Citizens' groups from both slums and upper income flats in Vasant Kunj in Delhi are opposing a slum demolition, out of self-interest, within the ambit of the city's statutory Master Plan. This on-going chronicle underscores the robustness of existing planning provisions and the inevitability with which contemporary alternatives are driving the city towards sustaining rather than solving the slum problem.

Context

Vasant Kunj, a flatted residential area in south Delhi, was designed for a population of 100,000 in mid-80s by Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which was set up by an Act of Parliament to secure development of Delhi according to Plan. The statutory Master Plan for Delhi advocates integrated neighbourhoods and requires 25 per cent of the housing in an area like Vasant Kunj to be by way of cheap plots for economically weaker sections, including ‘city service personnel’, ie, people working as domestic help, etc. Standards for low-income housing are also clearly stated in the Plan and do not normally permit plots sizes less than 25 square metres and densities higher than 250 dwellings per hectare. In Vasant Kunj low-income housing has not been developed. Since July 2000, when DDA attempted demolition of an old settlement in the area, local groups have been demanding implementation of statutory provisions for low-income housing for solving the ‘slum problem’. The ‘alternatives’ of slum upgrading on an as-is-where-is basis and re-settlement in large schemes of tiny plots are both ‘illegal’ under the Master Plan, being violative of its minimum standards for plot sizes as well as norms for integrated neighbourhoods. They amount to ‘shortchanging’ the poor in terms of their statutory entitlements. They also have serious implications for carrying capacity inasmuch as when land meant for the poor is put to (more infrastructure stressing) up-market uses infrastructure demand exceeds designed capacities. Since public land was placed in DDA’s custody for the express purpose of facilitating development according to Plan, re-settling the poor in sub-standard development and using for up-market uses land meant to settle them are both clear and serious cases of misuse of public land. It is from this planned (rather than any ‘humane’ or ‘contemporary’) development perspective that citizens’ groups in Vasant Kunj are opposing DDA’s proposal to demolish 200 homes collectively known as Arjun Camp, a ‘slum’ as old as Vasant Kunj on a site for a park adjoining a pocket of 34 DDA flats.

Arjun Camp

In a rare, if not unprecedented, development in mid-2002 some residents of up-market flats and those of an informal settlement of service providers on a park in their midst in Vasant Kunj, a flatted residential area in south Delhi, came together to protest the demolition of the slum and relocation of its residents to a far away place and to seek, instead, its shifting to a nearby site meant for low-income housing according to Delhi Master Plan.

Vasant Kunj was designed for a population of 100,000 in mid-80s by Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which is mandated to secure development of Delhi according to Plan. The statutory Master Plan for Delhi provides for integrated neighbourhoods and requires 25 per cent of the housing in an area like Vasant Kunj to be by way of cheap plots for economically weaker sections, including service providers. Standards for low-income housing are stipulated and do not normally permit plots sizes less than 25 square metres and densities higher than 250 dwellings per hectare.

In Vasant Kunj low-income housing has not been developed according to Plan and the anticipated number of poor families live in 'slums'.Since July 2000, when DDA attempted demolition of a 50-year-old 'slum' settlement in the area, local groups have been seeking Master Plan implementation for solving the ‘slum problem’. Their premise is that ‘alternatives’ of slum upgrading, 'in-situ' multi-storied tenements, re-settlement in city outskirts, etc, are all ‘illegal’ under the Plan, ‘shortchange’ the poor on their housing entitlements and have serious carrying capacity implications as land meant for the poor in the city - about 2000 hectares for cheap plots - is put to unplanned up-market uses.As part of this continuing effort citizens’ groups in Vasant Kunj came together to oppose DDA’s proposal to demolish 200 homes in Arjun Camp, a ‘slum’ as old as Vasant Kunj, adjoining pocket B9-Extension on a large site meant for a park amidst pockets B-9, B-5&6 and B-2

