THE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS
                                                           ..... Respondents
                                    Through : Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA.
                                    Mr. Rajiv Naanda, Adv. for R-3 with
                                    SI Mahesh Soni.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia

for directions to respondent No.1/DDA not to carry out demolition action

slated for 11.2.2012 in respect of jhuggis of the petitioners situated abutting

Masjid Kangal Shah, Mochi Bagh, DDA Park, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi,

without following the due process of law.

2. It is pertinent to note that an earlier round of litigation had been

initiated by the petitioners in respect of the same cause of action, registered

as WP(C)No.2224/2011 entitled „Mumtaz Khan & Ors. vs. The Vice

Chairman, DDA & Anr.‟ (Annexure-A). While disposing of the aforesaid writ

petition on 5.7.2011, a coordinate Bench of this Court had clearly observed

as below :

"5. The petitioners do not claim any title to the land which they claim to have occupied for long for the purposes of their Jhuggis/residences. The land admittedly belongs to the DDA. The Government of NCT of Delhi has a Scheme/Policy for rehabilitation/relocation of certain category of encroachers of public land. The claim of the petitioners at best can be under the said Scheme/Policy only and not otherwise. Thus the only relief which could be granted to the petitioners in the present case is for consideration of their case under the said Scheme/Policy. The counsel for the petitioners is agreeable to the said course of action."

3. After making the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was

disposed of in the following manner :

"8. The writ petition is therefore disposed off with the following directions:

(i) The petitioners to within 30 days of today submit to the respondent No.1 DDA all documents in their power and possession and in support of their claim for rehabilitation;

(ii) The respondent No.1 DDA to thereafter forward to the Government of NCT of Delhi/Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board for consideration/survey of the claim of the petitioners for rehabilitation under the Scheme / Policy aforesaid, on the basis of the documents submitted by the petitioners;

(iii) Needless to state that if the petitioners are found eligible for rehabilitation under the Scheme/Policy of the Government of NCT of Delhi, they shall as per their turn and terms of the Scheme/Policy be rehabilitated."

4. Counsel for the petitioners states that if respondent No.1/DDA is

not restrained from carrying out the demolition action in the area in

question, the relief granted vide order dated 5.7.2011 in

WP(C)No.2224/2011, would be rendered infructuous.

5. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is devoid of merits for the reason that in WP(C)No.2224/2011, the

claim laid by the petitioners to the land beneath their jhuggis could not be

established by them. Instead, the Court noticed that the subject land

belonged to respondent No.1/DDA. It is also pertinent to note that even as

per their own case, the dwelling shelters of the petitioners had already been

demolished by the DDA with the police assistance on 16.3.2011. Further,

vide order dated 5.7.2011 passed in the earlier writ petition, the Court had

observed that the only relief that the petitioners could have been granted

was for consideration of their case for relocation under any scheme/policy of

the DDA. The aforesaid relief having already been granted to the petitioners

in the earlier writ petition, no further orders are required to be passed in the

present petition.

6. Merely because the petitioners claim that they have re-

established themselves in the same area after demolition action had been

undertaken by respondent No.1/DDA on 16.3.2011, cannot be a ground to

stay the hands of respondent No.1/DDA and restrain it from removing

encroachment on public land, as per law.

7. Counsel for respondent No.3 states that though it has been

claimed by the petitioners that respondent No.1/DDA had sought police

assistance for carrying out the demolition activity in the area in question on

11.2.2012, no such request was received from respondent No.1/DDA on the

aforesaid date and instead, he states that the date fixed for the said action is

15/16.2.2012.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present

petition is dismissed, along with the pending application, as being devoid of

merits.

HIMA KOHLI, J FEBRUARY 13, 2012 sk