Bhule Bisre Kalakar Co-Operative ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1478 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

            W.P.(C) 1290/2014 and CM APPL. 3834/2014


                                                    Decided on : 20.03.2014
IN THE MATTER OF
BHULE BISRE KALAKAR CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION SOCIETY
LTD. & ORS.                                         ..... Petitioners
                   Through: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Advocate with
                   Mr. Sarim Naved and Ms. Ria Singh, Advocates

                       versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with
                    Mr. Raujyot Singh, Advocate for R-1/UOI.
                    Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for R-2/DDA.
                    Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with
                    Mr. Shalabh Singhal, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by twenty eight petitioners,

including the petitioner No.1/Society praying inter alia that the respondent

No.2/DDA be restrained from dispossessing them or enabling the respondent

No.3/Developer from engaging in any building project in the area known as

Kathputli Colony opposite Shadipur, Delhi, and further for issuing directions

to the respondent No.2/DDA to consider the proposal put forth by

them(Annexure P-18 to P-20 enclosed with CM APPL.3834/2014).

2. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners states that

the petitioners are craftsman, artists and artisans who have been residing in

Kathputli Colony for the past several decades. The petitioners are aggrieved

by the In-situ slum development project undertaken by the respondent

No.2/DDA in the year 2008 on a parcel of land measuring 5.22 hectares in

Kathputli Colony for constructing 2800 residential units under the EWS

category on a part thereof upon entering into a Project Development

Agreement with the respondent No.3 on 04.09.2009, whereunder it was

granted a timeline of two years from the date of notice of commencement of

work, for undertaking construction on the subject land.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after

executing the aforesaid Agreement, the respondent No.2/DDA had

undertaken a survey of the area for identifying the number of households in

the colony but the final list drawn up by it was neither placed on their

website, nor was it displayed on any public notice board and the basis of

conducting the said survey was also not explained. As a result, there are

some genuine households, whose names have been left out from the final

list and if they are removed from the present settlement, they and their

families would be rendered homeless.

4. The second grievance raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that

while finalising the layout plan for the purpose of mixed use development at

the Kathputli Colony, the respondent No.2/DDA and the respondent

No.3/Developer did not take into consideration the needs of the residents of

the area, who have peculiar requirements in view of the nature of vocations

practiced by them that include puppeteering, practicing music, weaving and

other performing arts etc., which require special skills and unusual

equipments and gadgets. She states that representations on the aforesaid

lines were submitted by the petitioners to the respondent No.2/DDA but they

have not been taken into consideration. To substantiate the aforesaid

submission, learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to pages 92

and 93 of the documents enclosed with CM APPL. 3834/2014.

5. It is next stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners do not intend to obstruct the development project in any manner,

but they only want an assurance that the project is executed in such a

manner that sufficient space is made available for them to undertake the

unique character of their vocation and display their skills for earning a

livelihood. She states that if the petitioners are given an opportunity to

submit their suggestions in respect of the proposed development of the area

in question in the context of the common facilities, multipurpose hall,

auditorium and other utilities, it will go a long way in improving the quality

of their lives and those of the other residents of the area, on the condition

that the proposed layout plan(a copy whereof has been handed over by the

counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA to the counsel for the petitioners)

abides by the development norms that have been stipulated in the Delhi

Master Plan 2021. However, on enquiry, learned counsel concedes that prior

to filing the present petition, the petitioners have not made any such

representation to the competent authority complaining inter alia that the

respondents No.2/DDA and respondent No.3/Developer have not adhered to

the development norms stipulated in the Delhi Master Plan 2021 or the

guidelines laid down therein pertaining to the layout plan of the area. She

states that the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation on

the aforesaid lines and the respondent No.2/DDA be directed to consider the

same in accordance with the law.

6. Lastly, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant

to the survey conducted by them, the respondent No.2/DDA has very

recently displayed the names of the identified households on their website,

who have been found eligible for In-situ rehabilitation after the development

work in the colony is concluded and as a tide over, then they would be

entitled to shift to a Transit Camp set up by the respondent No.3/Developer

at Anand Parbat. She submits that those genuine households whose names

have been left out from the list and have a genuine grievance in that regard,

ought to be permitted to make a representation to the respondent No.2/DDA

for their names to be included in the Final List drawn by the DDA, if found to

be eligible.