Chronicle

Thursday 25.07.02
DDA officials came to Arjun Camp and gave 10 (out of 200) families ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters for alternative plots. The same officials had come to Arjun Camp two months back for a three-day ‘survey’ – mainly of date of issue and address on the ration-cards that are used to avail food subsidies through the public distribution system – to identify those ‘eligible’ for resettlement. The ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters ‘offered’ plots of 18 or 12.5 square metres in an unspecified location, and ‘demanded’ for them respectively Rs.7000 and Rs.5000, to be deposited within 10 days. Residents were told they would not be celebrating Independence Day on 15.08.02 here. 
Week-1 (Friday 26.07.02 – Thursday 01.08.02)
As a planner, I wrote to DDA to point out that nothing that it was doing in the matter of slums in general and Arjun Camp in particular makes any sense in relation to the Master Plan. It makes no sense to shift slum residents from Vasant Kunj since low-income population here is less than what is anticipated in the Plan and low-income housing has yet to be developed. It makes no sense to misuse public land to develop sub-standard resettlement schemes that are no better than slums. It makes no sense to waste even sub-standard resettlement plots on a settlement like this rather than any of the many, say, flood and fire-prone slums in Delhi. It makes no sense for DDA (meant to provide housing for low-income and city-service population) to be checking ‘proofs’ like ration-cards that establish neither income nor place of employment. I also specifically pointed out that in Vasant Kunj a low-income housing site is available (as per approved layout plan) a kilometre away from Arjun Camp. Residents from surrounding pockets of flats also decided to ask DDA to shift Arjun Camp to this site to ensure that domestic help continues to live close by and land meant for it is not used to build more flats and exacerbate the water scarcity. The Federation of their Residents’ Welfare Associations formally wrote this to DDA. Political leaders, meanwhile, only advised Arjun Camp residents that the only ‘practical’ thing to do was to ‘negotiate’ to get more people considered ‘eligible’. For all their efforts on this front, the residents managed only 3 more ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters from DDA. Finally, they wrote to DDA to seek clarifications about eligibility criteria, types of proofs being considered, etc, and to request a formal demolition notice since DDA had not found most residents ‘eligible’.
Week-2 (Friday 02.08.02 – Thursday 08.08.02)
A group of residents who went to meet DDA officials were told that no notice would be issued as DDA has no ‘policy’ to issue notice in case of ‘encroachments’. I wrote to DDA to say that neither the Master Plan nor its enabling law permits DDA to dismiss as ‘encroachers’ and remove, without notice, those whom it has failed to settle and its ‘policy’ amounts to DDA giving itself powers to punish its victims. I also started working on a comprehensive note on entitlements under the Master Plan for legal help and suggested to the residents a survey to substantiate ‘eligibility’ claims. A flat resident from a neighbouring pocket of flats, also an office-bearer in the Federation of Residents’ Welfare Associations of various of pockets of flats across Vasant Kunj, volunteered support for the survey. On 07.08.02, by when DDA had found 29 persons ‘eligible’ for resettlement, three lawyers came to Arjun Camp to explain legal options. The residents could petition the court themselves or through a Public Interest Litigation filed by someone else on their behalf. The former involved greater expense by way of court fee, etc, but was more desirable as it would then be truly their case. They could file a single case or they could file two cases, one by those who had been given ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters to challenge details and procedure of resettlement and the others to challenge arbitrary denial of such ‘offers’. The latter option would raise issues more clearly. The survey that was being carried out should be used to systematically collect documents. There could be no guarantees on the outcome of the case. The lawyers also clearly explained the required paperwork and the likely expenses.
Week-3 (Friday 09.08.02 – Thursday 15.08.02)
Residents of Arjun Camp decided to file two cases and started collecting documents and money. DDA continued to give some more ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters (all of which, incidentally continued to be dated 25.07.02, the date on which the first 10 were given). On Wednesday 14.08.02 residents moved the Delhi High Court with two writ petitions – one filed by 42 persons who had been given ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters and the other by 156 who had not. Both writ petitions say DDA’s actions have no basis in its Act and the Master Plan (which contemplates housing for people like them within Vasant Kunj, for which sites are indicated in the approved layout plan but have not been developed) and are violative of their rights to shelter, livelihood and education, etc. The petition filed by those whom DDA had given ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters says further that these letters are legally flawed as they are for plots that are violative of the Master Plan in terms of size and whose location is not specified. While acknowledging, through these letters, the petitioners’ right to housing, DDA is not providing them housing in accordance with the Master Plan and is, instead, ‘offering’ them sub-standard housing (which the Master Plan specifically cautions against for being prone to deteriorating into slum). This is ostensibly because they are ‘encroachers’ on DDA land, whereas in the spirit of the Act they are better defined as DDA’s implementation backlog. The petition filed by those who had not been given ‘offer-cum-demand letters’ for alternative plots says denial of such letters to them has no basis in law as they are no different from those to whom letters have been given. The absence of a reasonable, logical or intelligible yardstick for determining eligibility, leaves DDA officials free to distribute offers as per their whims, which encourages illegal and corrupt practices. As per its Act DDA cannot forcibly evict residents without prior notice and an opportunity for being heard, but is refusing to reply to written requests for the same. Both petitions pray for orders restraining DDA from shifting the petitioners in violation of the Master Plan and for DDA to develop for them low income housing as per Master Plan norms on a site within Vasant Kunj as per approved layout plan. The latter petition also prays that all be offered alternative sites consistent with their entitlements under the Plan.
Week-4 (Friday 15.08.02 – Thursday 22.08.02)
On Friday 16.08.02 Delhi High Court issued notice to DDA on both petitions. On the evening of Monday 19.08.02 DDA officials came to say demolition would take place on Wednesday. On Tuesday the residents’ Counsel filed applications and wrote to DDA counsel to, having accepted notice in the main writ as well as application for stay and sought time to reply, instruct DDA accordingly. Residents sought similar intervention from their political representatives, but from that front all that was forthcoming was a visit by former MLA who painstakingly explained how the fact might well be that I had extorted money in the name of a court case, which was not even filed. In the morning I faxed an open letter to the offices of President, Prime Minister, Union Minister and Minister of State for Urban Development, Chief Minister, officials dealing with land and slum issues, leading English and Hindi dailies, major weeklies and news channels. From experience I knew that ‘appeals’ like this do not really help, so I also collected the lawyer’s letter to DDA Counsel and delivered copies for DDA officials in their office and local and zonal police stations. By noon I had copies of the lawyer’s letter as well as six receipts of the same. This, besides the copies of the two petitions, was the paper ammunition with which we had to face the bulldozers. To make the most of what we had, I left a set in Arjun Camp with the suggestion that residents seek their elected (and wannabe elected) representatives’ support. And I gave a set to the Federation, which was participating in the Chief Minister’s bhagidari (citizens’ participation) workshop, where senior officials are expected to be present. We decided that residents should shift their belongings to minimise loss and we spread word for those who thought this demolition should be protested to reach the site by 10 AM. On the morning of Wednesday 21.08.02, bulldozers and police force were seen at the police station. There were no indications that ‘The System’ has been in any way shaken or stirred and no elected representatives or media persons were expected. It being the last day of the Chief Minister’s bhagidari workshop, I faxed her a letter about the imminent demolition being protested in a rare bhagidari between flat and slum residents that, unfortunately, found no place in mainstream bhagidari. In light of an earlier identical experience, from it too nothing was expected. By 10 AM ‘outsiders’ – flat residents, residents of other slums, office-bearers of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a few professionals – began to arrive to express solidarity. By 11 AM we heard that the demolition had been postponed. The Station House Officer in charge of our Police Station claimed he had decided to give the residents a reprieve till Friday, Thursday being a festival day. The former MLA came around to take credit for having stopped the demolition, but was unable to say how and till when, nor was he inclined to stay and talk about the matter in the presence of other ‘outsiders’. The lawyers called to say that the Court had not directed status quo, but had given permission to approach DDA for clarifications regarding entitlements. Residents, who had taken off from work yesterday to move their belongings and again today in anticipation of demolition, were left wondering how exactly to celebrate the festival next day, with demolition again imminent, not to mention the ‘hope’ or, rather, uncertainty that it might not happen.
Week-5 (Friday 23.08.02 to Thursday 29.08.02)
DDA officials had come to Arjun Camp late on Thursday evening, not to offer festival greetings, but to serve ‘notice’. The ‘notice’, handwritten on a blank paper rather than on DDA stationery, said the settlement would be demolished on Tuesday 27.08.02 and asked those who have been given ‘offer-cum-demand letters’ to deposit their papers and payment forthwith. On Friday the residents’ counsel tried in vain to procure a copy of the court order. In the evening the residents wrote to DDA to seek clarifications about their entitlements under the Master Plan, without a copy of the order in view of the ‘notice’ and the next two days being the weekend. . Arjun Camp residents as well as flat residents also decided to meet DDA Vice Chairman on Monday in the matter. Also on Friday, a news report on the Arjun Camp case quoted DDA Vice Chairman as saying, “It is true that human beings cannot be wished away but slums have to be removed as they obstruct certain prioritised programmes decided by the regional task force”. It also said the Vice-Chairman “does not recognise” minimum plot size norms, saying that “there is no legislation on that yet” and, “We go by government orders passed from time to time. At present, we go by the order which says that 12 sqm is the limit for those who have settled after 1993 and 18 sqm for those who settled before 1993”. . I wrote to the Union Ministry of Urban Development, which is DDA’s nodal ministry, to ask details of the regional task force and government orders that were clearly contrary to the statutory provisions of the Master Plan . On Monday the Federation Chairman called up DDA for an appointment, but the Vice-Chairman was not in office. In the afternoon a group of Arjun Camp residents and I went to try and meet the Vice-Chairman in public meeting hours to discuss the matter and give him a copy of the court order, which had been procured in the morning . But neither he nor the Commissioner in charge was in office. We were directed to a Deputy who was not inclined to discuss any of the questions raised in our earlier letters or consider any orders from the court that did not explicitly mention a stay. He said that the demolition was being effected under the orders of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (who is ex-officio Chairman of DDA) on the complaint of some flat residents. When shown the formal objection to demolition by the Federation within the ambit of the Master Plan and asked how informal complaints by some residents were being given precedence over the same, he challenged the authenticity of the Federation’s letter. The Federation Chairman subsequently wrote to DDA Vice-Chairman about this , but on Monday evening we again prepared to register protest against the demolition. Again on Tuesday the demolition did not happen. On Wednesday, there was again police force and bulldozer at the police station and panic in Arjun Camp and again the demolition did not happen. Appalled in equal measure by the climate of uncertainty (and the consequent disruption of livelihood and education) and DDA’s indifference to citizens’ concerns about Master Plan implementation, I wrote to DDA Vice-Chairman a letter seeking clarifications on DDA’s stand on the slum issue in general, as sought by Arjun Camp in the particular matter with the court’s permission . I sent copies of this letter, with necessary enclosures, to the Ministry and the Planning Commission as well as to other citizens’ groups in the area.
Week-6 (Friday 30.08.02 to Thursday 05.09.02)
On Friday residents of Arjun Camp wrote to DDA Vice Chairman, with copies of the court’s orders, to reiterate their request to be housed in a manner consistent with their entitlements under the Master Plan and not dis-housed in a manner violative of the Plan and its enabling Act. They also requested that DDA staff be instructed not to take any precipitate action at least till clarifications about their entitlements had been provided by DDA and that a copy of these instructions be sent to them to deal with recurrent threats. . On Monday 02.09.02, a Hindi newspaper reported on the appalling conditions in the resettlement scheme where DDA officials had said that those given ‘offer-cum-demand letters’ would be given plots. Even as residents waited for a response to their representation, on Tuesday 03.09.02 a person often seen in DDA offices but as likely a tout as an employee came to Arjun Camp and informed residents of proposed demolition on 03.09.02. On Wednesday 04.09.02 a DDA official called up someone in Arjun Camp to again say that those given letters should come and deposit payment. Also on 04.09.02 there was a news report about the Municipal Commissioner calling for a review of the slum relocation policy in view of the conditions in resettlement schemes (‘’, The Hindu). On 05.09.02 there was another similar news report (‘Call to merge slum dept with MCD’, Daily Pioneer [ ]. I wrote in detail to the Municipal Commissioner, with reference to previous correspondence and the matter of slums in Vasant Kunj in general and Arjun Camp in particular, about the impossibility of solving the slum problem without using the statutory Master Plan provisions for land for low-income housing . I also wrote to DDA Vice Chairman to ask that DDA officials be instructed to leave Arjun Camp residents alone not only till DDA had responded to their representation but also, in view of the Municipal Commissioner’s views, till the government had made up its mind about what needed doing about the slum problem . I enclosed the copy of my letter to the Municipal Commissioner and also sent copies to the Ministry and the Planning Commission.
Week-7 (Friday 06.09.02 to Thursday 12.09.02)
The Ministry, DDA, MCD and Planning Commission have not responded to our letters. It has been a quiet week, with DDA officials leaving Arjun Camp alone. But DDA has, in its counter-affidavit in a PIL in an entirely unrelated matter, pointedly referred to the nearly 50-year old settlement of Rangpuri Pahari, whose residents have been consistently expressing solidarity with Arjun Camp, as an ‘encroachment’. This is even though Rangpuri Pahari residents through their duly registered community based organisation have been actively engaging on implementation of their statutory entitlements under the Master Plan for over two years. They have now written to DDA, referring to the court’s directions in the Arjun Camp case, to seek clarifications about their entitlements from DDA [ ]. In Arjun Camp, while there is some anxiety, the demolition threat for 13.09.02 is not being taken seriously since neither DDA nor police staff has mentioned anything. We have decided to do no more than monitor the police station for bulldozers and police force.
