Arvind Sharma vs Govt.Of Nct Delhi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 2933 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: 11.07.2013


+      W.P.(C) 3024/2013


       ARVIND SHARMA                                               ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr G.C. Shukla, Adv.

                          versus

    GOVT.OF NCT DELHI AND ORS                        ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr Hem Kumar,
                  Advs for GNCTD
                  Mr Sukhdev Singh, Superintendent, SDM Office, Punjabi
                  Bagh
                  Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Adv for R-3-DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                          JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The case of the petitioner is that his father late Shri Kasturi Lal along with

his family members migrated from Punjab to Delhi sometime in the year 1990,

reported to the Residential Commissioner, Government of Punjab at Punjabi

Bhawan, New Delhi on 26.03.1990 and submitted his ration card to the office in-

charge of Deputy Commissioner, Delhi. This is also his case that late Shri Kasturi

Lal along with his family members, including the petitioner started living in a camp

meant for Punjab migrants at Peeragarhi. On 26.06.1991, he expired at Rohtash

Nagar, Shahdara where he had been brought by his daughter for treatment. The

temporary camps meant for Punjab migrants are stated to have been demolished on

26.07.2001 and since then the petitioner claims to be residing at C-240, Peeragarhi

Camp along with his family members.

2. Pursuant to certain directions, issued by Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 272-

683/1990 (Om Prakash vs. Union of India) and W.P.(C) No. 855-1213/1990 (Tek

Chand vs. Union of India), Delhi Development Authority came out with Housing

Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab migrants. Pursuant to an order dated

27.07.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13741/2004 filed by Punjab

Migrants Welfare Association against Government of NCT of Delhi and DDA,

giving one last opportunity for verification of those who claimed to be Punjab

migrants eligible under the aforesaid scheme, but were not able to establish their

eligibility, through SDM, Punjabi Bagh, the petitioner also staked his claim for an

allotment under the said scheme. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by SDM,

Punjabi Bagh, after considering the evidence produced by him in support of his

claim of being eligible under the said scheme. During verification, the SDM

found that the name of the petitioner did not figure in any of the approved relief

lists of Punjab migrants eligible for re-allocation under the aforesaid scheme. The

said lists were prepared by the Government, after physically verifying the state of

the migrants in Peeragarhi and Jawala Puri camps. Holding that since the

petitioner was not staying in the relief camps at the time of preparation of the said

relief lists, the SDM declared him not eligible for re-allocation.

3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner, after more than 5 ½

years from the date of rejection of his claim by SDM, Punjabi Bagh filed W.P.(C)

No. 2192/2012. When the aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing on

17.04.2012, a number of infirmities, noted in the said order, were found and the

petitioner was given two weeks to cure those deficiencies. He, however, failed to

comply with the aforesaid order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed

with liberty to the petitioner to file a petition in accordance with law after he had

cured the deficiencies pointed out in the order dated 17.04.2012. Now, this fresh

writ petition has been filed seeking the following directions:-

"a) issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent No. 2 to recommend the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative residential accommodation/flat under the Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants by quashing that impugned order dated 06.11.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2;

b) direct the respondent No. 2 to examine the case of the petitioner afresh by properly verifying the claim of the petitioner and decide his case by passing a speaking order;"

4. A perusal of Scheme notified by DDA for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants

would show that the applicant was required to be a person from a family who had

migrated from Punjab and was staying in the designated seven refugee camps. It

was further stipulated in the Scheme that the aforesaid stay in any of the designated

seven refugee camp should be certified by the Deputy Commissioner of the

concerned District in which the camp of the application is situated.

5. It would this be seen that the petitioner would be eligible for consideration of

allotment under the aforesaid scheme only if the concerned Deputy Commissioner

certifies that at the relevant time, the applicant belonged to a family who had

migrated from Punjab and was staying in one of the seen designated refugee

camps. Admittedly, no such certificate from the concerned Deputy Commissioner

was produced by the petitioner before SDM, Punjabi Bagh nor has such a

certificate been produced before this Court. Besides that the petitioner failed to

established before SDM, Punjabi Bagh that either his name or the name of his

father figured in any of the lists which was prepared after physical verification of

Punjab migrants living in the aforesaid camps. Even before this Court, no material

has been placed on record by the petitioner to satisfy the Court that either he or his

father was residing in any of the aforesaid seven relief camps at the relevant time.

Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was right rejected by the SDM, Punjabi Bagh

and I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by him.

Since I do not find any merit in the petition, I am not going into the issue of

delay and laches though the fact remains that he approached this Court for the first

time more than 5 ½ years after rejection of his claim by SDM, Punjabi Bagh.

The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

V.K. JAIN, J

JULY 11, 2013 BG