Orders
16/08/2002 (notice)
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that areas which were earmarked for construction of accommodation in the LIG category are being utilised 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.
Notice to show cause to the respondent as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 10th ecember, 2002.
Mr.Rakesh Kumar, advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent and seeks time to file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit be filed within 6 weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within 3 weeks thereafter. List on 10th December, 2002.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
21/08/2002 (on application filed pursuant to demolition threat)
After some hearing learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this application with liberty to approach the respondent authority for clarification in respect of the area where they have to be rehabilitated and their entitlements. Liberty granted. Application is dismissed as withdrawn.
07/05/2003
Counter affidavit has not been filed despite rule having been issued on the last date of hearing. Last opportunity granted to file counter affidavit within three weeks subject to payment of Rs.3000/- to the Advocates Welfare Fund - Trustee Committee within the same period of time. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter. List in the category of After Notice Misc. Matters on 22nd August, 2003. Records relating to the matter and controversy be produced before the Court on the next date. If the counter affidavit is not filed within the stipulated time the Vice Chairman shall remain personally present in Court on the next date of hearing.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
22/08/2003
The counter affidavit has been filed extremely belatedly. This has happened after even earlier opportunities have been granted. The counter affidavit does not even meet the allegations made in the writ petition specially in view of the controversy set out in the order dated 16.08.2002.
On the last date of hearing it was directed that if the counter affidavit is not filed within the time stipulated, the Vice Chairman shall remain personally present in Court. Despite, the counter affidavit not being filed in time, neither was the Vice Chairman present nor any application for exemption had been brought up before the Court though it is stated that an application was filed. I fail to appreciate how in the absence of any order of exemption, could the officer be not present. The matter was passed over and on the second call Mr. Vinay Bhushan, Director (Land Management) has appeared in Court. No records have been brought to Court. The concerned officer states that though he is deponent of the counter affidavit, 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 as noticed in the order dated 16.08.2002. Respondent DDA is granted last opportunity to file an appropriate affidavit explaining their position in respect of the controversy set out in the order dated 16.08.2002. The affidavit should be filed under the signatures of the Vice Chairman, DDA, within three weeks failing which the Vice Chairman shall remain personally present in Court and it is made clear that no application for exemption of the Vice Chairman from personal appearance shall be entertained. Response to the said affidavit be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
The Director (land Management) shall remain personally present in Court along with relevant records.
Since adjournment today is necessitated on account of the inadequate response filed by the respondent, the respondent is burdened with costs of Rs.2000/-, to be paid to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today.
Dasti to learned counsel for the parties. List on 12.11.2003.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
12/11/2003
Heard learned counsel for the parties in part on the issues raised in the writ petition.
The additional affidavit has been filed which states a broad position without being specific. General statements have been made about existence of EWS/LIG Housing in and around Vasant Kunj and it has been stated that Vasant Kunj should not be treated in isolation but a holistic view should be taken of Zone F. No details have been given as to whether in Zone F how much EWS/LIG Housing has been constructed or is proposed for construction and not constructed. The example of this in Sector D, Pocket-C where LIG housing was envisaged and construction of the other categories has been done but construction in this category has not been done. No reasons have been specified for the same nor time period prescribed within which the same will come up.
The broad issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is a consequence of the failure of the respondent to develop adequate LIG/Janta housing in colonies or in peripherial areas which has also resulted encroachment on public land. Subsequently, these public lands are cleared by allotment of alternative sites. It cannot be expected that the persons engaged in vocation which are relevant for the housing in other categories would be able to do so from locations at distance. The net result has been that the alternative sites are sold and the persons come and re-occupy the original sites. Services like a dhobi, iron women etc. are bound to be rendered in and around the colony.
In view of the aforesaid position that the respondent was required to explain as to whether the development of the LIG/Janta flats had kept pace with the construction and developments of the other categories of the flats.
Even assuming that Zone F has to be considered as a whole, the DDA is bound to provide specific details of the LIG/Janta flats constructed in the said Zone and at which time as also the quantum of accommodation under the said categories. This would be true both of Vasant Kunj and areas around it. In the plan filed by the respondent portions have been marked in "Yellow" which have already been constructed and the details of the same are liable to be disclosed. The other areas have been marked in Orange which are proposed for construction but no details have been given as to why the construction of this area has not been completed alongwith the constructions of the categories of the other housing. It has to be appreciated that the DDA is the largest land owning agency in Delhi and most of the land is developed by DDA. The object was to provide housing to residents of Delhi in different categories. The housing was to be made available at cheaper rates. Provision of LIG/Janta housing thus formed an integral part of object of housing activities being taken over by DDA.
It can hardly be envisaged that construction is carried out of different categories, other than these categories only on account of the fact that it will be profitable to do so by the DDA. In my view the DDA must set out as to how much LIG/Janta housing has been constructed, is earmarked for construction or as to be proposed to be constructed as well as time schedule thereof by referring to Zone F. The affidavit should be filed within two months alongwith the Plan of Zone F clearly earmarking the aforesaid areas and giving the schedule thereof.
I think it appropriate to direct that the Director (Land Management) shall be personally responsible for necessary coordination to file this affidavit and appropriate consultation will be held including with the Vice-Chairman, DDA in view of the important and largest issue involved in the present petition.
The response to the affidavit be filed by the petitioner within two weeks. The costs to be paid in the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner as per last order.
List on 28.1.2004.
Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
28/01/2004
It is stated by learned counsel for the parties that the matter is part heard.
Renotify the matter before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on 10.2.2004, subject to Orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Vikramajit Sen, J.
10/02/2004
The order dated 12.11.2003 has still not been complied with. Learned counsel appearing in CW No.5009/2002 states that the plan is almost ready but coordination is required by various departments. I fail to appreciate what is this level of coordination when in three months time plan cannot be placed which should have been ready before the construction began. In view of the inability of the respondent to file the plan, I consider it appropriate to direct that all the officers concerned required to coordinate for the purposes of filing of necessary affidavit should remain personally present in Court on the next date of hearing.
List for further directions on 12th March, 2004.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
12/03/2004 (F-Zone plan handed over by DDA in court)
The Plans have been filed and affidavit has been filed by the DDA saying that 1/3rd of the flats constructed have been earmarked for the economically weaker section. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would like to examine the Plan and file response to the same.
It is made clear that the matter shall be taken up for final hearing on the next date of hearing. List in the category of After Notice Misc.Matters on 25.5.2004. The records should be kept available for that date of hearing and an officer conversant with the records should remain personally present in Court.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
25/05/2004 (adjournment sought as arguing counsel was unavailable)
An adjournment slip has been circulated by learned counsel for the petitioner with no objection of learned counsel for the respondent. List in the category of After Notice Misc. Matters on 13th October, 2004.
May 25, 2004 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
13/10/2004 (matter did not reach)
List on 20th January,2005.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
20/01/2005
It is stated that pursuant of orders passed on 12.11.2003, pleadings have been filed by the parties and that the matter requires to be heard finally.
Let both the parties file brief note of submissions. List for hearing on 14th March, 2005 in the category of After Notice of Misc. Matters.
S RAVINDRA BHAT, J