Week-8 (Friday 13.09.02 to Thursday 19.09.02)
On 13.09.02 there was no attempt to demolish Arjun Camp. But in the evening DDA’s law officer called Arjun Camp residents’ counsel for a copy of the court’s order of 21.08.02 since DDA had sought legal opinion on feasibility of demolition. It struck me as singularly inappropriate that DDA had not, instead, sought legal opinion on entitlements. I was writing to the National Human Rights Commission in continuation of an earlier letter to object to DDA’s plea that it had not given notice before demolition in Rangpuri Pahari in July 2000 because there was no policy to give notice to encroachers. I was anyway referring to the case of Arjun Camp and mentioned also DDA’s curious preferences for use of legal services paid for by taxpayers’ money. DDA officials had been giving some more people their offer-cum-demand letters whose legal validity we had challenged. But we decided to wait for DDA’s response before writing anything about this. Nothing worth reporting happened in Arjun Camp during the week. In the Court we ‘won’ the case against DDA’s illegal scheme of 2000 HIG flats in the green belt west of Sultangarhi / Rangpuri Pahari without following mandatory procedure for land use change. On 16.09.02 the court disposed off the matter, holding the scheme to be in flagrant violation of law and directing complete stoppage of work and seeking an enquiry into how such a violation came to pass. One of the things the case threw up was a ‘Public Notice’ inviting objections and suggestions in respect of DDA’s ‘proposal’ to change the Master Plan land use of the site. On 15.09.02, one day before the final hearing of the case and six months after start of construction, DDA placed this notice, mandatory under DDA Act before finalising the scheme, in the press.
Week-9 (Friday 20.09.02 to Thursday 26.09.02)
Various citizens’ groups in the area that have been engaging with DDA since 2000 for implementation of their entitlements under the Master Plan decided to respond to the Public Notice in an orchestrated manner. Convenors of the Master Plan Implementation Support Group, the synergy platform through which citizens’ groups have been jointly engaging as and when needed since 2001, filed collective objections forwarding objections already raised since 2001 by groups convened by them. On 24.09.02 an objection on behalf of Arjun Camp, among others, was filed by the Convenor of Service Providers’ Groups in MPISG. With reference to the Arjun Camp court matters, it said, “We learn that in its counter-affidavit filed in court in the matter of the scheme for which this Public Notice has been issued, DDA has justified building HIG flats in the area on grounds of ‘housing shortage’. We do not consider this a valid reason for Master Plan amendment because, as per Master Plan norms, ‘housing shortage’ in the area is by way of housing for service providers and not HIG, and DDA has yet to reply in the Arjun Camp court case.”
Week-10 (Friday 27.09.02 to Thursday 03.10.02)
Construction on the HIG scheme stopped by the Court was continuing. On 01.10.02 we learned of plans for demolition of Arjun Camp on 03.10.02. MPISG wrote to DDA Vice Chairman to say, “Court orders (besides DDA’s mandate of development according to Master Plan) require you, as custodian of the Plan, to demolish construction near CNG station in violation of the Plan and to clarify/protect Plan entitlements of Arjun Camp residents. DDA is doing the reverse, with no discernible basis in anything in democratic society, and sadly around 2nd October.” A copy of the letter was handed to area SHO. Copies were faxed to PM, CM, UDM and VP Singh soliciting intervention to stop precipitate action, for which we even went to a rally, etc, on 02.10.02. On 03.10.02 MPISG faxed to DDA VC (with copy to SHO) a letter saying that in view of pendency of DDA’s replies pursuant to court orders in Arjun Camp matter and due process on objection filed on 24.09.02 and because no demolition notice was served, we would protest peacefully. We said we would ask officials for a court order permitting demolition (since we are constantly asked to show a stay order) and, if not shown such order, ask them to sign this letter to say they take responsibility for extra-judicial action amounting to frustration of process of law. The demolition was averted. On 04.10.02 MPISG wrote to DDA to enumerate the half-a-dozen threats faced since moving court and say, “DDA ‘crying wolf’ is causing serious disruptions in livelihood and education occupations of residents of Arjun Camp and creating time and effort costs for others wanting to protest DDA’s willful high-handedness. We find this unacceptable from a public authority from which only clarifications about entitlements due from it to citizens are being sought. We reiterate our view that demolition of Arjun Camp by DDA without a court order permitting it and suitable formal notice would tantamount to frustrating the process of law.” A response “either to explain why we are wrong in our view or to assure us that you have directed DDA employees to refrain from threatening demolition of Arjun Camp and soliciting police support for it” to the letter, besides to representations seeking clarifications on entitlements, was sought.
Week-11 (Friday 04.10.02 to Thursday 10.10.02)
Rattled by DDA’s demolition threat, even as work on its own scheme stopped by court continued, residents of Arjun Camp filed individual objections in response to the Public Notice. These said, “Two writ petitions filed by residents of Arjun Camp against DDA in the matter of housing entitlements under the Master Plan are before the High Court. In these petitions we have raised the issue of DDA abdicating its responsibility for housing for the poor according to robust Plan provisions in favour of occassional sub-standard resettlement. According to Master Plan norms DDA should have developed 5000 cheap plots and 4000 small homes in Vasant Kunj, which it has not developed. The small amount of LIG and Janta flats that it has made have been put to other uses and DDA itself is selling off some LIG flats in its HIG scheme. If DDA had developed low income housing according to Plan, there would have been no unplanned slums here. Still DDA calls slums here ‘encroachment’ rather than its implementation backlog, and even as it is obvious that according to Master Plan norms ‘housing shortage’ here is only by way of cheap house DDA is busy building on remaining land expensive flats in violation of the Plan… In view of the matter of DDA’s responsibility for low income housing according to the Master Plan here and our low income housing entitlements under the Master Plan being sub-judice and in view of DDA’s replies pursuant to court orders being pending, a proposal for Master Plan modification for a housing scheme in violation of Master Plan norms here is objectionable. It is hoped that you will consider this objection with seriousness from the perspective of the broader issue of DDA’s irresponsible attitude towards pro-poor provisions of the Master Plan.”
Week-12 (Friday 11.10.02 to Thursday 17.10.02)
There were again rumours of demolition of Arjun Camp on 15.10.02, while work on DDA’s own illegal scheme also continued. The next four days being holidays, on 11.10.02 MPISG wrote to DDA VC to ask him to ensure no demolition action to expedite response to representations made by the petitioners in August. On 16.10.02 a certified copy of the court judgement stopping DDA’s scheme was obtained. A copy, along with copies of orders in the Arjun Camp matter, was filed in the police station.
Weeks-13/…/18 (Friday 18.10.02 to Thursday 28.11.02)
Even after filing a copy of the court judgement in the police station work on DDA’s illegal scheme continued for another month. In the Arjun Camp matter DDA has not replied to either the petitions or the representations. DDA’s minions and touts as well as some local politicians have been advising Arjun Camp residents about the futility of court cases and pragmatism of paying up, if only to make a quick buck by selling the allotment. The touts have also been offering to arrange offer-cum-demand letters at a price. The recent demolition threats have proved more disruptive than the earlier ones. It seems a few have gone and paid up and others are upset about this. DDA’s refusal to engage, except through recurrent demolition threats, with those seeking only Plan implementation is disheartening, as is constant plea of those at the police station that they are equally constrained to not act against DDA for not stopping work and to give it force for demolition. On 25.10.02 I wrote to area DCP and Police Commissioner to point out need to review the constraining procedural regime based on the assumption that public authorities do not violate laws. On 02.11.02 I wrote to the new DDA VC to ask, among other things, why work on DDA’s illegal scheme had not stopped and why DDA had not responded in the Arjun Camp case. On 14.11.02, following the announcement of free flats on lines of Mumbai Model, slum residents from Rangpuri wrote to the Minister to suggest adapting the model to Master Plan and to seek priority implementation in Vasant Kunj in view of citizens’ efforts since 2000 and written assurance against demolitions. On 17.11.02, following a TV news report about the failure of the Mumbai Model in Mumbai, I wrote to MoUD/DDA to argue it was inadequate and in Delhi illegal / amounting to ‘double profiteering’, ‘simulating’ for Vasant Kunj a comparative appraisal between Mumbai Model and Plan implementation. On 25.11.02, following DDA’s announcement that it would focus on HIG housing, I wrote to MoUD/DDA to say this has no basis in, in fact is illegal under, the Plan, Act and land policy and asked for new housing ideas amounting to downsizing citizens’ Plan entitlements to be held in abeyance at least in Vasant Kunj where clarifications on entitlements were due from DDA.
Week-19 (Friday 29.11.02 to Thursday 05.12.02)
On 29.11.02 a Division Bench of the High Court, in matters filed by some factory workers’ associations, struck down Delhi’s slum policy of providing alternative plots before clearing slums for having no basis and for getting in the way of planned development. Neither petitioners nor respondents seemed to have drawn attention to statutory Plan entitlements of poor families and the implementation failure in respect of these. Mid-winter evictions became imminent and DDA minions and touts became active in Arjun Camp. DDA had not filed reply and the matter was listed for hearing on 10.12.02 and there were serious apprehensions.
Week-20 (Friday 06.12.02 to Thursday 12.12.02)
The Court gave DDA two more weeks to file reply in the Arjun Camp writ petitions. DDA counsel had argued they be dismissed in view of the Division Bench judgement. In a number of matters already heard the same day the Court had given directions in view of that judgement and petitioners’ counsel sought to ‘withdraw at this stage’ the stay applications. There was cause for some relief in Arjun Camp / Vasant Kunj, and for concern city-wide about mid-winter evictions misusing the November judgement. To ensure no precipitate action in Vasant Kunj, slum residents from Rangpuri Pahari and Arjun Camp decided to solicit political support for response to the letter of 14.11.02 from Rangpuri Pahari residents to the Minister seeking, among other things, written assurance of no demolition till a scheme is worked out. I tried, without success, to persuade some of those who have taken charge of Delhi’s slum issue to consider the option of not opposing the Division Bench judgement and, instead, demanding accountability on implementation of entitlements with reference to the judgement allowing government to come up with an alternative for the poor as well as on government’s failure to inform the court about what lawfully constitutes planned development.
Weeks-21/22 (Friday 13.12.02 to Thursday 26.12.02)
Mid-winter evictions began in Delhi. A broad consensus across the political spectrum, spilling over to NGOs, against the court judgement emerged and there was a spate of rallies, meetings, announcements, etc. As MCD, Delhi Government and Union Government all announced intent to appeal and others endorsed and claimed credit for these announcements, talk of in-situ options re-surfaced. To these there was expected and understandable adverse reaction from non-slum residents. In Vasant Kunj some flat residents who had been supportive of the Arjun Camp case became ambivalent. Slum residents’ efforts to obtain an assurance against demolitions in response to the letter of 14.11.02 to the Minister also bore no fruit.
Week-24/25 (Friday 27.12.02 to Thursday 09.01.03)
With MCD, Delhi Government and Central Government all having announced intent to appeal, at least the danger of large-scale mid-winter evictions was averted, though the threat remained. The courts were closed so no appeal was actually filed, nor had DDA filed reply in the Arjun Camp matter before the courts closed. What was worrying was that while there was no clear indication about who was going to file what and what grounds in the court, there was considerable enthusiasm about night shelters for the homeless amongst NGOs and government alike.
Week-26 (Friday 10.01.03 to Thursday 16.01.03)
On Monday 13.01.03 Arjun Camp faced the most serious demolition threat so far. With bulldozer and police force ready to leave the station, we lodged as a ‘complaint’ a copy of a letter faxed to DDA VC, copies of which were also delivered to our Councilor, MLA and VP Singh with reference to assurances of, respectively, MCD, Delhi Government and PM about filing appeals. In this letter we reiterated our view that demolition would amount to frustrating process of law in view of pendency of DDA’s reply to the writ petitions and representations in the Arjun Camp matter and due process on objections filed in response to Public Notice precipitated by the matter of DDA’s illegal scheme in Rangpuri Pahari. We said that we maintain our view even after the Division Bench judgement of 29.11.02 on account of three things. One, the Court has not directed mid-winter evictions, only that evictions may be effected where slums are getting in the way of planned development. It has also asked the government to come out with an alternative for housing the poor. Two, the Arjun Camp petitions have also challenged the legality of the slum policy and sought settlement according to the Master Plan and, as such, it would arguably be against the spirit of the Court’s judgement for it to be used against them. Three, when the Arjun Camp matter was heard on 10.12.02 (ie subsequent to the DB judgement), it was not dismissed in view of the DB judgement. Rather, the court asked DDA to file reply within two weeks, which it has not done. We further said that we find it incomprehensible why mid-winter demolitions are being considered at all by public authorities even after Central Government, Delhi government and MCD have all announced that they are about to seek a review of the DB judgement and in the case of Arjun Camp, where there is no urgent purpose to justify such precipitate action. We sought immediate instructions, with copy to us, to guarantee no precipitate action is taken in Arjun Camp by DDA till the Court has heard the Arjun Camp matter as well as the petitions that our governments are proposing to file. We asked our SHO to consider this a complaint and seek written response to this letter before providing force so that officials responsible for frustrating process of law are identifiable. We told him that we would stand outside Arjun Camp with copies of this letter to be signed by DDA and Police officials taking responsibility for demolition before allowing it. Demolition was averted, perhaps for the first time after the Novemebr judgement. By afternoon all politicians whose intervention we had solicited had come around or called to claim credit. We thanked them all and I wrote to them all the following day to express gratitude as well as to solicit intervention for expediting reply in the Arjun Camp matter as well as appeal in the larger issue. I also asked them to please ensure, in the meantime, necessary clarifications to the effect that the court had not directed mid-winter evictions. I also wrote to the Police Commissioner in respect of the last. In all these letters I mentioned that I would be giving a plannerly talk at IIC about the November judgement.
Weeks-27/28 (Friday 17.01.03 to Thursday 30.01.03):
