Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1255 (DEL)

CHETAN PARKASH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2002-08-27

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2002
( 1 ) CW 1573/1999 petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming to be residents of Suraj Park, auchandi Bawana Road comprised in Khasra No, 36/26 (Part) in the revenu Estate of Village Sameypur, Delhi seeking a restraint order against the respondents from dispossessing them from the property in question and prohibiting them from demolishing the building constructed. ( 2 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that the colony in question is one of the colonies mentioned in the list of 1071 un-authorised colonies in respect of which the question of regularisation is pending consideration. It is not disputed that the land in question stands acquired and the land owners have failed in the challenge to the acquisition proceedings right till the highest court. ( 3 ) THE question of regularisation of these un-authorised colonies from subject matter of writ petition No. 4771/93, titled Common Cause Vs. Union of India and another wherein the Division bench vide order dated 17. 8. 1998 observed as under: "in respect of the colonies on the Government land and other colonies which are not to be regularised for one reason or the other. It is high time that the Government takes a definite decision. Over the years we have passed repeated orders impressing upon the Government that the result of not taking decision is resulting in corruption at various levels. We are not suggesting, for the present, whether a particular colony shall be regularised or not but what we are directing is to take a definite decision and if it is decided not to regularise a particular colony then to carry out that decision to its logical end by demolition action not merely demolition of only few selected houses but the colony as a whole. " ( 4 ) AFORESAID fact shows that despite directions from time to time the respondents had not taken any decision finally on the issue of regularisation of the un-authorised colonies and if they are to be regularised on what terms and conditions. This is unnecessarily giving rise to a spate of writ petitions. ( 5 ) THERE is no doubt that the respondents can proceed in respect of these colonies as long as a consistent view is taken. The land has been acquired for public purpose. This is unnecessarily giving rise to a spate of writ petitions. ( 5 ) THERE is no doubt that the respondents can proceed in respect of these colonies as long as a consistent view is taken. The land has been acquired for public purpose. ( 6 ) IN such matters directions have been passed in order to ensure that there is no pick and choose by the respondents in dealing with the occupants of these colonies and a consistent policy is followed. The said directions would apply to the present case also but for one other issue which arises for consideration. This issue arises in view of the averments made in para-5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent-DDA where it is stated that the property of the petitioners do not form a part of Suraj Park. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners states that he has no objection if this question is determined after verification at site by the Director (Land and Management) of DDA since his contention is that there can be no doubt about the petitioners property forming part of Suraj Park in view of the documents filed with the writ petition. It is thus directed that the Director (Land and Management) shall take necessary steps and issue directions for verification at site after notice to the petitioners to confirm whether the property of the petitioners is located within the un-authorised colony of Suraj Park. The needful be done within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioners will co-operate for the said purpose. The petitioners shall appear before the Director (Land and Management) Head Quarter on 6. 9. 2002 at 3. 00 PM and thereafter necessary directions will be passed. No further notice would be required for the said purpose to the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN case the Director (Land and Management) comes to the conclusion that the property of the petitioners is within the un-authorised colony of Suraj Park, then the following directions shall apply to the petitioners: 1) It will be open to respondent No. 1 to inspect the colony in question and take all necessary steps to protect the open areas of the land. 2) It will also be open to respondent No. 1 to take all necessary action to ensure that no further construction is carried out by any of the occupants of the area in question. 2) It will also be open to respondent No. 1 to take all necessary action to ensure that no further construction is carried out by any of the occupants of the area in question. 3) It is open to the respondents to take a decision on the issue of regularisation and till the issue of regularisation is decided, respondent. No. 1 shall not apply the principle of pick and chose against the petitioners for taking any action including for dispossession or demolition other than to ensure aforesaid directions. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners shall file an undertaking before this Court within a period of ten days from today stating that they will not carry on further construction, not occupy any open areas and not create any third party interest or part with possession till the decision is taken on the issue of regularisation of the colony. A plan of existing construction shall also be filed. This protective order shall only enure for the benefit of such of the petitioners who file this undertaking. ( 9 ) WRIT petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. ( 10 ) DASTI. CM 2442/99 ( 11 ) NO further orders are called for on this application in view of the orders passed in writ petition.