Personal tools
You are here: Home → Files (Data dump) → Land Policy entitlements → Rejoinder (to MCD counter-affidavit of April 2005)

Rejoinder (to MCD counter-affidavit of April 2005)

by Gita Dewan Verma — last modified 2006-07-09 02:13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8523 OF 2003

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shiv Narayan ... Petitioner

versus

Delhi Development Authority & Ors ... Respondents

REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.4 (MCD)

I, Gita Dewan Verma, aged 44 years, resident of 1356 DI Vasant Kunj New Delhi - 70, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-

  1. That I am a qualified planner and part of the Master Plan Implementation Support Group with which the petitioner above named is also associated. For reasons stated in para-3 of the additional affidavit dated 15.12.2003 of the petitioner, I have been authorised by the Petitioner to file this rejoinder on his behalf since he is away from Delhi and will not return in time for filing this rejoinder affidavit.
  2. At the outset I hereby deny all the averments and submissions made by Respondent No.4 (MCD) in its counter affidavit under reply. I further reiterate all the averments and submissions made by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition.

REJOINDER TO PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS

A) The Respondent's contention (in its paras A and C) that no cause of action arises against it because Mehrauli-Mahipalpur is "development area" and under DDA is denied. It is submitted that:

  • (i) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (MCD Act) covers, by s.1(2) and s.2(10), the entire UT except Cantonment and New Delhi and its Fourteenth Schedule lists Mahipalpur as Ward 43 in Rural Nazafgarh Zone, Mehrauli as Ward 44 in South Zone.
  • (ii) The area in question includes rural J-Zone and villages and prior to Vasant Kunj scheme was entirely Rural Area in terms of s.2(52), attracting MCD statutory obligations under s.39 (Rural Areas Committee) and s.507 (Special Provisions as to rural areas), reproduced herewith as ANNEXURE-P/16,
  • (iii) S.12 of Delhi Development Act (Declaration of development areas and development of land in those and other areas), far from alienating "development area" to DDA, empowers MCD to, say, prevent by proviso to s.12(1) "development area" declaration if detrimental to Rural Area, promote by s.12(3)(ii) schemes for integration in appurtenant area and as member of the Authority secure enforcement even within "development area" of Plan provisions for benefit of villages by s.12(3)(i).

B) The Respondent's contention (in paras A to C) that its role in the area will commence after handover with deficiency amount and be limited to certain maintenance tasks is denied. This is untenable in terms of aforesaid, among other, statutory provisions and belied by the fact that MCD is already engaged, besides in maintenance and taxation / licensing tasks, in running schools and dispensaries and works like improvements in slums, installation of street lights, construction of hawker kiosks / community toilets / school extensions in the area. Pursuant to court orders regarding byelaws in villages, it reportedly also constituted a sub-committee of 4 councillors including the one from Mahipalpur (Rajendri Sehrawat), news reports dated 25.06.04 and 19.12.04 of which are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-P/17.

C) Apropos prayer for deletion from the array of respondents on basis of contentions about "development area", it is submitted that the Petition does not even pertain to "development area" and s.12 of DD Act read with s.39 and s.507 of MCD Act casts upon MCD obligations directly related to the Petitioner's prayers and the Respondent's prayer is a ploy to skirt reply and suppress facts of its contrary pursuits, notably, "local area plans" for urban villages, about which it is submitted that:

  • (a) MCD initiated with private parties an exercise to modify building byelaws to make them "area-specific", including for villages, revealed in an official seminar on 20.04.04 and reported in news reports such as the one at ANNEXURE-P/18(a).
  • (b) Following a presentation to LG on 01.11.04, CM directed MCD to frame byelaws for regularisation of unauthorised areas, as per news reports such as the one at ANNEXURE-P/18(b).
  • (c) By March 2005, MCD had short-listed private firms to prepare, purportedly as part of the byelaws exercise, "local area plans" in five areas (including one urban village), as per reports such as the one at ANNEXURE-P/18(c).
  • (d) While filing counter-affidavit claiming no role in this petition with prayer (a) for time bound plan for enforcement of Master Plan provisions for urban villages, MCD decided to commission private companies to draw up plans for 25 urban villages, as per a news report of 09.05.05, at ANNEXURE-P/18(d).