No one has appealed about the November judgement, nor has DDA replied in the Arjun Camp matter. No one replied to my letter of 14.01.03. An NGO invited me at short notice to a meeting about the judgement. I declined to attend as I had other things to do and because I do not recognise the locus standi of NGOs in general and because this NGO was part of a group that has consistently undermined the Master Plan since 2000. Currently some of its constituents were advocating and celebrating Night Shelters for the homeless, which I found inconsistent with serious concern about mid-winter evictions to render people homeless. Moreover, since counsel who had appeared for the petitioners in the Arjun Camp was already invited to the meeting and I had posted the talk I had given on the web, I thought I was not holding back any information that may be of use to anyone. I told them they could get back for any plannerly clarifications or assistance, but that as a matter of principle I did not attend meetings of NGOs hostile towards planners and disrespectful of the Master Plan. On 25.01.03 news papers had an edit-page article celebrating night shelters, a report about DDA and local politicians meeting RWAs of flat residents to discuss plans for the first site cleared through mid-winter evictions and another about VP Singh exhorting people to themselves undo the court order. And no one in Arjun Camp had received an invitation to the hearing of objections filed in response to the Public Notice that DDA was holding on 27.01.03. In view of all this, Arjun Camp residents wrote to DDA Vice Chairman to expedite reply in their court cases. In the same week the minister had, again, been quoted saying in the media that planners had not thought of service providers’ housing. I wrote him a letter asking that he retract this baseless accusation, enclosing a long list of letters through which I had drawn his attention and the attention of successive Secretaries to provisions clearly stated in the Master Plan, which is a statutory and public document. The Arjun Camp case featured prominently in this letter. In our hearings on 27.01.02 the convenor of the service providers’ groups in MPISG and I brought up the Arjun Camp case and the need for DDA to file reply with urgency in view the larger slum issue following the November judgement.
Thursday 25.07.02: DDA's demolition plans
DDA officials came to Arjun Camp and gave 10 (out of 200) families ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters for alternative plots. The same officials had come to Arjun Camp two months back for a three-day ‘survey’ – mainly of date of issue and address on the ration-cards that are used to avail food subsidies through the public distribution system – to identify those ‘eligible’ for resettlement. The ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters ‘offered’ plots of 18 or 12.5 square metres in an unspecified location, and ‘demanded’ for them respectively Rs.7000 and Rs.5000, to be deposited within 10 days.
Week-1 (Friday 26.07.02 – Thursday 01.08.02): Citizens' objections
I wrote to DDA to point out that it makes no sense to shift slum residents from Vasant Kunj since low-income population here is less than what is anticipated in the Master Plan and low-income housing has yet to be developed, or to misuse public land to develop sub-standard resettlement schemes no better than slums or to waste even sub-standard schemes or for DDA (meant to provide housing for low-income and city-service population) to be checking ‘proofs’ like ration-cards that establish neither income nor place of employment. I specifically pointed out a low-income housing site available (as per approved layout plan) close by. Residents from surrounding pockets of flats wrote, through the Federation of their Residents’ Welfare Associations, to ask DDA to shift Arjun Camp to this site to ensure that domestic help continues to live close by and land meant for it is not used to build more flats and exacerbate the water scarcity. Arjun Camp residents wrote to seek clarifications about eligibility criteria and to request a demolition notice since DDA had found most residents ‘ineligible’.
Week-2 (Friday 02.08.02 – Thursday 08.08.02): 'Encroachers' not worthy of notice before demolition?
A group of residents who went to meet DDA officials were told no notice would be issued as DDA has no ‘policy’ to issue notice in case of ‘encroachments’. I wrote to DDA to say that neither the Master Plan nor its enabling law permits DDA to dismiss as ‘encroachers’ and remove, without notice, those whom it has failed to settle and its ‘policy’ amounts to DDA giving itself powers to punish its victims. I also started working on a comprehensive note for legal help and suggested to residents a survey to substantiate ‘eligibility’ claims. On 07.08.02, by when DDA had found 29 persons ‘eligible’ for resettlement, three lawyers came to Arjun Camp to explain legal options.
Week-3 (Friday 09.08.02 – Thursday 15.08.02): Residents move court
DDA continued to give some more ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters (all of which continued to be dated 25.07.02). On 14.08.02 residents moved Delhi High Court with two writ petitions – one filed by 42 persons who had been given ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters and the other by 156 who had not. Both petitions say DDA’s actions have no basis in its Act and the Master Plan and are violative of rights to shelter, livelihood and education, etc. The former petition says further that ‘offer-cum-demand’ letters are legally flawed as they are for plots that are violative of the Master Plan in terms of size and whose location is not specified. While acknowledging, through these letters, the petitioners’ right to housing, DDA is not providing them housing in accordance with the Master Plan and is, instead, ‘offering’ them sub-standard housing, ostensibly because they are ‘encroachers’ on DDA land whereas they are better defined as DDA’s implementation backlog. The latter petition says further that filed by those who had not been given ‘offer-cum-demand letters’ for alternative plots says denial of such letters to them has no basis in law as they are no different from those to whom letters have been given. The absence of a reasonable, logical or intelligible yardstick for determining eligibility leaves DDA officials free to distribute offers as per their whims, which encourages illegal and corrupt practices. As per its Act DDA cannot forcibly evict residents without prior notice and an opportunity for being heard, but is refusing to reply to written requests for the same. Both petitions pray for orders restraining DDA from shifting the petitioners in violation of the Master Plan and for DDA to develop for them low income housing as per Master Plan norms on a site within Vasant Kunj as per approved layout plan.
Week-4 (Friday 15.08.02 – Thursday 22.08.02): DDA accepts notice, attempts demolition
On 16.08.02 Delhi High Court issued notice to DDA to file reply. On the evening of Monday 19.08.02 DDA officials came to say demolition would take place on Wednesday. On Tuesday the residents’ counsel filed applications and wrote to DDA counsel to instruct DDA in view of having accepted notice on also the applications for stay. Residents sought intervention from political representatives and I faxed an open letter to 'highest offices' and delivered copies of the letter to DDA Counsel to DDA offices and local and zonal police stations. I also gave the lawyer’s letter and the six receipts to the Federation, which was participating in the Chief Minister’s bhagidari workshop. We decided residents would shift their belongings to minimise loss and spread word for those who thought this demolition should be protested to reach the site by 10 AM. On the morning of Wednesday 21.08.02, the last day of the Chief Minister’s bhagidari workshop, I faxed her a letter about the imminent demolition being protested in a rare bhagidari between flat and slum residents. Bulldozers and police force arrived at the police station and ‘outsiders’ began to arrive in Arjun Camp to express solidarity. By noon we heard the demolition had been postponed. The SHO said had decided to give a reprieve till Friday, Thursday being a festival day, and the former MLA came around to take credit. The lawyers called to say that the Court had had given permission to approach DDA for clarifications about entitlements, etc.
Week-5 (Friday 23.08.02 to Thursday 29.08.02): Handwritten 'notice', peculiar quotes and other willfulness
DDA officials had come by late on Thursday evening to serve ‘notice’ - handwritten on blank paper - for demolition on Tuesday 27.08.02. On Friday residents wrote to DDA VC to seek clarifications about entitlements. Also on Friday, a news report on their case quoted DDA VC as saying, “It is true that human beings cannot be wished away but slums have to be removed as they obstruct certain prioritised programmes decided by the regional task force”. It also said the VC “does not recognise” minimum plot size norms, saying that “there is no legislation on that yet” and, “We go by government orders passed from time to time. At present, we go by the order which says that 12 sqm is the limit for those who have settled after 1993 and 18 sqm for those who settled before 1993”. I wrote to Union Ministry of Urban Development, DDA’s nodal ministry, to ask details of the regional task force priorities and government orders clearly contrary to statutory provisions of the Master Plan. On Monday morning a copy of the court order, directing DDA's immediate compliance on representations seeking clarifications, was obtained. In the afternoon a group of residents and I went to meet DDA VC in public meeting hours, but neither he nor the concerned Commissioner was in office. We were directed to a Deputy who was not inclined to consider any orders from the court that did not explicitly mention a stay and said that the demolition was being effected under the orders of Lieutenant Governor (Chairman of DDA) on request of some individual flat residents. On Monday evening we again prepared to register protest against demolition. Again on Tuesday the demolition did not happen. On Wednesday, there was again police force and bulldozer at the police station and panic in Arjun Camp and again the demolition did not happen. Appalled in equal measure by the climate of uncertainty and DDA’s indifference, I wrote to DDA VC with copies to the Ministry and Planning Commission.
Week-6 (Friday 30.08.02 to Thursday 05.09.02): Demolition plans amidst call for review of relocation!
On Friday residents of Arjun Camp wrote to DDA VC, with copies of the court’s orders. They also requested that DDA staff be instructed not to take precipitate action till clarification about their entitlements had been provided and that a copy of these instructions be sent to them. On Monday 02.09.02, a newspaper reported on the appalling conditions in the resettlement scheme where DDA officials had said 'eligible' residents would be given plots. On Tuesday 03.09.02 a DDA tout came to Arjun Camp and announced demolition on 13.09.02. On Wednesday 04.09.02 a DDA official called up someone in Arjun Camp to again say that those given letters should come and deposit payment. Also on 04.09.02 there was a news report about Municipal Commissioner calling for a review of slum relocation policy in view of conditions in resettlement schemes. I wrote in detail to him, with reference to previous correspondence, about the impossibility of solving the slum problem without using the statutory Plan provisions for land for low-income housing. I also wrote to DDA VC to ask that DDA officials be instructed to leave Arjun Camp residents alone not only till DDA had responded to their representation but also, in view of Municipal Commissioner’s views, till government had made up its mind about what needed doing about the slum problem. I sent copies to the Ministry and Planning Commission.
Week-7 (Friday 06.09.02 to Thursday 12.09.02): 'Encroachers' again!
While there was some anxiety, the demolition threat for 13.09.02 was not being taken seriously since neither DDA nor police staff had mentioned anything and residents decided to do no more than monitor the police station for bulldozers and police force. DDA, in its counter-affidavit in an another matter, referred to the nearly 50-year old settlement of Rangpuri Pahari, on whose prior efforts since 2000 the Arjun Camp cases are based, as ‘encroachment’. Rangpuri Pahari residents wrote to DDA, referring to the court’s directions in the Arjun Camp case, to seek clarifications about their entitlements.
Week-8 (Friday 13.09.02 to Thursday 19.09.02): Look who's 'encroacher'!
On 13.09.02 there was no attempt to demolish Arjun Camp, but in the evening DDA’s law officer called the residents’ counsel for copy of the court’s order of 21.08.02 since DDA had sought legal opinion on feasibility of demolition. It struck me as singularly inappropriate that DDA had not, instead, sought legal opinion on entitlements. I was writing to National Human Rights Commission about DDA's reference on affidavit to Rangpuri Pahari as 'encroachment' in continuation of an earlier letter to object to DDA’s plea that it had not given notice before demolition there in July 2000 because there was no policy to give notice to 'encroachers'. I was anyway referring to Arjun Camp and mentioned also DDA’s curious preferences for use of legal services paid for by taxpayers. In Court we won the case against DDA’s illegal scheme of 2000 HIG flats in green belt, in which DDA had labeled Rangpuri Pahari 'encroachment'. On 16.09.02 in a strongly worded judgment the court court directed complete stoppage of work as well as an inquiry .
Week-9 (Friday 20.09.02 to Thursday 26.09.02): Using the opportunity of Public Notice to raise the issue of Plan entitlements
The Rangpuri Pahari / Sultangarhi case precipitated the mandatory Public Notice inviting objections and suggestions on the proposal to change Master Plan land use of the site. On 15.09.02, one day before final hearing and six months after start of construction, DDA published this belated notice. Various citizens’ groups in the area that have been engaging with DDA since 2000 for implementation of their Plan entitlements decided to respond in an orchestrated manner. Convenors of the Master Plan Implementation Support Group, their synergy platform, filed collective objections forwarding objections already raised since 2001 by groups convened by them. On 24.09.02 an objection on behalf of Arjun Camp, among others, was filed by the Convenor of Service Providers’ Groups in MPISG. With reference to the Arjun Camp court matters, it said, “We learn that in its counter-affidavit filed in court in the matter of the scheme for which this Public Notice has been issued, DDA has justified building HIG flats in the area on grounds of ‘housing shortage’. We do not consider this a valid reason for Master Plan amendment because, as per Master Plan norms, ‘housing shortage’ in the area is by way of housing for service providers and not HIG, and DDA has yet to reply in the Arjun Camp court case.”
Week-10 (Friday 27.09.02 to Thursday 03.10.02): Another demolition attempt, while work on DDA's own illegal scheme continued
Even as construction on DDA's scheme continued in defiance of court orders, on 01.10.02 we learned of plans for demolition of Arjun Camp on 03.10.02. MPISG wrote to DDA Vice Chairman to say, “Court orders (besides DDA’s mandate of development according to Master Plan) require you, as custodian of the Plan, to demolish DDA's construction in violation of the Plan and to clarify/protect Plan entitlements of Arjun Camp residents. DDA is doing the reverse, with no discernible basis in anything in democratic society, and sadly around 2nd October.” A copy of the letter was handed to area SHO. Copies were also faxed to PM, CM, UDM and VP Singh to solicit their intervention. On 03.10.02 MPISG faxed to DDA VC (with copy to SHO) a letter saying that in view of pendency of DDA’s replies pursuant to court orders in Arjun Camp matter and due process on objection filed on 24.09.02 and because no demolition notice was served, we would protest by asking officials for a court order permitting demolition (since we are constantly asked to show a stay order) and, if not shown such order, ask them to sign this letter to say they take responsibility for extra-judicial action amounting to frustration of process of law. The demolition was averted.
Week-11/12 (Friday 04.10.02 to Thursday 17.10.02): Residents file individual objections in response to Public Notice, another demolition threat
