Sushila vs DDA and Others

Hima Kohli, J.—The petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to allot an alternative permanent plot/flat to her alongwith suitable compensation on the ground that she was residing in a Jhuggi situated at Sawan Park, New Delhi, for a long time and the same was demolished on 25.09.2000, without rehabilitating her. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1991, the petitioner alongwith 91 others had filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P.(C) 4052/1991 praying inter alia for directions to the respondents not to evict them from the land situated in Khasra No.646 to 650 situated in Sawan Park. Pertinently, the petitioner herein was arrayed as petitioner No.35 in the aforesaid proceedings. Vide order dated 07.03.2001, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein in the light of the new policy formulated by the Government of India for relocation of Jhuggi dwellers. It was further observed that DDA would examine the case of each of the aforesaid petitioners and give reason for the decision that would be taken thereon. It was lastly directed that the interim order operating in favour of the petitioners therein would continue till the matter would be decided by the DDA in the light of the new policy. A copy of the order dated 07.03.2001 is enclosed as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition.

It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the interim orders operating in favour of the aforesaid petitioners, in violation thereof, the respondents demolished the slum clusters. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of demolishing the Jhuggies of the petitioner and others without granting them alternative allotments, a contempt petition was filed in this Court, registered as CCP No.499/2004, which was dismissed on 09.11.2005. However, in the order dated 9.11.2005, the Court had observed that petitioner No.1 therein (the petitioner herein) would be entitled to an alternative accommodation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid directions, she has not been allotted an alternative accommodation by the respondent No.1/DDA till date.

Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated 02.12.2011. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1/DDA and respondent No.3/DUSIB. Respondent No.1/DDA has stated in its counter affidavit that vide order dated 23.02.2011 passed in W.P.(C) 2632/2010 entitled Ram Chander & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., the petitioners therein, who were similarly situated as the petitioner herein, had approached the Court for being rehabilitated and relocated upon being uprooted from Najafgarh Road pursuant to the execution of the work of remodeling and covering of drain in the area. After considering the respective stands of the respondents therein, the Division Bench had directed that the petitioners therein should approach the respondent/MCD with a representation and copies of relevant documents, which would then be examined by the department in terms of the modified policy guidelines issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, for relocation of uprooted Jhuggi dwellers, and if found eligible as per the policy guidelines, the respondents would take appropriate action as per law.

As regards respondent No.3/DUSIB, it has averred in its counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner had existed in the joint survey list prepared at the time of removal/relocation of the Jhuggi cluster in Sawan Park in the year 2000. It is further averred that as per the joint survey list, the petitioner had furnished a ration card bearing the date, 19.06.1997 and therefore, she was found eligible as per the then existing policy for rehabilitation of J.J dwellers, but as she had failed to produce the original documents, her case could not be processed further. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by respondent No.1/DDA and respondent No.3/DUSIB, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition with directions to the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Director (Rehabilitation), DUSIB on 02.05.2012 at 3 PM alongwith all the relevant documents she has in her possession for the purpose of verification of her case for rehabilitation under the existing policy. The said documents shall be examined by the aforesaid officer and if satisfied by the documents produced, the case of the petitioner shall be processed for rehabilitation, by allotment of an alternative plot/flat to her as permissible, within a period of eight weeks from the date of granting a hearing to the petitioner. However, if the respondent No.3/DUSIB is dissatisfied with the documents that are produced by the petitioner, she shall be informed as to the deficiency in the documents, whereafter, the same shall be produced by her, for the respondent No.3/DUSIB to re-examine her case and take a decision thereon under written intimation to her within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the said documents by her. Respondent No.3/DUSIB shall endeavour to adhere to the timeline indicated above. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved by the inaction/adverse decision, if any, taken by the respondent No.3/DUSIB, she shall be entitled to seek her remedies as per law.

The petition is disposed of.

DASTI to the petitioner and respondent No.3/DUSIB.