Delhi High Court
B.R. Anand vs Dda And Ors. on 3 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 128(2006)DLT354
Author: Markandeya Katju
Bench: Markandeya Katju, Madan B. Lokur
JUDGMENT Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.9.2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. It is stated in para 2 of the writ petition that petitioner is a blind person and has been residing in the premises i.e. House No. 6, Shiv Mandir Marg, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi for the last about 33 years. That property has now been demolished by the respondent.
3. It is alleged in para 7 of the writ petition that as per the Government Policy unauthorised colonies which came up after a particular year have been ordered to be regularized. It is alleged that the petitioner's case is better than those unauthorised colonies.
4. It is stated in para 10 of the writ petition that the staff of respondent No. 1 DDA demolished the property of the petitioner where he was residing with his family. It is alleged that petitioner is the President of the Popular Institute Society for the Blind. The petitioner has been charging some amount from blind persons who were residing in the premises in question and earning their livelihood with their own source while supplying dusters and other small household articles to hotels and other persons.
5. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition by the DDA and we have perused the same. In para (ii) of the preliminary objections, it is stated that petitioner has come to the court concealing facts and hence the petition is liable to be rejected on that ground alone. The petitioner was an unauthorised encroacher on DDA land which was transferred to DDA from the Ministry of Rehabilitation vide letter dated 2.9.1982 (Annexure R-1). Physical possession of the land was taken over by the DDA vide letter dated 16.1.1984.
6. It is alleged that petitioner was an unauthorised encroacher on the land and he was first asked by the DDA to vacate the unauthorised land but since he did not do so, the encroachment was demolished.
7. It is stated in para 2-4 that the land in question belongs to the DDA. The petitioner was not in possession of the land when it was handed over to DDA in 1984. No article/belongings of petitioner were at the site at the time of demolition as the same were removed/shifted by petitioner before the demolition.
8. On these facts, the learned Single judge dismissed the writ petition and we agree with the view he has taken. The appellant was admittedly an unauthorised encroacher of the DDA land. It is true that he is blind but this did not entitle him to take the law into his own hands. While we may sympathise with him for his physical handicap, we cannot interfere in the matter as no one has a right to encroach on public land.
9. The learned Single Judge in the concluding paragraph of his judgment has observed that the claim of the petitioners for alternative site under the Slum and JJ Cluster Relocation Policy would be decided by the respondents on the basis of the policy.
10. We agree with the aforesaid direction. We have also perused the directions given by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in Sarita Sinha v. DDA and Anr., WP(C) No. 8877/2005 dated 10.2.2006 in relation to physically handicapped persons, and we approve of the same.
11. With these observations, the appeal is disposed off.