Rattled by DDA’s demolition threat, residents of Arjun Camp filed individual objections in response to the Public Notice about DDA's illegal scheme. There were again rumours of demolition of Arjun Camp on 15.10.02, while work on DDA’s own illegal scheme also continued. The next four days being holidays, on 11.10.02 MPISG wrote to DDA VC to ask him to ensure no demolition action to expedite response to representations made by the petitioners in August. On 16.10.02 a certified copy of the court judgement stopping DDA’s scheme was obtained. A copy, along with copies of orders in the Arjun Camp matter, was filed in the police station.
Weeks-13/…/18 (Friday 18.10.02 to Thursday 28.11.02): Defiantly drifting from mandate
Work on DDA’s illegal scheme continued for another month. In the Arjun Camp matter DDA did not reply to either the petitions or the representations. DDA’s minions and touts as well as local politicians were advising residents about the futility of court cases and pragmatism of paying up, if only to make a quick buck by selling the allotment. The recent demolition threats had proved more disruptive than the earlier ones and some had gone and paid up and others were upset about that. The constant plea of those at the police station that they were constrained to not act against DDA's scheme as well as to give it force for demolition was dismaying. On 25.10.02 I wrote to area DCP and Police Commissioner to point out need to review the constraining procedural regime based on the assumption that public authorities do not violate laws. On 02.11.02 I wrote to new DDA VC to ask, among other things, why work on DDA’s illegal scheme had not stopped and why DDA had not responded in the Arjun Camp case. On 14.11.02, following Union Minister's announcement of free flats on lines of Mumbai, Rangpuri Pahari residents wrote to suggest adapting the model to conform to the Master Plan and to seek written assurance against demolitions in the meantime. On 17.11.02, following a TV news report about the failure of the Mumbai Model in Mumbai, I wrote to MoUD/DDA to argue it was inadequate and in Delhi illegal / amounting to ‘double profiteering’, ‘simulating’ for Vasant Kunj a comparative appraisal between Mumbai Model and Plan implementation. On 25.11.02, following DDA’s announcement that it would focus on HIG housing, I wrote to MoUD/DDA to say this has no basis in, in fact is illegal under, the Plan, Act and land policy and to ask for ideas amounting to downsizing citizens’ Plan entitlements to be held in abeyance at least in Vasant Kunj where clarifications on entitlements were due from DDA.
Week-19 (Friday 29.11.02 to Thursday 05.12.02): Slum resettlement policy quashed for being illegal
On 29.11.02 a Division Bench of the High Court, in matters filed by some factory workers’ associations, struck down Delhi’s slum policy of providing alternative plots before clearing slums for having no basis and for getting in the way of planned development. The court order effectively upheld one half of the contention of the Arjun Camp cases. The other half did not come up, as neither petitioners nor respondents in the PIL referred to the fact that 'planned development' is not a phrase in English but a concept duly defined in law as development according to Master Plan, inclusive of statutory Plan entitlements of poor families that have not been implemented. Mid-winter evictions became imminent and DDA minions and touts became active in Arjun Camp, advising all to quickly pay up before any change in policy pursuant to the court's orders.
Week-20 (Friday 06.12.02 to Thursday 12.12.02): Arjun Camp cases survive but mid-winter demolitions seem clearly imminent
The Arjun Camp cases came up for hearing on 10.12.02. The Court gave DDA two more weeks to file reply in the main petitions and allowed the applications for stay to be withdrawn at that stage. In a number of matters already heard the same day the Court had given directions for demolition in view of the November judgment. In Arjun Camp, with the matter listed now for May 2003, residents, while the felt more confident about their case that had survived, were badly demoralised by the delay on the part of DDA. In a feeble attempt against precipitate demolitions in Vasant Kunj, Rangpuri Pahari residents began to solicit political support for response to their letter of 14.11.02 to the Minister seeking, among other things, written assurance of no demolition. I continued trying, without success, to draw attention to the possibility of not opposing the Division Bench judgment and, instead, demanding accountability on implementation of entitlements with reference to the part of the judgment allowing government to come up with an alternative for the poor as well as on government’s failure to inform the court about what lawfully constitutes planned development.
Weeks-21/24 (Friday 13.12.02 to Thursday 09.01.03): Politics, promises and night shelters amidst mid-winter evictions
Mid-winter evictions began in Delhi and immediately led to a broad consensus across the political spectrum, spilling over to NGOs, against the court judgment. As MCD, Delhi Government and Union Government all announced intent to appeal and others endorsed and claimed credit for these announcements, talk of in-situ options re-surfaced. To these there was expected and understandable adverse reaction from non-slum residents. In Vasant Kunj some flat residents who had been supportive of the Arjun Camp case became ambivalent. With MCD, Delhi Government and Central Government all having announced intent to appeal, at least the danger of large-scale mid-winter evictions was averted, though the threat remained. No appeal was actually filed, nor was there any clear indication about the grounds for appeal. What was worrying was there was considerable enthusiasm about night shelters for the homeless amongst NGOs and government alike amidst lack of seriousness about mid-winter evictions.
Week-25 (Friday 10.01.03 to Thursday 16.01.03): Nearly demolished!
On Monday 13.01.03 Arjun Camp faced the most serious demolition threat so far. With bulldozer and police force ready to leave the station, we lodged as a ‘complaint’ a copy of a letter faxed to DDA VC, copies of which were also delivered to our Councilor, MLA and VP Singh with reference to assurances of, respectively, MCD, Delhi Government and PM about filing appeals. In this letter we reiterated our view that demolition would amount to frustrating process of law in view of pendency of DDA’s reply to the petitions and representations in the Arjun Camp matter and due process on objections filed in response to Public Notice precipitated by the matter of DDA’s illegal scheme in Rangpuri Pahari. We said that we maintain our view even after the Division Bench judgment of 29.11.02 on account of three things. One, the Court has not directed mid-winter evictions, only that evictions may be effected where slums are getting in the way of planned development, and has asked the government to come out with an alternative for housing the poor. Two, the Arjun Camp petitions have also challenged the legality of the slum policy and sought settlement according to the Master Plan and, as such, it would arguably be against the spirit of the Court’s judgment for it to be used against them. Three, when the Arjun Camp matter was heard on 10.12.02 (ie subsequent to the DB judgment), it was not dismissed, rather the court directed DDA to file reply within two weeks, which it has not done. We further said that we find it incomprehensible why mid-winter demolitions are being considered at all since Central Government, Delhi government and MCD have all announced that they are about to seek a review of the judgment and in the case of Arjun Camp in particular where there is no urgent purpose to justify such precipitate action. We sought immediate instructions, with copy to us, to guarantee no precipitate action is taken in Arjun Camp by DDA till the Court has heard the matter as well as the petitions that our governments are proposing to file. We asked our SHO to consider this a complaint and seek written response to this letter before providing force so that officials responsible for frustrating process of law are identifiable. We told him that we would stand outside Arjun Camp with copies of this letter and let the bulldozer pass only after DDA and Police officials had signed to accept responsibility for demolition. Demolition was averted, perhaps for the first time after the Novemebr judgment. By afternoon all politicians whose intervention we had solicited had come around or called to claim credit. We thanked them all and I wrote to them the following day to express gratitude as well as to solicit intervention for expediting reply in the Arjun Camp matter as well as appeal in the larger issue. I also asked them to please ensure, in the meantime, necessary clarifications to the effect that the court had not directed mid-winter evictions. I also wrote to the Police Commissioner in respect of the last. In all these letters I mentioned that I would be giving a plannerly talk at IIC about the November judgment.
Weeks-26/.../29 (Friday 17.01.03 to Thursday 13.02.03): Public talk, public hearing and ...waiting
I dwelled on the Arjun Camp cases in my talk on 18.01.03. Also in the Public Hearing on 27.01.03 of responses to the Public Notice in the Rangpuri Pahari / Sultangarhi matter, to which no one in Arjun Camp had received an invitation, I brought up the Arjun Camp cases and the need for DDA to file reply in view of the uncertainty about the slum issue subsequent to the November judgment. There were no indications of any one moving court about the November judgement. On 25.01.03 news papers had a report about VP Singh exhorting people to themselves undo the court order, another about DDA and local politicians meeting RWAs of flat residents to discuss plans for the first site cleared through mid-winter evictions, and an edit-page article celebrating night shelters. In view of all this, besides not having been invited to the Public Hearing, Arjun Camp residents wrote to DDA VC to expedite reply in their court cases. In the same week the minister had, again, been quoted saying in the media that planners had not thought of service providers’ housing. I wrote him a letter asking that he retract this baseless accusation, enclosing a long list of letters through which I had drawn his attention and the attention of successive Secretaries to statutory provisions clearly stated in the Master Plan. The Arjun Camp case featured prominently in this letter. An NGO invited me at short notice to a meeting about the November judgment. I declined to attend because it is part of a group very given to undermining the Master Plan since 2000. Currently some of this group's constituents were advocating and celebrating Night Shelters for the homeless, which I found inconsistent with any genuine concern mid-winter evictions to render people homeless. Since counsel who had appeared for the petitioners was already invited to the meeting and since I had posted the talk I had given on the web, I thought I was not holding back any information and I told them they could get back for any plannerly clarification but that as a matter of principle I did not attend meetings of NGOs hostile towards planners and disrespectful of the Master Plan.
Week-30/.../34 (Friday 14.02.03 to Thursday 20.03.03): Union Government's SLP... with no reference to Plan entitlements!
With reference to a letter from DDA that said, "Due to the recent decision of the High Court on relocation of the squatters, the relocation programmes have been kept on hold. DDA is also actively looking into the concept evolved by SRA for rehabilitation of the squatters" I wrote to MoUD on 14.02.03 to once again ask for Plan entitlements of the poor to be placed before the court in the matter of the November judgment. I also asked for the basis on which DDA was 'actively looking' into SRA’s concept (Mumbai Model) and why had it already brought out on 10.12.02 a notice inviting NGO-builders for the same. With reference to a spate of advertisements for up-market housing schemes I wrote on 02.03.03 to point out inconsistency with land policy and priorities under Plan provisions and asked about the promised appeal against the November judgment as well as reply in Arjun Camp cases. Following news reports of court orders for clearing encroachments along the river, I wrote on 07.03.03 to point out several non-slum encroachments and to ask that the November judgment not be misused against slums as had already been done to effect arbitrary mid-winter demolitions. Following publication of a Public Notice for land acquisition for resettlement I wrote on 10.03.03 to point out that the notice was contrary to the Master Plan and the November judgment and to ask that public be informed about the court's view as well as the contentions of the Arjun Camp cases about the public purpose for which land acquisition is proposed. I subsequently learned that Government of India had filed an SLP against the November judgment in the Supreme Court. On 19.02.03 the Supreme Court had ordered that "it will be open to the Union of india to proceed with the impugned policy. However, no allotment of land shall be made in pursuance thereof, till further orders". On 03.03.03 it had ordered that "Interim stay shall continue except that the Authority may allot land. However such allotment would clearly specify that the allotment would be subject to the result of the petitions". On 04.03.03 a Public Notice for land acquisition for resettlement was issued even as the Supreme Court had not quite permitted fresh acquisition. When MoUD did not respond to clarify the legality of acquisition for resettlement I filed a formal objection in response to the Public Notice. (Later I learned another such Public Notice had been issued on 06.02.03, ie, even before the Government had approached the Supreme Court, on subsequent s.6 Notice for which, too, I filed formal objection. And a visit to the resettlement area where Arjun Camp was to be relocated revealed that the Indian Oil Corporation has won a court case against DDA and people who had been shifted there from other places and had built their homes have been told that they would be shifted again. There is also a gas pipeline).
Week-35/.../40 (Friday 21.03.03 to Thursday 01.05.03): Rajiv Gandhi Camp demolition, Delhi government doublespeak and the DDA scam
On 24.03.03 Rajiv Gandhi, a small settlement of about 50 homes at the other end of the same park as Arjun Camp was demolished without notice. On 25.03.03 Delhi Assembly passed a resolution against slum demolitions. On 26.03.03 residents of Rajiv Gandhi Camp went to see the Chief Minister. They only managed a letter to DDA asking it look into resettlement possibilities. Later the CM gave a slum elsewhere demolished around the same time permission for reconstruction. Rajiv Gandhi residents approached her for similar relief, purely as interim arrangement, but managed only a reminder letter to DDA asking also that they be given, besides resettlement option, a personal hearing. MPISG wrote to DDA VC to seek a meeting to discuss the slum issue in the context of the contentions of the Arjun Camp cases and the illegality of resettlement. DDA VC had changed because on 27.03.03 CBI had raided top DDA officials and the Vice Chairman, Commissioner Planning and Commissioner Land and Director Land - officials with whom we had been corresponding - were all implicated and by and by arrested in the greatest DDA scam so far. One of the most significant exposes, one that led to the arrest of a High Court judge, related to one Sahara restaurant, bar and discotheque - occupying the Janta Housing site to which Arjun Camp residents had staked claim in their court cases.
Week-41/42 (Friday 02.05.03 to Thursday 15.05.03): Court hearing, uncertainty and giving up
In Arjun Camp, quite few of those who had been allotted offer-cum-demand-letters had paid up. Some of the others had left. Touts had been active and no one had a complete picture of what was happening. The case came up for hearing on 07.05.03. DDA had not filed reply and was given a last opportunity, with instruction of fine and personal appearance of Vice Chairman in event of failure to do so. The matter was listed for final hearing on 22.08.03. At Sahara it was business as usual even after the CBI expose. Rajiv Gandhi Camp residents had started a sit-out a month ago and it had got them no where. The CM's letter to DDA directing resettlement had confused matters completely. The long gap to the next hearing was very demoralising. Amidst all this a tout got busy and nearly all who had not paid up were persuaded to do so. We wrote to DDA VC about the tout, having already written to him about the irony of the continuing sit-out at Rajiv Gandhi Camp and the partying at Sahara and sought a meeting, for clarification of DDA's stand on resettlement.
19.05.2003: Demolished, Arjun Camp was demolished in an operation lasting more than 8 hours, starting 2 hours after residents were told, with more police officers than usual and without any papers being shown to residents 

