Rastriya Prigya Sansthan vs Govt. Of Delhi & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3508 Del

           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                 Judgment delivered on: 04.08.2014
+        W.P. (C) 8567/2010

RASTRIYA PRIGYA SANSTHAN                                    ..... Petitioner

                                     versus

GOVT. OF DELHI & ANR.                                       ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   : Mr N.P. Gani, Mr Abhay Kant Mishra &
                       Mr Ashutosh Mishra.
For the Respondent   : Ms Priya Pathania for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

                                 JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia¸ seeking an appropriate direction to respondent no.1 to expedite the process of regularisation of the colony namely Louis Braille Vihar, Madan Pur Dwas, Delhi-110081. The petitioner further prays for a direction to respondent no.2 to protect the residents of Louis Braille Vihar from land mafia and unknown persons who are allegedly attempting to dispossess them of their lands.

2. The petitioner is stated to be a society registered with the Registrar of Societies and is working in the field of providing education and employment to visually challenged persons. The petitioner claims to have

conceptualised a colony exclusively for the visually challenged persons which is named as Louis Braille Vihar Colony. It is stated that several visually handicapped persons have purchased lands at the said colony for building their dwelling units.

3. A Division Bench of this Court in Common Case Regd. Society v. Union of India & Anr.: W.P. (C) No.4771/1993 - had passed an order on 27.02.2001, inter alia¸ directing Union of India, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation to notify colonies which were to be regularised and colonies which could not be regularised in terms of the guidelines submitted by the Government before the Court. Subsequently, the Government of India issued revised guidelines which were further modified. Thereafter, the Delhi Development Authority notified Regulations under Section 57 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 for regularisation of unauthorised colonies in Delhi. This was followed by the Government of India by placing modalities for regularisation of unauthorised colonies before a Division Bench of this Court.

4. In view of the Regulations made for the purposes of regularising unauthorised colonies, provisional certificates were issued to 1218 unauthorised colonies. The petitioner society along with the residents of the Louis Braille Vihar had also applied for regularisation of the said colony and on 17.09.2008, a provisional certificate of regularisation was granted to Louis Braille Vihar.

5. Subsequently, a letter dated 24.10.2011 was issued to the General Secretary of the petitioner informing the petitioner that the survey carried

out had disclosed that the built up percentage of the colony in the year 2002 was 12% and for the year 2008 was 35%. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 28.11.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the provisional regularisation certificate should not be cancelled as more than 50% of the plots were un-built on the date of formal announcement of the regularisation scheme i.e. as on 08.02.2007. Since no response was received to the show cause notice dated 28.11.2011, respondent no.1 by an order dated 26.12.2011, cancelled the provisional regularisation certificate issued to the petitioner with respect to Louis Braille Vihar Colony.

6. Although, the receipt of the letter dated 24.10.2011 and the show cause notice is disputed by the petitioner, nonetheless, the moot question that needs to be answered is whether Louis Braille Vihar Colony complies with the condition of regularisation namely that on the cut of date i.e. 08.02.2007, the un-built area of the said colony was less than 50%. The petitioner has not produced any material which could indicate that this finding of respondent no.1 that as on 08.02.2007, the built up land comprising the Louis Braille Vihar Colony was less than 50%, is erroneous. The respondent has also produced a letter dated 07.12.2012 of Geospatial Delhi Ltd., which is a specialised company involved in scientific mapping of geographical areas. The said letter indicates that the area of the colony is 14780.21 sq. meters and the built up area in 2007 was 31.23% of the total area of the colony. Thus, undisputedly the petitioner's colony Louis Braille Vihar having registration no.1255, does not comply with the requirements of the regulations framed for regularisation of unauthorised colonies.

Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner for expediting the process of regularisation cannot be granted.

7. The petitioner had further alleged that the residents of Louis Braille Vihar were being harassed by members of land mafia who had also tried to destroy the display board bearing the name of petitioner's colony and replacing the same with another display board bearing the name "Bhagya Vihar". The petitioners had alleged that it had made several complaints with the police authorities but no action had been taken. In response to this allegation, SHO P.S. Kanjhawala has affirmed a counter affidavit. Para 6 of the said affidavit is relevant and reads as under:-

"6. In reply to the contents of Para 6 and 7 it is respectfully submitted that pursuant to the complaints of the Petitioner association, extensive enquiries were made but the allegations made in the said complaints viz. That a Shri Chand and Suresh Valmiki were trying to destroy the display-board bearing the name of the Colony and were also replacing the name of their Colony with 'Bhagya Vihar' could not be substantiated and the apprehensions seemed to be misplaced. Therefore, no action could be taken at that stage."

8. In view of the above affidavit affirming that the complaints made by the petitioner association were examined and that the complaint of the petitioner that the display board of the colony was attempted to be destroyed and replaced with the display board bearing the name Bhagya Vihar was found to be unsubstantiated, there is no necessity for issuing any further direction to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

9. Accordingly, the present petitioner is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 04, 2014 RK