Delhi High Court
Bharat Nagar Slum Basti Victim ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 April, 2013
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~07.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 561/2011
% Order dated 10th April, 2013.
BHARAT NAGAR SLUM BASTI
VICTIM ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Prag Chawla and Mr.Subhash
Shokeen, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Ajay Verma, Adv. for DDA along
with Mr.S.N. Gupta, Director (LM),
DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. W.P.(C) 2155/2009 was filed by the petitioners, who were displaced in
the December, 2006, when the MCD demolished their jhuggis. In the
aforesaid writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus
declaring the acts of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioners from
their properties without reallocating the petitioners elsewhere by
providing alternate plots in terms of the reallocation policy as illegal
arbitrary, discretionary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India and also prayed for a direction to
reallocate the petitioners by providing alternate plots in terms of the re-
allocation policy applicable to slum/jhuggi dwellers. A stand was taken by
the DDA that demolition action was taken by the MCD in pursuance to
the directions of the Monitoring Committee constituted by the High Court
of Delhi regarding unauthorized construction, misuse of property and
encroachment on public land. The Court had noticed the directions issued
by the Monitoring Committee in the order, which was passed on 25 th
November, 2009. Another stand taken by the DDA was that although the
DDA is a land owning agency and as per the policy they are liable to
reallocate and provide alternate plots to the eligible jhuggi dwellers but
since the DDA has no role to play in the entire demolition action the DDA
had during the pendency of the writ petition considered the matter with
the officials of MCD in a meeting held on 15.9.2009. A copy of the
minutes of the meeting was handed over in Court, which was also
reproduced in the foresaid order. The relevant portion of the minutes of
the meeting read as under:
"5. After discussion, it was decided that MCD will constitute a
committee for verification of documents of the JJ dwellers who
were removed by the MCD in December, 2006 without conducting
survey. For this purpose, they will issue a Public Notice as well as
individual letters informing the petitioners and other JJ dwellers to
appear before the Committee in person with the required
documents.
6. After verification of documents, MCD will prepare a list of
eligible JJ dwellers, with supporting evidences. Thereafter, MCD
will hand over the eligibility list to Director (Land Management-I),
DDA for considering the cases of JJ dwellers for alternative
allotment of plots, as per seniority/policy of the Government."
2. The Court also noticed that the MCD had issued a communication to the
DDA wherein the MCD had expressed its inability to participate in the
matter and further in view of the fact that the DDA is the land owning
agency. The Court also noticed that in the minutes of the meeting held on
15.10.2009 DDA had not objected to grant an alternate allotment subject
to verification of the documents of jhuggi dwellers by the MCD as the
jhuggi dwellers were removed by the MCD. The Court while disposing of
the writ petition on 25.11.2009 passed the following directions:
9. In view of the stand taken by the respondent - DDA as well
as the MCD, present petition and all pending applications are
disposed of with the following directions:
(a) Vice-Chairman, DDA, will constitute a Committee
which will comprise of the officers both from the
DDA as well as the MCD to consider the requests of
the petitioners upon the petitioners furnishing all the
necessary documents showing possession at the
relevant time and such other documents as may be
required by the DDA to consider the petitioners for
grant of alternate plots in accordance with the re-
allocation policy applicable to slum/jhuggi dwellers.
(b) The DDA will issue a public notice as decided in the
minutes of the meeting held on 20.10.2009 to
constitute a committee for verification of documents of
the JJ dwellers who were removed by the MCD in
December, 2006, without conducting survey. It is
made clear that the MCD will render all assistance,
which may be required to the DDA for early disposal
of this matter.
(c) The committee will grant the petitioners an
opportunity of personal hearing as well as opportunity
to produce such documents as may be required for
grant of alternate plot to the petitioners.
(d) Thereafter, the committee will make the necessary
allotment to the petitioners and similarly situated
persons within a period of six months from the date of
passing of the order."
3. Since the respondents failed to comply with the directions contained in
the order dated 25.11.2009 the petitioner was forced to file a contempt
petition, being CCP 499/2010, which was disposed of by an order dated
29.11.2010. The order dated and 29.11.2010 reads as under:
" ORDER
% 29.11.2010
Learned counsel for DDA has pointed out that Delhi
Government Urban Shelter Improvement Board has appointed Mr.
S.K. Zaidi (Senior Investigator) as a member of the Committee
which has been constituted. The Board shall ensure that Sh. Zaidi
attends all the meetings to enable the Committee to comply with the
directions contained in the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by this
Court. Let the proceedings be concluded within three months from
today.
A copy of this order be sent directly to Mr. Zaidi.
With the aforesaid directions, contempt petition stands
disposed of."
4. Since the orders 25.11.2009 and 29.11.2010 passed in the writ petition
and the contempt petition, respectively, were not complied with the
present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner in the month of
July, 2011. Notice in this matter was issued on 29.7.2011 and the matter
was adjourned to 25.11.2011 when the Court was informed that the
meetings had been held and would be called for in future as well to
resolve the issue. The Court was also informed about the further progress
in the matter on the subsequent dates of hearing. On 23.11.2012 further
four weeks time was sought by counsel for the respondent to file reply
and the matter was adjourned to 6.3.2013 when the following order was
passed:
" ORDER
% 06.03.2013
Mr.Ajay Verma, counsel for the DDA submits that the order
dated 29.11.2010 shall be positively complied with by 31.3.2013.
In case order dated 29.11.2010 is not complied with, concerned
Director, DDA shall remain present in court on the next date of
hearing.
List the matter on 10.4.2013"
5. Today, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the report has yet
not been finalized and further time upto 31.5.2013 is sought to comply
with the order, which was passed in the writ petition as far back as on
25.11.2009.
6. It is extremely unfortunate that the DDA, being a statutory body, has
taken the orders passed by the High Court in such a casual and insensitive
manner, especially, when it relates to jhuggi dwellers, whose jhuggis were
demolished as far back as in the year 2009. The explanation rendered by
counsel for the respondent today during the course of hearing is that the
Director, who was part of the Committee, was repatriated in the month of
March, 2013, and the Director appointed in his place has been on leave
since then. I am sure that the concerned officials would have been
informed of the orders passed by this Court from time to time but to say
the least it seems that the attitude of the respondent is defiant.
Accordingly, the respondents are prima facie guilty of contempt. Let the
concerned respondent remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.
7. List on 24.5.2013.
G.S.SISTANI, J
APRIL 10, 2013
msr