Vasant Kunj is a residential area designed in mid-80s by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a population of 100,000, the population size defined in the statutory Master Plan for Delhi as a ‘community’. The Master Plan advocates integrated neighbourhoods for synergetic communities and norms for making this happen are clearly stated at this level of hierarchy and require 25 per cent of the housing to be by way of cheap plots. Standards for low-income housing are also clearly stated in the Plan and do not normally permit plots less than 25 square metres and densities higher than 250 dwellings per hectare. In Vasant Kunj low-income housing has not been developed. Since July 2000, when DDA attempted demolition of an old settlement in the area, local groups have been demanding implementation of statutory provisions for low-income housing for solving the ‘slum problem’. The ‘alternatives’ of slum upgrading and resettlement, although they enjoy considerable currency, are both ‘illegal’ under the Master Plan, being violative of its standards for low income housing as well as norms for residential communities. They amount also to ‘shortchanging’ the poor, offering them far less than their statutory entitlements. Besides being unacceptable from a land equity perspective, they also have serious implications for carrying capacity inasmuch as when land is stolen from the kitty of the poor and put to up-market uses, infrastructure demand exceeds designed capacities. Since DDA is mandated to secure development according to Plan and public land was placed in its custody only to facilitate this, its failure to develop low-income housing makes Delhi’s slum problem an implementation backlog meriting priority in further development. Seen thus, re-settling the poor in sub-standard development and using land meant to settle them for up-market uses are both clear and serious cases of misuse of public land in ways that jeopardise equity and carrying capacity in the city. It is from this planned (rather than any ‘humane’ or ‘contemporary’) development perspective that citizens’ groups in Vasant Kunj are opposing DDA’s proposal to demolish Arjun Camp, a 15-year old settlement with about 200 families on a site for a park adjoining a pocket of DDA flats.

