In the name of holy Yamuna

Gita Dewan Verma / Planner / posted: 24.04.2003 / updated: 10.02.2004


In March 2003 Delhi High Court has ordered removal of Yamuna encroachments in two months. Yamuna encroachments brings to mind the sprawling Yamuna Pushta, Delhi's best known slum or, rather, series of slums. But there is more to riverbed encroachments than Pushta.The riverbed is protected by Delhi Master Plan and by notification of Central Ground Water Authority. All uses in violation of these protecting statutes are riverbed encroachments, including the much celebrated Metro Depot.Of course, the purpose of directions for Yamuna encroachment removal is less to do with land and landuse and more to do with river pollution. It is, however, noteworthy that sensible landuse decisions, such as those in the Delhi Master Plan thus far, have strong environmental and sustainability underpinnings and that sensible pollution assessments do not rely only on manifest squalor or absence of it. The Metro Depot, for instance, is also a polluting use. >> more


A drive to clear Yamuna Pushta was launched in January 2004, purportedly in compliance of court orders, at instance of Union Minister for Culture. Delhi government was quick to protest - not the relocation or interpretation of court orders, but the timing. Even those who have moved courts have only sought time - till after winter, school examinations, provision of services in resettlement area. The purpose of court orders for Yamuna (given by Supreme Court before the High Court order) and the fact of the resettlement policy having been quashed by High Court and being sub-judice in SLP in Supreme Court, not to mention the fact of development (and demolitions) in absence of Zonal Plan pre-empting opportunity for public participation through Public Notice guaranteed by law, feature nowhere in this debate1. Dr A V Baliga Memorial Trust, however, included in its representation of 16.01.2004 a note on these points and, pursuant to proceedings of 03.02.2004 in the Supreme Court, one of the petitioners associated with the Trust made a detailed representation seeking a meeting for their clarification. On 05.02.2004 plans to regularize unauthorised colonies were announced, whereupon a letter was sent about those and the anomaly of simultaneous plans to demolish Pushta. A request has been sent to hold precipitate action in abeyance in view of High Court orders 10.04.2004 in the Arjun Camp cases.


mail to [email protected]


In March 2003 Delhi High Court has ordered removal of Yamuna encroachments in two months. Yamuna encroachments brings to mind the sprawling Yamuna Pushta, Delhi's best known slum or, rather, series of slums. But there is more to riverbed encroachments than Pushta.The riverbed is protected by Delhi Master Plan and by notification of Central Ground Water Authority. All uses in violation of these protecting statutes are riverbed encroachments, including the much celebrated Metro Depot.Of course, the purpose of directions for Yamuna encroachment removal is less to do with land and landuse and more to do with river pollution. It is, however, noteworthy that sensible landuse decisions, such as those in the Delhi Master Plan thus far, have strong environmental and sustainability underpinnings and that sensible pollution assessments do not rely only on manifest squalor or absence of it. The Metro Depot, for instance, is also a polluting use.

Court orders in such PIL need to be taken seriously so that they precipitate time-bound action plans rather than become excuses for arbitrary interventions to add to a plethora of dis-jointed ones already ongoing only so that some shoddy compliance can be reported to the court. Such compliance activity is unlikely to have any worthwhile impact. This is obvious from the 7-year-long PIL-led governance interventions in erroneously linked industrial relocation and river pollution that have entirely failed to solve either problem and have, instead, served to divert attention from sensible solutions.Following news reports of the Court's order for Yamuna encroachment removal, in letter of 07.03.2003 to both governments an action plan that provides plausible assurance of solving at least some problem was requested since the stupendous task of clearing all Yamuna encroachments in two months is impossible. The letter was also posted via e-mail in public domain. In another letter of 10.03.2003 to both governments some further points were raised about encroachments and comment sought on the suggestion for an action plan. Even as no action plan has been made public, arbitrary slum demolitions seem to have started on 22.04.2003 even as the issue of slum resettlement is sub-judice. In a letter of 23.04.2003 to both governments confirmation of the same has been sought and request for action plan reiterated.

It might help for more people to ask for a solution in place of mere compliance.

This page is posted as DMP 2021 engage activity because it is consistent with the purpose of this minder and some effort has been made to draw attention of concerned government authorities through letters and of others by placing in public domain information based on professional work. Some others have also written after the letter of 07.03.2003 was circulated. Please mail to [email protected] details of anything you do, or have already done, to join this activity.

>> more about the river, metro depot, yamuna pushta tracked in 2001-2003 is to be posted

Letter of 07.03.2003 to both governments

Secretary, MoUD, GoI

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

Sub: Today’s news reports about High Court order to clear encroachments on and along Yamuna


According to today’s news reports, Delhi High Court has directed all authorities concerned ”to forthwith remove all unauthorised structures on Yamuna bed and its embankment within two months" and Central and Delhi governments have been directed to file compliance report by May 14. It appears the order was given in a petition about encroachment of government land by ‘slum dwellers and other individuals with vested interests’. Specific reference seems to have been made to ‘pucca houses, jhuggies and places for religious worship’. Reference seems to have also been made to the government’s slum resettlement policy that the Court struck down in November 2002.

