Delhi District Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Sh. Ashok Kumar on 27 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE04 (WEST)
TIS HAZARI : DELHI
RCA No.43/10
Delhi Development Authority,
(Through its Vice Chairman)
Vikas Sadan, INA
New Delhi.
.....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Sh. Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Kimat Lal
R/o CS02/H122, Dr. Ambedkar Camp,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
....Defendant
Date of Institution of appeal : 11.10.201
Date of reserving the judgment : 25.07.2012
Date of passing the judgment : 27.07.2012
DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar
O R D E R: Plaintiff/Respondent alleged that he was very much present and dwelling in the jhuggi and had submitted proof of his possession such as Ration Card and other documents at the time of survey but despite this fact, defendant/appellant failed to provide alternative accommodation to the respondent/plaintiff due to the careless of the officers of the defendant/appellant as well as due to their collusion with other persons to provide alternative allotment to the preferred persons who were not in possession of any jhuggis.
2 It was further the case of the plaintiff that officials of the defendant came with the police officials and removed the jhuggi of the plaintiff without providing alternative site and since then the plaintiff is living without any roof. Further that on 30.05.200, the defendants/appellant officials came and threatened to remove the goods of the plaintiff/respondent and to remove him from the suit property. Hence, the suit.
3 Ld. Counsel for DDA/Appellant has contended that there was a proposal to remove the JJ Clusters known as Dr. Amebedkar Camp, Nehru DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Place, New Delhi with a view to develop the area being part of District Center, Nehru Place. The J.J. Dwellers found eligible as per the policy were relocated at Madanpur Khadar and that before removing the JJ Clusters, a detailed survey was carried out and as per the policy, the dwellers who were found dwelling/ squatting from before 31.11.1998, were only to be considered for alternative allotment.
4 The said policy and survey report was proved as Ex. DW1/1 and DW1/2 respectively. As per the appellant/DDA, the plaintiff/respondent herein was not found at the site and jhuggi was locked during the survey conducted. Further that even thereafter the respondent/plaintiff did not produce any documentary proof in support of his claim for alternative allotment and therefore, the question of providing the alternative allotment to him did not arise.
5 Further contended that the plaintiff/respondent was not covered under the policy and Ld. Trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant/defendant that the documents i.e. Ration Card and ID Proof were contrary to the policy guidelines and could not have been considered by the Trial Court.
DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar 6 The facts giving rise to the present litigation as stated by the plaintiff were that the respondent/plaintiff had been residing in Jhuggi No. CS02/H122, Dr. Ambedkar Camp, New Delhi i.e. the suit property and that in the month of January, 2001, general survey was conducted by the officers of the defendant/appellant with the intention to provide alternative place so that jhuggis could be removed.
7 Replication was filed reiterating the claim in the plaint. 8 In the evidence, plaintiff examined only himself as PW1 and tendered the following documents i.e. copy of ration card as Ex. PW1/1, copy of election identity card as Ex.PW1/2 and copy of ICard issued by Delhi Administration as Ex. PW1/3. Also a copy of legal notice dated 04.06.2002 as Ex. PW1/5 alongwith its postal receipt and UPC as Ex. PW1/6 and 7 respectively.
9 Defendant/Appellant on the other hand examined one Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Mahto as DW1 who proved the policy as Ex. DW1/1 and survey report as Ex. DW1/2.
10 On the basis of the evidence led including the documentary as well as oral evidence, Ld. Trial Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the DDA to provide the alternative plot to the DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar respondent/plaintiff in accordance with law within six months and also not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property except due process of law. 11 During the arguments on the appeal also, the attention of Ld. counsel for the appellant/defendant was drawn towards the documents on the Trial Court record particularly the identity card dated 15.02.1990 issued from Delhi Administration which is Ex. PW1/3, which clearly shows the address of the jhuggi in question but the only contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant remained that jhuggi was found locked and these documents had not been produced at the time of the survey.
12 As rightly crystallized by Ld. Trial Court, the short point involved in the present case was only whether or not the plaintiff was squatting in the suit property before 1998.
13 The defendant had filed the policy and survey report as Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2. As is also observed by Ld. Trial Court, Ex.DW1/2 was clearly an annexure to some other documents, which had never been produced and the exhibit was mentioning nothing thereon, still it showed that the name of the plaintiff was clearly reflected therein but only that the corresponding columns were left blank. Also DW1 stated in his examination in chief that the plaintiff was not found at the site because DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar jhuggi was locked. All this would suggest, as also rightly concluded by Ld. Trial Court that the plaintiff was in possession of the jhuggi at the time of the survey.
14 Further the date of issuance of the ration card Ex.PW1/A was 24.05.1998, ICard issued from Delhi Administration was 15.02.1990 bear the address of the suit property. In view of these documents there was hardly anything else remaining to be proved by the plaintiff to succeed in his claim for an alternative allotment.
15 The objection with regard to nonissuance of the notice under Section 53(b) of the DD Act also stands adequately dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court as per the reasoning given.
16 I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Appeal is absolutely without merit and in fact frivolous, same is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/ payable to the plaintiff/DH.
17 Before parting, my attention was captured by the contents of clause 6 of the policy.
18 The policy Ex.DW1/1, particularly clause 6 made it clear to both DDA as well as MCD that there was only one govt. policy and one approved portion of resettlement and that was the allotment of 18 Sq.Mt to DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar Pre 1990 Squatters and 12.5 Sq.mt to post 1990 - but pre 1998 squatters; it was made clear that any other procedure and pattern of development would be violative of the government order and the policy and be administratively and financially irregular. It was further made very clear in the same clause that duality of treatment was not to be accorded and under any circumstances, to any case involving clearance and resettlement. 19 Even in spite of the stern and clear directives from the government, the DDA officials evidently adopted the policy of their own i.e. of pick and choose.
Copy of this order shall be immediately sent to the Joint Secretary, Govt. Of India, Vice Chairman, DDA, Commissioner of MCD, Chairperson NDMC for further action against the concerned erring officials of DDA.
Decree sheet be drawn and trial court record be sent back alongwith the copy of the detailed judgment.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court
today i.e. 27.07.2012 (SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ/WEST/DELHI
DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar
DDA Vs. Ashok Kumar