chronicle: Arjun Camp (2002-08-23)
Days of Irony and Doublethink: On the evening of Thursday 22.08.22, the 'festival day' for which the SHO had magnanimously given Arjun Camp a 'reprieve', DDA officials visited the residents, not for festival greetings, but to serve them a 'notice'.
  • The notice is (very neatly) handwritten on a blank paper rather than on DDA stationery. It informs residents of DDA's plans to demolish the settlement on Tuesday 27.08.02 and advises those who have been given 'offer-cum-demand letters' for alternative plots in a scheme and manner that violates the Master Plan to deposit their papers and payment in DDA office immidiately.
  • This notice of four-days (including only two working days) demanding compliance of DDA's offer-cum-demand was 'served' in spite of the said offer-come-demand being subject of the matter before the court and, therefore, covered by the court's direction of 16.08.02 to DDA to file a reply and its direction of 21.08.02 to DDA to consider a representation from the residents.
It was opposed by some residents. Expectedly, public servants responded to rather reasonable public objection by saying that now they would ensure that demolition actually happens. On 23.08.02, instead of waiting for a copy of the court order before sending representations for DDA's consideration, the same were sent to DDA in view of the 'notice'. A report in Indian Express stated DDA Vice Chairman 'brushes away government promises on regularisation of pre-1998 slums' and says, 'It is true that human beings cannot be wished away but slums have to be removed as they obstruct certain prioritised programmes decided by the regional task force'. The site occupied by Arjun Camp, it may be recalled is only for a park, also, no regional task force can rise above the statutory Master Plan. The report also stats that the DDA Vice Chairman 'does not recognise' minimum plot size norms, saying that 'there is no legislation on that yet' and, 'We go by government orders passed from time to time. At present, we go by the order which says that 12 sqm is the limit for those who have settled after 1993 and 18 sqm for those who settled before 1993'. Obviously, the Vice Chairman of DDA (and the Custodian of the Master Plan) believes he is to take orders from the government of the day even if they are contrary to the statutory provisions.