In deep dismay, I am constrained to write to you yet again to place on record my views as a planner:

1. The reportage suggests that in general, government has yet again failed to place before the Court what lawfully constitutes planned development in terms, especially, of the following:

  • Land use, and hence misuse, in Delhi is governed only by the Master Plan and its enabling Delhi Development Act, of which DDA and MoUD are custodians.
  • The Act does not contemplate public land ownership, only development according to Plan on public land, to be ensured by DDA not only on ‘its’ land but throughout Delhi.
  • DDA’s powers against misuse are subservient to its purpose of securing development according to Plan. Hence it cannot (a) use its powers to clear land for unplanned use, or (b) simplistically and conveniently label its implementation backlog ‘encroachers’.
  • Other public authorities vested with public land for specific purposes are expected to develop, maintain and protect it in furtherance of development according to Plan. While they must firmly act against land-grabbers and vested interests, if they ‘clear’, say, slum dwellers without any clarity on slum / low-income housing policy, they will only be abetting unplanned slum development elsewhere
  • DDA’s implementation priorities for planned development, including priorities for action against unplanned development, are to be guided by planning data under mandatory monitoring provisions of the Master Plan and require slums to be treated as backlog on account of abject failure to implement statutory provisions for low-income housing.
  • The ongoing Master Plan revision makes comprehensive planning data from monitoring as well as civic surveys mandatory at the moment, leaving no basis for planning decisions to be taken, including in courts, without reference to this data.

2. The vague reference to ‘pucca houses, including jhuggis and places of worship’ suggests that the Court was not provided results of, say, mandatory Plan revision surveys that would have mapped all encroachments, which may well be why the order does not refer to the metro police station, surely the most unacceptable encroachment along the river at present as:

  • It encroaches not only public space (riverbed/green as per the Master Plan) but also ‘democratic space’, being perhaps the only case of subversion of due process of law for public participation in planning. Public Notice inviting objections/suggestions for land use change was issued and objections filed have not been heard even as building use was inaugurated on 24.02.03. (Please refer to my letters of 20.02.03 and 25.02.03).
  • All authorities directed, in their capacity as ‘land owning agencies’ (a concept with dubious basis in law), by the court to remove encroachments from ‘their’ land are themselves ‘accomplices’ in this encroachment, leaving them no moral right to act against ‘encroachers’
  • Police, without whose assistance encroachment removal is not carried out, is itself an identically situated encroacher who chose, presumably without any compulsion, to occupy this illegal building, leaving it no moral right to facilitate removal of other ‘encroachers’, many of whom are ‘encroachers’ out of no choice.

3. The reference to ‘slum dwellers and other individuals with vested interests’, along with reference to slum policy struck down in November, suggests government, in the greatest possible subversion of democracy, is prepared to go as far as allowing citizens it has failed to be painted culprits, only to sweep its own failures under the carpet. I reiterate the contents of my letter of 02.03.03, enclosing list of previous letters, questions, etc, basically reducing to:

  • The Plan anticipated 4.25 lakh additional EWS families by 2001 and provided for standard cheap plots, integrated in all residential development (25% at level of 1 lakh population).
  • These provisions have not been implemented, despite explicit pro-poor objectives of land policy, and the non-implementation amounts to denial of entitlements amounting to 2000 Ha.
  • Census of 2001 has found about 4 lakh slum families, making slums a case of implementation failure that cannot be dismissed as ‘encroachments’ within the ambit of the Act and Plan.
  • ALL development under Delhi’s slum policy has been in violation of the Plan and, being of a type that the Plan cautions against, tantamount to misuse, adding further to the land-scam.
  • ALL alternatives currently being proposed as ‘solutions’ are also violative of the Plan, conceptually and empirically flawed, outright illegal and amounting to short-changing on entitlements to permit profiteering on public land, adding a third dimension to the land-scam.

By keeping from the Court the full facts of the matter the government has, in effect, secured the Courts’s seal of approval for its profiteering on public land by denying statutory land entitlements of citizens and painting them as land grabbers. The responsibility for this obfuscation lies with DDA/MoUD as custodians of the entitlements in question. At present this is especially so as DDA has not bothered to reply, nor has MoUD bothered to ensure that it replies, in a current sub-judice matter seeking accountability on housing entitlements. Nor has MoUD, despite PM’s assurances in December, moved court on the November order, even as PM’s directions were used to justify, on affidavit in another matter, illegal scam-ridden DDA HIG mega-housing projects.

4. It is more than obvious that just as the court order of November 2002 was mis-used for effecting arbitrary mid-winter evictions (eg, in the case of Alaknanda 3 weeks after eviction in the name of planned development DDA officials were discussing with RWAs what they wanted on the site), this court order will be mis-used for clearing slums. I wish to emphatically point out:

  • There is no basis in the Act and Plan to misuse the court order to evict, without housing, slum dwellers from anywhere, since they clearly represent DDA’s implementation backlog.
  • There is no basis in the Act and Plan to misuse the court order to create a captive market of slum-dwellers for sub-standard housing in violation of the Plan – such as illegal multi-storied tenements being advocated by ill-informed ‘consensus’ and, it seems, already commissioned to private design firms and NGO-builders.
  • Mandatory monitoring basis for implementation priorities requires that the Court order be interpreted in public interest – in terms not only of slum dwellers’ Plan entitlements to housing but all citizens’ Plan entitlements to squalor free development and un-stressed riverfront – to accord long overdue implementation priority to low-income housing. (This also requires abandonment of all current unplanned HIG schemes, including for speculative and second home purchase and freehold flats for government employees, till this backlog is cleared.)

