Delhi High Court
Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare Assoc. ... vs The Lt.Governor Of Delhi And Ors. on 12 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001IIAD(DELHI)545, AIR2001DELHI271, 90(2001)DLT108, 2001(57)DRJ771, AIR 2001 DELHI 271, (2001) 57 DRJ 771 (2001) 90 DLT 108, (2001) 90 DLT 108
Author: Manmohan Sarin
Bench: Manmohan Sarin
ORDER Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Petitioners, Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare Association and another, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for removal of unauthorised constructions by jhuggi dwellers on public land within the vicinity of the residential flats situated in Sector C, Pocket 9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
The first grievance of the petitioner is that jhuggi dwellers are squatting on the land and were causing nuisance. The second prayer made in the writ petition is for a mandamus, directing the respondents to construct a boundary wall of sufficient height around the pocket of residential flats to cover the openings that have been left out to segregate the same from the commercial-cum-office complex.
3. During the course of writ proceedings, on 17.3.1999, petitioner gave up the first prayer inasmuch as the encroachments by the jhuggi dwellers had been removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Shekhar, therefore, presses for directions with regard to the second prayer. Learned counsel submitted that the construction of a boundary wall is necessary to ensure safety of the residents and to curtail the nuisance, which was being faced by them by the unabated influx of visitors/persons using the pocket of residential flats as a thorough fare to reach the market.
Learned counsel explains that on account of the adjacent shopping complex openings were being used by undesirable elements and by the staff of the shopkeepers and other entrepreneurs in the shopping complex, disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the residents. He also emphasised that because of the openings, the residents were having genuine apprehensions with regard to their safety.
4. Pleadings have been completed. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA relying on the additional affidavit submitted that the openings that had been left are strictly in accordance with the lay out plan of Vasant Kunj and as per the requirement of the master plan. It is further submitted that at the time of allotment of various shops the existence of these approaches to the shopping complex was made known to the licensees and the allottees. Therefore, if any attempt was now made to close or shut down the openings, it would adversely affect the interest of the allottees and licensees having shops and establishments in the shopping complex. It would also be a breach of the understanding and conditions given to the allottees at the time of auction of the shopping complex.
5. I have perused the lay out plan, as filed. The openings are shown there. Hence there is considerable merit in the submission of the respondent/DDA, as noted above. The petitioner, accordingly, would not be entitled to a mandamus requiring the respondent/DDA to construct a boundary wall and close the openings. However, one of the possible solutions which commends to the Court feasibility of which may be considered and examined is the installation of gates in some of the main openings. Petitioner, if so advised, may approach the authorities with the proposal for installation of gates, provided the same are properly manned, round the clock, and do not block ingress and egress through the said gates. This would, of course, entail expenses being met by the residents and agreement/understanding being reached on this account between the petitioners, residents, shopkeepers/allottees and the concerned authorities.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.