Delhi High Court
Sh. P.C. Jain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 October, 2002
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking directions against the respondent to allot alternative accommodations to the petitioners for commercial purpose to treat them at par with persons who were removed from the adjacent areas surrounding Jama Masjid.
2. The petitioners were unauthorised occupants on public land and were occupying land at Dr. Ambedkar Jhuggi Jhonpri Camp, A Block, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The petitioners claimed to be doing the business of sale and purchase of waste papers and are stated to have a registered association known as South Delhi Kabadi Welfare Association. The petitioners filed CW 779/2000 and 3669/2001 seeking directions for alternative accommodation to the petitioners on giving proof of residence and it is stated that in terms of the orders dated 20.11.2001 the eligibility of the petitioners was to be determined and all the eligible persons have been granted alternative accommodation. The petitioners are however, aggrieved by the fact that the alternative accommodation if provided to them is only on the basis of their residence and not to earn their livelihood and carry on their occupation. The petitioners state that they are likely to be shifted in an areas which is far away from their present place of occupation and they would loose their livelihood. It is further stated that in the case of Civil writ petition No. 156/97 titled 'P Chakravorty and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.' the squatters who have been working for their livelihood in the areas adjacent to Jama Masjid or surrounding areas have been provided alternative accommodation in Seemapuri or Gokulpuri from where they can continue to carry on their livelihood.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 DDA it is stated that the petitioners had filed the earlier Civil writ petitions No. 7709/2000 and 3669/2001 for the same cause of action and for identical prayers which was disposed of on 6.11.2001 and 20.11.2001 respectively and thus it is not open to the petitioners to agitate their grievances once again. The petitioners are stated to be occupants of Dr. Ambedkar Jhuggi Jhonpri Cluster where more than 5000 Jhuggis exist by encroaching upon DDA land and some of the persons were doing business of 'Kabadi'. The jhuggi jhonpri dwellers were to be relocated at Madanpuri Khadar as per the policy of the Government of India and more than 3000 eligible jhuggi jhonpri dwellers have already been relocated. In the affidavit reliance is also placed on the order dated 6.11.2001 in the two writ petitions were the present petitions are also petitioners in terms whereof it was directed that it was for the squatters found eligible to avail of the relocation and that the respondent would be free to evict them for the existing sites. The land in question is stated to be now free from encroachments in pursuance to the demolition programme of the site on 15.1.2001. The allotment is in the terms of the criteria laid down by the Government of India whereby the date from which the squatters have been squatting is material for purposes of allotting the size of the plot. It has further stated that there is no policy for such relocation for persons who are running their commercial business.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent DDA.
5. It is not disputed that the petitioners were petitioners in the earlier writ petitions who had to be shifted to the alternative sites. It is also not disputed that the petitioners were squatting on the public land of the DDA and as such had no right. However, in terms of the government policy for removal of the squatters alternative sites were made available. Vide order dated 6.11.2001 in the earlier writ petition directions were passed and it was clarified that in case the squatters do not avail of the relocation, authorities would be free to evict them for the existing sites. Orders were also passed on 20.11.2001 regarding the claim of certain petitioners who had failed to produced the requested documents for consideration of their eligibility as also those carrying on commercial activities. Thus this very question and reliefs of the petitioners have been considered earlier and were rejected.
6. It may further be noted that there is no policy of the Government of India for providing alternative sites for carrying on commercial activity. It may be noted that these are persons who have squatted on public land and can hardly be said to have any rights. Despite this they have got the benefit of relocation in view of the policy of Government of India for resettlement of such jhuggi dwellers. The same, is however, applicable to occupation for residential purpose alone.
7. The mere allegation that in some other areas alternative sites have been provided in nearby place as a result of which commercial activity can be carried on cannot give right to the petitioners.
8. In my considered view the writ petitions are totally misconceived and are accordingly dismissed.