Personal tools
You are here: Home → Master Plan Implementation Support Group (MPISG) → [mpisg] housing → Summary of submissions

Summary of submissions

by Gita Dewan Verma — last modified 2005-03-13 07:43

for hearing on 14/03/2005 in WP 5007&9/2002

  1. The petitioners in both the above writ petitions were residents of JJ Cluster (Arjun Camp) existing at site adjoining Pocket B-9 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The first petition is by Jagdish and 155 other residents who have all been forcibly evicted from the JJ Cluster without any rehabilitation whatsoever. Although, their initial prayer was that the respondent DDA should not evict them without first rehabilitating them, they were evicted even during the pendency of the present writ petition. As regards the second writ petition by Bansraj and 41 others, they were given offer-cum-demand letters for alternative plots located 20 kms away from Arjun Camp. Even in the alternate plots, they were not afforded security of tenure although they were require to pay Rs.7,000/- or Rs.5,000/- respectively for 18 and 12.5 sq. mtr plots. Since these alternative plots are also not in accordance with the binding provisions of the Delhi Master Plan, the second writ petition challenges the illegal action of the respondent in forcibly evicting the petitioners from the JJ Cluster in Arjun Camp and demands that they be given alternative plots in accordance with Master Plan norms.
  2. In the very first order dated 16.8.2002, this Hon’ble Court directing notice to be issued records the contention of the petitioners that “areas which were earmarked for construction of accommodation in the LIG category are being utilized for construction of accommodation of a higher category with the result that there is no appropriate accommodation available for allotment to the LIG category including persons like the petitioners.” Thus, the issues in the present writ petitions remain alive notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have been forcibly evicted by the respondent in complete violation of the Delhi Master Plan provisions as regards their entitlements.
  3. After the eviction of the petitioners wa completed by the respondent in May 2003, this Hon’ble Court continued hearing the petitions and in its order dated 12.11.2002 identified the issue to be considered as under: “The broad issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is a consequence of the failure of the respondent ………
  4. The petitioners submit that issues that arise for consideration, arising from the pleadings filed in the present case are as under:
    • (a) failure to develop EWS housing,
    • (b) diversion of space earmarked for it,
    • (c) illegal resettlement,
    • (d) illegal evictions and
    • (e) illegal policies

    These are summarised here.

    FAILURE TO DEVELOP MANDATORY E.W.S HOUSING:

  5. Even as land was acquired only for development according to DMP by a policy with explicit objective of housing the poor (para 6,7), mandatory DMP provisions for integrating 25% EWS plots and 20% LIG units in every residential area for 1 lakh persons/ 20000 families (para-9) have been not been implemented (a fact borne out by Planning Commission report of 2002 (Rejoinder, 19.08.03)).
  6. DDA has admitted (while simultaneously “justifying” and denying) this failure. Affidavit by Anil Baijal indicates (in ‘Yellow’) 324 LIG and 120 Janta flats and (in ‘Orange’) sites for proposed 952 and 624 Janta units. These add up to way less than 5000 EWS plots (25%) and 4500 LIG units (20%) required by DMP in Vasant Kunj, a fact “justified” by DDA by falsely claiming:
    • i. Vasant Kunj is not residential (para-11 by Vinay Bhushan)
    • ii. DMP provisions are, “indicative”, etc (para-4 by Anil Baijal)
    • iii. necessity of higher category flats (para-5 by Anil Baijal)
    • iv. urban villages can house the poor (para-5 by Anil Baijal)
    • v. “net result of resettling this section of society even though in adjoining areas is they sell” (para-5 by BS Jaglan)
    • vi. “DDA is already constructing” in J-Zone 1500 LIG units in D-6 and Sultangarhi (para-5 by Anil Baijal)
    • vii. EWS housing in F-Zone (para-7 by Anil Baijal, BS Jaglan) or city (para-2/3 by Vinay Bhushan, para-6 by Anil Baijal).
  7. DDA has also veritably declared it will not rectify this failure – by refusing to comply with order of 12.11.2003 in terms of setting out time schedule for proposed EWS housing in F-Zone (Annexure-A1 by BS Jaglan mentions no EWS units under construction or proposed) or explaining delay in construction on sites indicated in ‘Orange’ in affidavit by Anil Baijal (para-5 by BS Jaglan only saying these “are under unauthorised occupation”).

