Delhi High Court
Sh. Atul Singh Gandas & Another vs Lt. Governor Of Gnctd & Ors. on 17 April, 2014
Author: Manmohan
#5
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3386/2011 & CM APPL. 7072/2011
SH. ATUL SINGH GANDAS & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Rajesh Yadav with Ms. Ruchira,
Advocates
versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF GNCTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing
Counsel for R-1 and 2.
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-3.
Ms. Saroj Bidawat Bansal, Advocate
for R-4.
Mr. A.K. Sen with Mr. Shyam Dutt,
Advocates for R-6, 7 and 8.
% Date of Decision : 17th April, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed primarily praying for quashing of
provisional certificate of regularisation bearing No.F.1-33/UC/
UD/2004/PT-III dated 17th September, 2008 issued by the order and in the
name of Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi granting
provisional regularisation to Pratap Gandas Colony-I & II, Village
Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 070 having Registration No.
965.
2. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners contends that
purported owners/residents/members of the aforesaid two colonies are
mostly relatives and close family members of respondent nos. 6 and 7.
3. According to him, the list is totally manipulated and no person other
than Mr. Pratap Singh Gandas and his family members are bonafide
residents of the village or the area where these colonies are stated to be in
existence.
4. He states that the list enclosed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 would show
that some of the members of the two colonies were of very small/tender age
such as five and seven years at the relevant time.
5. Mr. Rajesh Yadav states that no houses exist on site, except the
houses of Mr. Pratap Singh and his son Mr. Sandeep Singh as well as a few
tin structures.
6. Respondent-DDA in its counter-affidavit has confirmed the averments
in the writ petition. The relevant portion of respondent-DDA's counter-
affidavit reads as under:-
"4-6. In reply to contents of paras 4-6 it is submitted that the
land in issue falls in Khasra Nos. 1674, 1231 and 1232 in the
Revenue Estate Village Mehrauli, Khasra No. 1674 is Gaon
Sabha land and the same has been placed at the disposal of DDA
vide Notification bearing S.O. No. 2190 dated 20th August, 1974
by the GNCTD Land comprising in Khasra Nos. 1231 and 1232
were subject matter of acquisition and Awards bearing No.80-
E/70-71 (Supp.) and 79A/83-84 Supp. were passed. However,
the physical possession of the same was not handed over to DDA
by LAC/Land & Building Department of the GNCT. So far as the
land comprising in Khasra Nos. 1674 is concerned, the same is
lying vacant at the site. Land comprising in Khasra No. 1231
and 1232 is having temporary structures (tin sheds) as on the
date. The colony namely Pratap Singh Gandas-I falls in Khasra
No. 1674-Min. Village Mehrauli, has a boundary wall existing at
the spot which is four ft. high but no structure exists on it. The
land is lying vacant at site, while land comprising in Khasra Nos.
1231-1232 is having certain temporary structures (tin sheds).
Rest of the contents of the paragraph under reply relate to GNCT
of Delhi."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Ms. Zubeda Begum, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1
and 2 states that as per Regulations for Regularisation of Unauthorised
Colonies existing in Delhi notified on 24th March, 2008 by Government of
India, there is no provision for provisionally regularising any unauthorised
colony. She states that issuance of a provisional regularisation certificate
does not regularise any unauthorised colony automatically.
8. She also confirms that no physical verification was conducted by the
State before issuing the provisional certificates. She has placed on record an
additional affidavit of Mr. Mansoor Usmani, Deputy Secretary, Department
of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi dated 27th March,
2014, which reads as under:-
"Most respectfully it is submitted that the Govt. of India
notified the regulations dated 24.03.2008 for regularization of
unauthorized colonies existing in Delhi, subject to fulfilment of
Provisions laid down in above said regulations. As per
regulations dated 24.03.2008 there is no provision for
Provisionally Regularizing any unauthorized colony. It was a
decision taken by the then Government and Provisional
Regularization Certificates (PRC) were issued to the
unauthorized colonies on the basis of certain documents
submitted by RWAs representing unauthorized colonies and no
physical verification was conducted before issuing PRC. The
issuance of PRC does not regularize any unauthorized colony
automatically. For regularization, unauthorized colony has to
satisfy the provisions laid down under regulation dated
24.03.2008 and its subsequent amendments.
Further the PRC is neither a necessary not a sufficient
condition for regularization of unauthorized colony. The clause
4.6.3 of Amendment dated 16.06.2008 states that "However, the
final boundaries would be fixed by GNCTD only after completing
all requisite formalities including those in clause 3 of regulations
dated 24.03.2008."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The aforesaid affidavit filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi is
accepted by this Court. The Government of NCT of Delhi is held bound by
the same.
10. Mr. A.K. Sen, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 8 states that
petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands inasmuch as
petitioners have also got similar colonies provisionally regularised. In this
connection, he has drawn this Court's attention to a letter dated 13th July,
2010 written by Deputy Secretary (UC), Department of Urban Development,
Government of NCT of Delhi at page 219 of the paper book wherein a
decision has been recorded to keep the regularisation of certain colonies in
abeyance till all the allegations made by certain complainants are examined.
11. In rejoinder, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners refutes
the aforesaid contentions/allegations.
12. This Court is of the view that if respondent nos. 6 to 8 have any
grievance with regard to any application for provisional regularisation
having been filed by the petitioners, they are at liberty to file independent
proceedings. However, in this petition the said allegations cannot be
examined as neither any detail has been provided nor any document has
been placed on record to show as to for which colony the petitioners had
applied for provisional regularisation.
13. In any event, in view of the Government of NCT of Delhi's admission
that provisional regularisation certificate has no legal sanctity and confers
neither any legal title nor any legal status, this Court is of the view that it
need not quash the illegal and irrelevant provisional regularisation certificate
issued by respondent-State Government.
14. However, to avoid any doubts, it is clarified that a provisional
regularisation certificate is of no legal consequence and the same would not
be considered or recognized by any Court or authority as the same creates no
right in favour of the applicants. It is further clarified that no
Court/authority shall recognise or pass any order relying upon the
provisional regularisation certificate.
15. With the aforesaid observations and clarification, present petition and
application are disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
APRIL 17, 2014
rn
