Delhi High Court
Mohammed Farook vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation & ... on 13 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4609/2015 & CM No. 8341/2015 (Stay)
MOHAMMED FAROOK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vaibhav Agnihotri, proxy counsel &
Mr Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Ajay Gulati, proxy counsel with Mr
A.S. Rao, Law Officer of DMRC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 13.05.2015
1. Pursuant to the previous order passed by this court on 07.05.2015, the
Court Commissioner visited the said site and filed his report, which is dated
12.05.2015. As noted in the previous order, the Court Commissioner was,
inter alia, asked to inquire with regard to the status of the present location of
hutments allocated to 12 persons whose names were referred to in paragraph
6.1 of the court's order dated 07.05.2015.
2. The Court Commissioner has reported that the DMRC is executing
the project of constructing a metro depot, known as Vinod Nagar Depot,
which is proposed to be used for maintenance, repairs and parking of the
metro rails.
2.1 The Court Commissioner also reports that the total area available for
the project being executed by the DMRC is, approximately, 2 lacs sq. mtrs.
The area falls on two sides of a drain. On one side, the area available is,
approximately, 90,000 sq. mtrs., while on the other side, the available area
is, approximately, 1 lac sq. mtrs. I am told that the DMRC proposes to
cordon off the entire area by constructing a boundary wall, and that, the
hutments belonging to the 12 persons, referred to in the order dated
07.05.2015, were located within this area. Accordingly, the DMRC took a
decision to relocate the hutments beyond the boundary wall.
2.2 As reported by the Court Commissioner; a fact which is affirmed by
the officers of the DMRC as well, that except for four persons, whose names
are given in para 6 of the Court Commissioner's report, all other inhabitants
have agreed to, their hutments, being relocated. The four persons, who have
not agreed to relocation, have also been allocated space for building a
hutment at the relocated site beyond the boundary wall. The said four
persons, as per the Court Commissioner's report are, Mr Shekh Ajeet, Mr
Zakir, Mr Bairjan and the petitioner himself, i.e., Mohammed Farook.
2.3 The report further states that in so far as Mr Shekh Ajeet is concerned,
he has been allocated an alternate hutment, which is numbered as 314; Mr
Bairjan has, similarly, been allocated a hutment, which is numbered as 194.
The petitioner, himself, i.e., Mr Farook, has been allotted a hutment bearing
no. 196. In so far as Mr Zakir is concerned, the Court Commissioner reports
that since he was not available, no hutment has been allocated to him.
2.4 The Court Commissioner has further communicated vide his report
that the petitioner has refused to shift to the new site.
3. Based on the Court Commissioner's report, arguments have been
advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as those on behalf of DMRC.
After hearing both sides, it is agreed as under:
(i) The four persons referred to above, will also, along with the
remaining eight persons, move to the relocated site.
(ii) In so far as Mr Zakir is concerned, DMRC will allocate an alternate
site to him as well, and accordingly, a number will be allotted to the said
hutment.
(iii) Apart from the monetary compensation of Rs. 3,000/-, which has
already been paid to each of the 12 persons, DMRC will build hutments for
all 12 persons.
(iv) The DMRC, will provide two public toilets in the near vicinity, one
for the females and other for male inhabitants, for the convenience of the 12
relocated persons and their families.
(v) The DMRC will ensure that since excavation work is on, the site
abutting the relocated hutments is segregated, in a manner, which protects
children from crossing-over and injuring themselves. Steps in this behalf
will be taken in anticipation of the boundary wall which is proposed to be
erected at the subject site.
4. Parties are agreed that the writ petition be disposed of as it has
worked itself out. It is ordered accordingly.
5. Counsel for the petitioner assures the court that as and when the
hutments are built, the concerned four persons, referred to above, will shift
to their new hutments.
6. List for compliance on 09.07.2015.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 13, 2015
kk