    DIVERSION OF E.W.S HOUSING SPACE:

  8. Failure to develop mandatory EWS housing arises not from innocuous delay but from deliberate diversion of space earmarked for EWS and the skew in favour of profitable use is marked in Vasant Kunj (para-11, 12).
  9. This has not been answered, despite being central to notice of 16.08.2002 and orders of 07.05.2003 (“Records relating to the matter and controversy be produced“), 22.08.2003 (“officer states that though he is deponent …his department was concerned with the clearance of the jhuggi cluster. This is despite the fact that the real issue arising between the parties on which notice has been issued was something different”) and of 12.11.2003. Instead
    • i. Fact of profitable development in Vasant Kunj is conceded in para-5 by Anil Baijal with “justification” of necessity of higher category flats, rejected in order of 12.11.2003
    • ii. Fact of misuse of EWS housing sites indicated in ‘Orange’ by Anil Baijal is conceded in para-5 by BS Jaglan (“under unauthorised occupation”) without clarifying basis for priority to demolition of Petitioners’ homes in that case (para-1A(f) in Rejoinder of August, para-10 in Rejoinder of September 2003, para-12(a) of Rejoinder of January 2004)
    • iii. Fact of misuse of LIG/EWS flats, indicated ‘Yellow’ by Anil Baijal, is ‘regretfully’ conceded in para-5 by BS Jaglan (“unfortunately there is and cannot be any check or control”) regardless of powers for action against misuse and even as misuse owes to design (flats, rather than plots, attractive as offices, etc), disposal prices (2 lakhs), freehold conversion, etc, and in Vasant Kunj LIG flats also to DDA staff housing.
    • iv. Fact of mis-targeting LIG/EWS units is conceded (despite later bland claim in para-5 by BS Jaglan that “EWS/Janta flats are allotted to the weaker and the poor sections”) in para-3 and 8 by Anil Baijal declaring that “even if DDA had provided large numbers of LIG/EWS houses in this area, these would have necessarily been made available to … DDA’s wait-listed LIG registrants and not categories such as the petitioners” – even as LIG wait-list bears no relation to DMP target of 400,000 EWS units and Planning Commission reiterates that “EWS houses construction programme of the DDA and the slum improvement should be interlinked” (Rejoinder of 19.08.2002, para-2/3(a)).
  10. DDA has also demonstrated diversion of residential land available and needed for backlog on DMP targets for EWS housing:
    • i. Reference to 1500 LIG units in D6 and Sultangari (J-Zone) are regardless of (besides issues in para-10 of Rejoinder of September 2003 / January 2004), DMP modification to legitimise Sultangarhi scheme being notified afterwards.
    • ii. The D-6 scheme is included in cases of misuse (para-12, Annexure-P/5 (Colly), Additional document 8, para-12(b) in Rejoinder of 19.08.2003, etc) and letter seeking details after tenders were issued in May 2004 returned no response.
    • iii. About Sultangarhi DDA submitted in WP 4978/2002 that it is for HIG and “justified” it further for saving the site from ‘encroachment’, same as used for the illegal Malls/Park scheme usurping 35 Ha DMP residential land near Vasant Kunj (Para-16, Rejoinder of January 2004).
  11. It is pertinent that on the location, in site earmarked District Park, from where Petitioners were evicted on 19.05.2003 only boundary wall has been “developed”, but across it, in same District Park, an illegal club is under construction with no action on complaints since July 2004. DDA also effected on 08.07.2004 demolition of EWS housing in adjoining Masudpur village extension, notwithstanding a “justification” for failure to develop EWS housing being “proximity to areas like Masoodpur… where substantial numbers of EWS/LIG type of housing already exists” (para-5 by Anil Baijal). In view of the instant petitions and PIL against illegal schemes, s.11A responses, etc, citizens groups, including the Petitioners, in 20 clusters in the area (with about 5000 EWS families) made a joint demand on 04.07.2004 that either Mall/ Park usurping 35 Ha DMP residential land be shifted to Sultangarhi area (Green Belt / ridge park in DMP) or 35 Ha space for EWS housing be provided in Sultangarhi scheme, but on 29.07.2004 eight old clusters with about 1000 families were demolished and Sultangarhi and Malls/ Park schemes continue despite notice in WP 8523/2003.

