Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Now it seems that two fresh Petitions have been filed. They were mentioned this morning before another Bench. That Bench was shown our order. It directed that the matter be mentioned before us. Yet again, at 2:30 pm the matters were needlessly mentioned before that Bench, which issued the same directions. It is only thereafter that the matter is mentioned before us.

6. The application today is for a stay of the ongoing and long- planned demolition of existing structures with persons being moved out. Nobody who is eligible is being forced onto the streets. Transit rent is offered. Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements ("PAAAs") are being executed and put in place. We have already made it clear that we will look into any special entitlements in law for municipal tenants, i.e., factors that may legitimately distinguish them in a project like this from others who are slum dwellers or encroachers on public or private lands. This does not mean that fresh objections can constantly be taken by groups whose previous 24th February 2023 P1-OSPWL-5359-2023+.DOC applications or petitions have failed. We are now told that under Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 ("DCPR") the development falls under DCR 33(16) and therefore the present Petitioners must be excluded from the project. We are also now told that these persons are Adivasis. These are all points that were available to the Petitioners even previously. None of these are subsequent events. It is not possible for Petitioners to reagitate the same rights by constantly invoking new grounds again and again. Principles analogous to res judicata must undoubtedly apply. The argument about these Petitioners' lands being Gaothan lands has been taken before and has failed. Other arguments of special treatment have failed up to the Supreme Court. The present arguments were available at all those times.