Smt. Sushila and Another vs Shri S.C. Batra and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Petitioners press the contempt petition alleging violation of orders dated 20.12.1991, 12.10.1992, 22.8.1997 and 25.9.1997 passed in CW No. 4052/1991.

The writ petition afore numbered was filed by 92 persons claiming to be residing in a slum cluster called Sawan Park, Delhi. Fearing their removal from the slum cluster, which came into existence when persons trespassed upon Government''s land and erected jhuggis, aforesaid petition was filed seeking benefit under the slum and jhuggi cluster relocation policy framed by the Government of India and as adopted by the Slum and JJ Wing.

It may be noted at the outset that sometimes Slum and JJ Wing functions under the administrative control of the Delhi Development Authority and sometimes it functions under the administrative control of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. At the relevant time, when the acts complained of, stated to be Constituting contempt were committed, Slum and JJ Wing was under the administrative control of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

The orders (referred to in the contempt petition passed) in CW No. 4052/1991 directed the respondents to maintain status quo at site. It is not in dispute between the parties that on 13.2.2000 certain jhuggis were demolished at Sawan Park and on a second occasion on 25.9.2000, some more jhuggis were removed. Petitioner No.2 claims that his jhuggi was demolished by staff of DDA on 13.2.2000. Petitioner No.1 claims that the staff of the Slum Wing demolished her jhuggi on 25.9.2000. It is alleged that as on said two dates orders of status quo finally confirmed vide order dated 25.9.1997 were in operation and in spite of being made aware of the said order, respondents in utter violation of the interim orders demolished the slum cluster.

Response of the Slum and JJ Wing is that directions were issued in CW 2817/1999, Prasanni Devi v. MCD to demolish jhuggis situated at Sawan Park. In compliance with the directions issued in the said writ petition, action was initiated under the Slum Relocation Policy. Survey was carried out. 53 persons including petitioner No. 1 were found eligible for alternative allotment. At the time when survey was carried out petitioners never informed that they had a stay order in their favor. It is stated that action was taken pursuant to orders passed by this Court. Action was bona fide and Therefore there was no contumacious act.

Response of DDA is that the action for demolition of the jhuggis was taken by the Slum and JJ Wing. Role of DDA, being the land owning agency, is to provide land on which eligible slum dwellers could be relocated by the Slum and JJ Wing.

Before proceeding ahead, a relevant fact may be noted by me at this stage. CW No. 4052/1991 stands disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7.3.2001. Direction issued is as under :-

"We have considered the respective stand of the parties. In CW Nos. 531/1990 and 3507/2000 a statement was made by the Secretary, Urban Development, Government of India to the effect that a fresh policy for relocation of jhuggi dwellers has been finalised and according to that policy a jhuggi dweller, in case he is to be uprooted from a particular area, is required to be relocated in another area. In the light of the new policy, the case of the petitioners need to be considered. We will accept the DDA to give reasons for its decision(s). It will be for the DDA to determine whether any of the petitioners or his family members have already been allotted plots elsewhere in lieu of the land located in Sawan Park.

With the above directions the writ petition stands disposed of.

Interim order shall continue till the matter is decided by the DDA in the light of the new policy.

During arguments on the contempt, Counsel for the petitioners urged nothing on the point of denial of an alternative plot on account of relocation of the two petitioners.

Two writ petitions being CW No. 531/90 titled as K.K. Manchanda v. U.O.I. and CW No. 2817/99 titled as Prasanni Devi & Ors. v. MCD were filed in this Court. In both the writ petitions, grievance was made in respect of the jhuggi-jhopri clusters which had come up on public land in various areas of West Delhi. Grievance was to, amongst others, the slum cluster at Sawan Park. From time to time various order were passed in the two writ petitions. The orders show that the slum dwellers were a menace to the inhabitants of the authorised colonies. They were breaching the boundary walls of parks and defecating in the parks. Their presence was a nuisance to the residents as unhygienic conditions were being created. From time to time, Division Bench of this Court grappled with the situation at the ground level to ensure that at least the minimum hygienic conditions were created in the area. Order dated 23.8.1999 in CW No. 531/1990 records the dismal picture and the lawlessness created by the slum dwellers. Order records that the jhuggi-jhopri dwellers repeatedly breached boundary walls erected by DDA to prevent further trespass. Order records that the slum dwellers were taking the law in their own hands and were not permitting officers of DDA to carry out the repair work. Directions were issued to the Commissioner of Police to provide sufficient police patrol for safeguarding the walls. Mobile toilets were directed to be stationed in the area.

Orders passed in the two writ petitions show that the Division Bench of this Court had to virtually take over the administrative functioning of providing hygienic environment in the area. Division Bench of this Court had to monitor the slum relocation.

Under the scenario, if the respondents removed the jhuggis notwithstanding interim orders passed in CW 4052/1991, I do not fault them.

Petitioner No.2, in para 4 of the contempt petition has made an interesting averment. He admits demolition of his jhuggi on 13.2.2000 but explains the delay in filing the contempt petition, (which I may note was filed on 28.9.2000) by making the following averments :-

"The fact of the violation of the order of this Hon''ble Court in CW No. 4052/1991 in regard to petitioner No.2 herein could not be brought to the notice of the Hon''ble Court at that time had lost contact with the Advocate in CW No. 4052/1991, the previous Advocate having passed away, and do not have either the copies of the orders or even the case number with him. The petitioner No.2 Therefore initiated other proceedings, not based upon the orders of this Hon''ble Court in CW No. 4052/1991.

Aforesaid averment in the contempt petition belies the assertion of the petitioner No.2 that he showed the orders directing the status quo to be maintained when demolition was effected on 13.2.2000.

Respondents came under the mandate of orders passed by this Court, exerting pulls in the opposite directions. Orders passed in CW No. 4052/1991 required status quo to be maintained. Orders passed in the other two writ petitions, i.e., CW 281/99 and 531/90 required the respondents to remove the slum cluster. Of course, the ideal situation would have been for the respondents to have moved an appropriate application in CW No. 4052/1991 drawing attention of the Division Bench of this Court to the orders passed in the other two writ petitions and based thereon to seek recall of the orders which directed status quo to be maintained. However, considering the fact that each day I am noticing 3 to 4 writ petitions filed in my Court alleging that unauthorised constructions and trespassers be removed as also the fact that at the ground level there is virtually, free for all, breach of this duty of care by the respondents is not being equated by me with contumacious conduct, i.e., contempt.

Though the respondents may be in breach of the orders passed by this Court, but I do not find any contumacious conduct. Additionally for the reason that the writ petition itself stands disposed of and contempt alleged is of interim orders passed therein as also the fact that petitioner No.1 has been held entitled to an alternative accommodation and petitioner No.2 has not raised any grievance pertaining to his entitlement to an alternative plot, I discharge the notice of contempt.

Contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.