7. At the outset, Mr.Rajiv Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2/DDA and Mr.N.K.Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

respondent No.3/Developer challenge the very maintainability of the present

petition and state that the names of all the persons arrayed as petitioners at

Sr.No.2 to 28 of the memo of parties have already been included in the list

of eligible households drawn up by the respondent No.2/DDA and therefore,

they cannot have any grievance that their names have been excluded from

the Final list. They contend that in reality there are certain vested interests

that the present petitioners seek to represent under the garb of the present

petition which is nothing but an attempt to dissuade the other residents from

shifting to the Transit Camp, which assertion is vehemently disputed by the

counsel for the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA states that as far as the

issue raised with regard to the names of genuine households being left out,

the DDA is open to receiving representations from such aggrieved persons

so that their grievance can be redressed in accordance with law. He states

that DDA is willing to display a public notice in the area and on its website,

wherein the requisite documents required to be submitted by such applicants

and the timeline for submitting such representations, shall be stated so that

their cases can be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. He

states that DDA is willing to walk an extra mile so as to iron out any

difficulty that may be faced by the residents in submitting their

representations at its headquarters and to save time, a Nodal Officer of the

rank of a Director, whose temporary office has already been established at

the site, shall display the public notice on a notice board in the colony and

receive their representations there itself for being processed and decided by

the competent authority in accordance with law.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA denies the assertion

made by the other side that the residents of the colony are plagued with the

fear of being left homeless once they leave the colony and there is no

certainty of their returning. He hands over a set of documents including a

copy of an agreement executed with such of the eligible householders for

shifting them to the Transit Camp and for allotment of a dwelling unit at the

reconstructed Kathputli Colony and states that all eligible persons shall

execute a Tripartite Agreement with the respondent No.2/DDA and the

respondent No.3/Developer for the said purpose and this being the first In-

situ slum development project undertaken by DDA on the basis of a

public/private partnership, every care shall be taken to have it implemented

smoothly and expeditiously. Copies of the documents handed over by the

learned counsel are taken on record.

10. It is next stated by the counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA that now

that a copy of the layout plan for the purpose of mixed use development of

the area has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioners, the

petitioners are at liberty to examine the same and submit their suggestions

for making the common facilities and common areas more compatible to

their needs, but within the scope of the plans as approved by the DUAC.

11. As it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the layout

plan approved by the DUAC does not meet the norms stipulated in the Delhi

Master Plan 2021 and the said grievance has not been taken up with the

respondent No.2/DDA till date, except for referring to the same for the first

time in the present petition, it is deemed appropriate to grant two weeks'

time to the petitioners to point out to the respondent No.2/DDA such of the

norms laid down in the Delhi Master Plan 2021 and not complied with while

finalizing the layout plan of the area. The said representation shall be

considered by the DDA and a response thereto, conveyed to the petitioners,

through counsel within four weeks therefrom.

12. The last anxiety expressed by the counsel for the petitioners is with

regard to lack of facilities provided in the Transit Camp set up by the

respondent No.3/Developer at Anand Parbat at the instance of the

respondent No.2/DDA, in terms of the Development Agreement. The said

anxiety can be easily assuaged by directing five representatives, who are

permanent residents in the settlement colony, to visit the Transit Camp at

Anand Parbat alongwith Mr. S.K. Jain, Nodal Officer of the respondent

No.2/DDA on 22.03.2014 at 11 AM. If there are any further facilities

required to be provided or deficiencies pointed out, the respondent

No.2/DDA and the respondent No.3/Developer shall examine the

suggestions made and as far as possible, try to provide the same, so that

the stay of the relocated households at the Transit Camp can be made as

comfortable as is possible.

13. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners in

the course of the arguments that every possible effort shall be made by the

petitioners who claim to represent the different communities residing at the

Kathputli Colony as also the members of the petitioner No.1/Society to play

a constructive role in persuading all the other residents of the colony to co-

operate with the respondents and shift to the Transit Camp after its

inspection is conducted as directed above, it is hoped and expected that not

only shall the petitioners abide by the aforesaid assurance, they shall also

desist from dissuading the other residents or obstructing them in any

manner from shifting to the Transit Camp.

14. At the same time, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA states

on instructions from his officer, that till date, no coercive measures have

been taken by the authorities to remove any of the residents of the

settlement colony for relocating them to the Transit Camp and every effort

shall be made by the respondent No.2/DDA to play a positive and supportive

role in persuading the residents of the colony to voluntarily relocate to

Anand Parbat as soon as possible, since a lot of investment has been made

by the respondent No.3/Developer in setting up the Transit Camp and any

further delay in vacating the settlement colony shall result in bringing the

entire project to a grinding halt. He however clarifies that the aforesaid

assurance given by DDA that it shall play a supportive role to enable the

residents of the colony to shift to the Transit Camp should not be interpreted

to mean that DDA is permanently precluded from taking appropriate steps

available to it in law for relocating the residents in the settlement colony to

the Transit Camp, if faced with continuing resistance.

15. It goes without saying that if the respondent No.2/DDA takes any step

to relocate the residents of the settlement colony to the Transit Camp, the

same shall be strictly in accordance with the law. It is further clarified that

those residents of the settlement colony, who have voluntarily taken a

decision to shift to the transit camp, shall proceed to do so unhindered by

any third party and the directions issued in this order shall not preclude the

other residents of the colony from shifting to the Transit Camp at the

earliest.

16. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

DASTI to the parties.

                                                            (HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 20, 2014                                                 JUDGE
rkb