    ILLEGAL RESETTLEMENT:

  12. “Resettlement” amounts to substitution of DMP housing for all with illegal “schemes” with facilities and plot sizes short of minimum, densities amounting to crowding, remote segregated locations, etc, offered on discriminatory conditions to arbitrarily selected few to create the very (slum) problem that planned development is meant to solve and represents worst type of misuse of public land acquired in name of Plan (para-13, etc).
  13. DDA has “justified” illegal “resettlement” in name of “policy of Govt of India” (para-1A and 12-13 by Vinay Bhushan, para-3 and 8 by Anil Baijal, para-6 and 7 by BS Jaglan) even as:
    • (a) this “policy” amounts to major DMP modification, arguably not permissible under the Act and, in any case, requiring due process of s.11A (para-12 in Rejoinder of 19.08.2003)
    • (b) even this “policy” allowed neither DDA intervention in ‘MCD-slum’ (para-10, Rejoinder of 19.08.2003) nor “full ownership rights” as falsely claimed in para-3 by Anil Baijal
    • (c) this “policy” was being criticised by authorities (Additional documents 5-6, etc) and had already been quashed by High Court order of 29.11.2002 and in SLP Supreme Court had only allowed allotments subject to outcome of SLP
    • (d) petty-scamming under this “policy” had also been exposed in 2003, including in case of site to which the Petitioners were shifted (para-1A(e) and 10 in Rejoinder of 19.08.2003)
    • (e) Order of 29.11.2003 had called for legal alternative and Planning Commission report of 2002 had recommended the option of the statutory DMP solution sought in these petitions, etc (para-14, Rejoinder of 19.08.2003)

    ILLEGAL SLUM CLEARANCE:

  14. The aforesaid illegalities hinge on demolitions that are illegal in terms of procedures (s.30 of the Act requiring individual notice, reasonable opportunity, etc) and priorities (s.7(2) read with DMP provisions for monitoring requiring clearance of misuse on EWS sites rather than of EWS families best described as backlog on key DMP targets rather than “unauthorised encroachers”, etc).
  15. DDA has not answered this contention and there is no doubt that the ‘procedure’ followed for demolitions is wholly arbitrary and open to scamming and whimsical ‘priorities’, as follows:
    • (i) About demolition notice, in August 2002 DDA claimed no policy to give notice to encroachers on two occasions (para-20 and para-2/3(c) in Rejoinder of 19.08.2003) and pasted hand-written ‘notice’ on blank stationery in the petitioners’ settlement on one (additional document no.13, p.285).
    • (ii) In the case of demolition of house built by Petitioner no.24 on allotted plot (para-6(b) in Rejoinder of September 2003) similar notice by same officer was pasted and same tout was involved (cf, Annexure-P/1 in Rejoinder of 19.08.2003)
    • (iii) In the demolition of 08.07.2004 in Masoodpur village extension (where EWS could stay as per para-3 of affidavit by Anil Baijal) there was no notice.
    • (iv) DDA and Police both claimed, on 19.05.2003 and on prior demolition attempts, no policy to have to show orders (para-1A(e) in Rejoinder of 19.08.2003, Additional document 14)
    • (v) The illegal club coming up between sites of demolitions in Arjun Camp and Masoodpur is on ‘demand’ of certain flat residents, including one of B-9 Extn (uncle of former DDA Commissioner LM and father of the ACP under vigilance investigation in the matter of suicide by a Sub-Inspector) who has claimed, in writing, cash from Delhi Government’s “bhagidari” prize-money – for demolition of Arjun Camp and a Masudpur resident has lodged a vigilance complaint.
    • (vi) A news report of 23.08.2002 quoted DDA Vice Chairman’s vague remarks about some "regional task force" priorities requiring demolition of the petitioners’ settlement (Additional document no.3)

    ILLEGAL POLICIES/ RELUCTANCE TO RECTIFY ILLEGALITIES:

  16. After being fined twice and having evicted the petitioners already, in its affidavit sworn by Anil Baijal, then DDA Vice Chairman and now Secretary MoUD, DDA dismissed (para-3 and 8) the instant petitions as “diversionary and dilatory tactic” “raising the bogey of violation of Master Plan norms solely for the purpose of resisting relocation of unauthorized encroachers” “as per the policy of Govt. of India” – policy that a news item of 06.03.2004 reported was clarified as ‘approved pattern’ in letter of 11.01.2001 by Madhukar Gupta, then Joint Secretary MoUD and now DDA Vice Chairman.
  17. The instant petitions are based on substantive engagements (in support of DMP entitlements and solutions and against DMP violations and inferior alternatives) since 2000 by constitutional processes that lead to DDA Vice Chairman and Secretary MoUD, who (with MCD, GNCTD, NGOs, etc) continue – regardless even of Planning Commission report of 2002 on Delhi’s slum problem recommending priority implementation of DMP solution of EWS housing – to expand the scope of illegal slum "policy" (eg, Para 12 in Rejoinder of September 2003) in prima-facie attempt to condone, and through DMP-2021 legitimize, diversion of EWS housing space needed to solve the slum problem for illegal "profitable" schemes. This is illegal and amoral and it is doomed to make problems intractable (Para 13 in Rejoinder of September 2003; Para 13, 16 in Rejoinder of January 2004)