Master Plan of Delhi: A Toy of DDA, by Anshul Sudan

`Delhi Development Authority (DDA)’, a prestigious organization set up under the Act of Parliament to develop the city according to the Master Plan and to develop norms and standards for housing, green belts, markets, community centres, etc, are themselves acting as a rule violator and misusing public land in the name of its development.

Vasant Kunj episode is a glaring example of the gross violation of the Master Plan and more surprisingly it is backed up by several qualified Planners and political leaders. Its policy of developing housing in the area which is already allocated for the green belt has raised several questions to be answered on the sincerity, integrity and dedication of the DDA to implement the Master Plan in letter and spirit which is virtually prepared for them and by them. It is a dilemma that the Authority which is set up to see that there is no violation of Master Plan and has done massive demolition in Lajpat Nagar, Roop Nagar etc. areas for misuse of Master Plan i.e. unauthorized constructions is now itself carrying on the unauthorized use of public land. It is a pity on the part of the qualified planners who have been learning and practicing planning for years to support the policy of housing which has been declared a no water area by the CGWA.

The other blow of the DDA is towards the slum dwellers of Arjun Camp who are eligible for a 25 sq.mtr. of plot are allotted a mere land of 10-12 sq. mtr. and that too on an unspecified location. The complete ignorance of DDA will encourage other land uses to develop on a land which is already allocated for EWS and will create an acute shortage and pressure on the already depleted infrastructure. These unlawful acts of DDA would encourage the private developers to develop land according to their own standards.

It is more regretting that the personal visits and requests in writing put forward by the residents and the slum dwellers to the higher authorities including Vice Chairman were completely ignored and surprisingly the statement given by the Vice Chairman shows that he never looked a Book called the `Master Plan of Delhi’. In fact, the DDA is not owning its responsibility of the problems faced by the affected slum dwellers who are sitting without food and work constantly waiting for the demolition squad.

I, as a Planner, is embarrassed by these uncalled for acts of DDA and other Planning Authorities which I look forward for help and understanding the complications of Master Plan of Delhi better.

....

As a planning student and a professional in making and as a responsible citizen I strongly critisize the move taken by the biggest development authority of India in respect to the Arjun Camp situation.

The people residing in the Arjun Camp in Vasant Kunj have been living there since last 40 years and the decision to demolish the slums and build HIG units is highly irresponsible decision on behalf of DDA.

The DDA which was formed by the parliament act as the biggest planning authority of Delhi for the planned development of Delhi has prepared the first Master Plan of Delhi in 1962. The DDA which is responsible for the monitoring and implementation of plan is itself violating the provisions of Delhi Master Plan. The DDA which was about to develop the low income and economically weaker section housing units as per the Master Plan provisions haven’t developed it in the Vasant Kunj area. The development authority is infact providing the land for upmarket uses such as the upcoming of the grand hotel and other high income units thus adherent of a particular section of a society.

The offer given to the residents or Arjun Camp is even more acidulous as the residents are not sure where will be the possible location of their resettlement. The steps taken by the development authority to clear its backlog of housing units on the cost of these residents is anti-poor and is Inhuman and also this cannot be called as professionalism as there are no Legal rights to these authorities to bend , sorry break the rules in their self interest. If this is the example the biggest development authority in Delhi is going to set this will be a real cheers for other planning authorities and firms that they can easily break the rules as adage “No fear when law makers are the law breakers“.

There is acute shortage of water in Delhi and in particular Vasant Kunj, as we all know and even the DJB also marked it on the proposal by the DDA to built new housing units , the DDA didn’t gave a hearing to it and carried on with the proposals. The DDA defending its actions on the basis that the land has been acquired for the planned development is proving that the either the authorities can’t differentiate that holding the land does not mean that it can change landuse whenever it wants or either it is a deliberate action serving the interest of a section of people. The other defensive measures taken by DDA as it promises to fulfill the water requirements through rain water harvesting is also not satisfying as the experts feel that the supply will still be abridge of the demand.

At last I would like to say that it has reached acme of irresponsibility and should be strongly conveyed to them.