REJOINDER TO PARA-WISE REPLY ON MERITS

  1. The Respondent's submissions about Preliminary Submissions in its para-wise reply to paras 1 to 13 are denied with reference to the foregoing. The same is not repeated para-wise.
  2. The Respondent's claim of no knowledge of contents of Para 1 and 2 is denied. It is aware of said content through, say, s.11A proceedings in which the Petitioner was objector and the Respondent was on the Board for hearing, as set out in rejoinder to the reply to para 14.
  3. Reply to para 3 is denied. The para under reply specifically refers to MCD role under DD Act and the contention that no reply is required due to the Petitioner's admittance of DDA's role is ludicrous.
  4. Reply to para 4 & 5 is denied with reference to rejoinder to Preliminary Submissions. It is submitted that MCD has statutory obligations apropos rural area / villages that it cannot abdicate in name of DDA.
  5. Reply to para-6 is denied. It is specifically denied that MCD is impleaded as "performa party" and it is submitted that much of the Petitioner's grievance arises from MCD viewing itself as such vis-a-vis development according to statutory plans. The preference for claiming "deficiency amount" instead of discharging statutory obligations to prevent deficiencies, which the Respondent reveals in Reply to para-6, marks also its other initiatives, such as "policy" to permit misuse of farmhouses for a fee. It is pertinent that the Respondent has not answered, despite GNCTD (Respondent No.3) also forwarding to it, representation dated 21.11.04 about said "policy" with reference to PIL about it (Annexure-P/15(colly)). The orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in that PIL, viz, WP(C) No. 14261/2004, are reproduced from the internet and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-P/19 (colly).
  6. Apropos Reply to para 7 it is submitted that the Respondent, while not denying the age of old settlements (16th century to 1970s) in the area, has provided no information of its activities in them.
  7. Reply to Para 8 and Reply to Para 9 are denied. The Respondent's contention that it is nowhere concerned with contents of these paras amounts to suppression of facts about its role, in terms of s.12 of DD Act, in the transformation of the area from Rural Area.
  8. Reply to para 10 is denied. Projects mentioned in the para under reply are all large, with commensurate implications for MCD (including, in case of GNCTD Liver Institute and Mandi, hospital and wet-wholesale waste management in otherwise residential zone). The Respondent has not stated why it has permitted / not prevented them or what "deficiency amount" it will claim from the public exchequer on their account. It is pertinent that the GNCTD projects abut up-market unauthorised colonies / farmhouses and MCD Commissioner is a member of the four-member committee that MoUD (Respondent No.2) has set up to study recommendations for regularising unauthorised colonies, as per news item of 29.10.05 at ANNEXURE-P/20.
  9. Reply to para 11 is denied. The para under reply illustrates in four sub-paras illegalities on planned sites for facilities on account of pressures created by unplanned up-market projects. For the first of these, viz, sites for schools, the Respondent passes responsibility to DDA without reference even to the court matter mentioned in the para, viz, WP 8954-59/2003, disposed off by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 27.10.04. MCD was Respondent No.4 in that and has answered neither the representation for compliance that GNCTD forwarded to it on 23.02.05 nor subsequent representation dated 01.03.05 to urge, in context of "misuse-charge" style proposals for schools contrary to order of 27.10.04, reply in the instant matter. The aforesaid communications dated 23.02.05 and 01.03.05 and news item dated 26.02.05 about "misuse-charge" proposals for schools are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-P/21 (colly). The Respondent has not bothered to comment on the other sub-paras, including one stating that the question of freehold disposal of commercial sites is pending before this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 6980/2002. It has, however, announced decision to convert commercial properties under its control to freehold, as per news reports of 28.10.05 at ANNEXURE-P/22. The Respondent is trying to create an impression that it has no role in such matters and they pertain to DDA only, which is not correct.
  10. Reply to para 12, wherein the Respondent conveys same impression, is denied, more so since the para under reply pertains to impacts within villages where MCD has statutory obligations as old as itself.
  11. Reply to para 13 is denied. The Respondent has blandly passed responsibility to DDA with vague references to two of seven sub-paras in the para under reply, including sub-para (g) about an NGO PIL on water bodies in which it (not DDA) continues to be under orders of this Hon'ble court, as per news item dated 27.10.05 at ANNEXURE-P/23. It is noteworthy that the Respondent has not replied to sub-para (b) to clarify why it gave up its idea of mid 2002 to "pilot" a "local area plan" style exercise in Mahipalpur.
  12. Reply to para 14 is denied. The para under reply refers to s.11A Public Notice for Sultangarhi scheme, precipitated by the intervention of this Hon'ble Court in WP (C) 4978/2002. The Respondent has contended these issues require reply from DDA even as it was on the Board that heard on 27.01.03 the objections / suggestions of the Petitioner on which the instant petition is based. It is pertinent that the Respondent has not answered representation dated 22.11.04, also forwarded to it by GNCTD (Annexure-P/15), in respect of said issues.
  13. Reply to Grounds is denied. The Petitioner has prayed for a plan to enforce statutory entitlements on Grounds pertaining to DD Act and Master Plan and the Respondent has claimed "absolutely no role to play in the said operation" - in counter-affidavit filed while pursuing "local area plans" in line with a proposed Amendment to its Act, in duration of Public Notice for draft Master Plan 2021 in Board of Enquiry & Hearing for which its Commissioner is member. It is submitted that contrary to its claim of no role, the Respondent is actively engaged in subverting the Grounds of this Petition.
  14. That in the light of the above stated facts the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Writ Petition in terms of the prayers made therein.

sd/-

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified by me at New Delhi on this 14th day of November, 2005, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief as based on the records of the case. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

sd/-

DEPONENT