Delhi High Court
Makhni Kaur @ Makhni Bai vs The Delhi Urban Shelter ... on 23 November, 2015
$~59.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.10796/2015
MAKHNI KAUR @ MAKHNI BAI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harshbir Singh Kohli and Mr.
Tarun Arora, Advs.
versus
THE DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT
BOARD (DUSIB) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan with Mr.
Nishant Prateek and Mr. Abhilash
Vashisht, Advs.for DUSIB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 23.11.2015
CM No.27731/2015 (for exemption).
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The CM stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.10796/2015.
3. The petition impugns the order dated 18th August, 2007 of the Slum &
JJ Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) being the
predecessor of the respondent Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
(DUSIB) of cancellation of allotment of plots in Sectors 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27
in Phase-IV of Rohini of the allotees who had not occupied the plots allotted
to them within one month of allotment. The petitioner has not filed the copy
of the impugned order stating that the same was not served on her and that
she learnt of the same from the letter dated 19th September, 2007 of the Slum
W.P.(C) No.10796/2015 page 1 of 5
& JJ Department in response to a query dated 11th May, 2015 made by her
under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petition axiomatically seeks a
mandamus to the respondent DUSIB to allot to the petitioner a jhuggi at
Nasirpur or to handover possession of the plot no. B-62, Sector 23, Rohini
allotted to the petitioner.
4. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent
DUSIB appearing on advance notice have been heard.
5. The petitioner was a resident of jhuggi no.J-212, Tilak Vihar, New
Delhi and which jhuggi along with other jhuggies was demolished by the
MCD and under the Relocation / Rehabilitation Policy, 12 sq. mtr. plots were
allotted to the residents of the said jhuggies. The petitioner was vide letter
dated 22nd January, 1998 intimated of the proposal to allot to her 12 sq. mtr.
plot at Nasirpur and asked to deposit a sum of Rs.7,000/- for the same and
which the petitioner claims to have deposited on the same day. The petitioner
was vide subsequent letter dated 8th May, 1998 allotted plot no.B-62, Sector
23, Rohini and asked to take possession thereof within seven working days.
The petitioner however did not take the possession. It is the case of the
petitioner that she did not take possession because the allotment, instead of
being made at Nasirpur, was made at Rohini. However the petitioner made
the first representation in that regard also only on 4 th October, 2004. The
petitioner admits having been informed on 20 th July, 2009 that there was no
policy of permitting any such change. The petitioner thereafter vide her
letters dated 19th May, 2010, 10th February, 2012, 18th September, 2012 and
19th December, 2012 asked the respondent DUSIB for a plot at Rohini and
ultimately claims to have made an RTI query on 28th December, 2012 and in
W.P.(C) No.10796/2015 page 2 of 5
response whereto was informed that there is no relocation site at Nasirpur
and there is no policy of change of plots. The petitioner again remained quiet
till 11th May, 2015 when she again made a RTI query and in response
whereto was furnished copy of the document dated 19th September, 2007
informing of the impugned decision dated 18 th August, 2007. Thereafter this
petition has been filed and which has come up today for the first time.
6. What is obvious is that the petitioner by this petition, in the year 2015,
is asserting a right which had accrued to the petitioner in January, 1998.
Though the petitioner has pursued the matter but sporadically and not
diligently or regularly. As aforesaid, upon being asked to take possession of
the Rohini plot on 8th May, 1998 the petitioner neither took the plot nor
represented thereagainst and sent the first missive only after six years.
Thereafter also, the petitioner has waited for more than eleven years to file
this petition.
7. The counsel for the respondent DUSIB has rightly drawn attention to
the order dated 1st September, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.7889/2011 titled
Dayachand Vs. Union of India in which it has inter alia been held as
under:-
"10. Rehabilitation has a sense and element of urgency
attached thereto; the whole purpose thereof being to
immediately provide alternative accommodation to
persons who are dispossessed from their houses,
though unauthorizedly made over public land. If it is
to be found that the person so dispossessed has not
acted with promptitude and has settled himself
elsewhere with his own resources, then that person
cannot belatedly attempt to capitalise from the
W.P.(C) No.10796/2015 page 3 of 5
allotment. A distinction has to be carved out
between a rehabilitative allotment and an allotment
made in pursuance to some housing scheme. The
petitioner had not made any investment in any
immovable property, for him to say that he is entitled
to the benefit thereof at any time. Rather, it may be
noticed that even if the petitioner had made such an
investment, his right to enforcement thereof would
have become barred by time after such long lapse of
time.
11. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner, for
the reason of the delay on his part, has lost the right,
if any to be considered for rehabilitation and cannot
now seek possession of the plot which was then
offered to him, or to any other plot in lieu thereof.
The land available for such rehabilitation also is in
short supply and far below the number of homeless
squatting over public land in the city and cannot be
directed to be given to persons who do not appear to
be in need thereof.
12. The petitioner is thus not entitled to the relief claimed."
8. The ratio aforesaid squarely applies to the present case also, facts
whereof are rather worse than the facts of Dayachand.
9. The petitioner, in the present petition has given her address as of B-
34B, Tilak Vihar, New Delhi. I have enquired from the counsel for the
petitioner, whose property is the petitioner now in occupation of.
10. The counsel for the petitioner states that the said house is of the son of
the petitioner through whom the petitioner has filed this petition and has
added that the son of the petitioner has taken the same on a rent of Rs.1,500/-
per month.
W.P.(C) No.10796/2015 page 4 of 5
11. It is quite obvious that the petitioner who is now stated to be 83 years
of age is not in need of any rehabilitative measure at this age. The
rehabilitation is sought in pursuance to the demolition action of nearly 18
years back. A person who was in unauthorised occupation of public land
when dispossessed therefrom, though entitled under the Rehabilitation
Scheme of the Government to relocation, cannot seek such relocation at his
or her ipse dixit, whenever desires and cannot treat the same as an
investment to be encashed whenever required or after appreciation.
12. It cannot be lost sight of that any direction today for allotment of any
plot to the petitioner would be at the cost of other deserving persons who are
in need of urgent rehabilitation on account of similar dispossession in current
days.
13. There is thus no merit in the petition which is dismissed.
14. However, in accordance with the order in Dayachand, the sum of
Rs.7,000/- deposited by the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner together
with simple interest @ 7% per month from the date of deposit till the date of
refund, within a period of eight weeks from today, by forwarding/sending the
cheque at the address of the counsel for the petitioner.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
'pp'..
W.P.(C) No.10796/2015 page 5 of 5