5. I wish also to emphatically point out that court orders secured by keeping facts from the Court can not be used to substitute holistically considered planned development with ad-hoc and arbitrary interventions. Ad-hocism is not permitted by the Act and is especially unacceptable at the moment on account of opportunities afforded by availability of recent planning data, mandatory for Plan revision, as well as the fact that the DDA official in charge of the revision has taken just charge of O-Zone (Yamuna). Since it is impossible to clear in two months all encroachments in/along the river, I would like to suggest that MoUD/DDA approach the court with a comprehensive and realistic encroachment clearance Plan based on planning data and legally tenable priorities. By way of priorities, I would like to suggest the following:

(1) Metro Police Station (for reasons outlined at #2)

(2) Other cases of government agencies’ encroachments, ie, development without mandatory land use change process (to restore government’s moral right to act against encroachers)

(3) Non-residential development by private parties (likely to all be ‘encroachment of greed’, there being no cumulative backlog on commercial / institutional development)

(4) Residential development by developers (with penal action against the developer, besides action attracted, as per policy for unauthorised colonies, by residents)

(5) (Only after government has come out with a legal policy for housing the poor, as suggested in the November order and implicit in the assurances of December) slum dwellers, who are really implementation backlog, not encroachers.

Yours sincerely


Gita Dewan Verma

cc: PS to Chief Minister, w.r.t court’s direction for compliance report to Delhi government

Letter of 10.03.2003 to both governments (excerpt)

Also, in continuation of my letter of 07.03.03 about the court’s recent orders regarding encroachment on/along the Yamuna, I seek comment on my suggestion in para-5 therein and information about government’s plans to secure compliance of court orders and request confirmation of the following:

  • Yamuna Pushta has 75000 families and these occupy about 100 Ha of net area
  • 4.25 lakh EWS plots have not been developed as per Master Plan and ‘models’ proposed by MCD and others for Pushta are all violative of the Master Plan and also not permissible by the Court order of November 2002
  • existing land use of 52 Ha occupied by Metro Depot is riverbed / green
  • Metro Depot is a footloose use that could have been located anywhere on the Metro network
  • Zonal Plan for O-Zone has not been approved, making all schemes/approvals by DDA and other authorities of MoUD in it illegal under s.6 (read with s.7 and s.8) for not being embedded in Zonal Plan / Master Plan.

Letter of 23.04.2003 to both governments

Secretary, MoUD, GoI

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

Sub: Yamuna ‘encroachment’ removal: recent developments

Ref: My letters of 7 and 10 March 2003 (enclosed, response awaited)


I have learned from a Planning student that slum eviction was effected yesterday in Pushta. Meanwhile, there is still no clarity on slum policy, with the issue of illegality of resettlement sub-judice in both High Court and Supreme Court. Union government’s SLP does not refer to Plan entitlements and DDA has not cared to clarify the same pursuant to High Court orders in my clients’ matter. Delhi government has passed on 25 March an assembly resolution about slums that seems unrelated to the sub-judice matters, nor has Delhi government approached court with an SLP or review petition, as reported earlier. CM has lately given in one place permission for reconstruction of demolished jhuggis. It is not known whether DDA is going ahead with the notice of 10.12.2002 (arguably in contempt of court orders of 29.11.2002) inviting NGOs to build in-situ tenements, but a letter from it dated 05.02.2003 says it is actively considering SRA’s concept. The same letter also says relocation is on hold pursuant to the November order, but on 04.03.2003 L&DO brought out Public Notice for land acquisition for resettlement (see letter of 10.03.2003 under reference), objections to which have not yet been responded to or heard. MCD has made budget provision for and entered into bhagidari with NGOs for night shelters for the homeless. Delhi government’s budget speaks only of some 3000 tenements by DSIDC in Bawana by way of low-income housing… All this reflects an inexplicable indifference to low income housing that government is duty bound to provide not only as a welfare state but under Delhi Master Plan, its enabling Act and facilitating land policy.

Metro Depot, in Plan violation on riverbed/green, lately made news for clean wash of trains (08.04.2003). This is even as DJB has directed citizens not to use tap water for washing cars and the Depot is in an area notified by CGWA for drinking water purposes. The clean wash presumably also generates dirty wastewater that presumably affects either / both groundwater and river.

In view of the above, I request:

  • (reiterating the contents of my letters under reference) details of both our governments’ separate or joint action-plans for compliance of court orders by May 14.
  • information at the earliest about which PIO(s) to seek these details from under Delhi Right to Information Act / Central Freedom of Information Act.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely


Gita Dewan Verma

cc: PS to Chief Minister (also DJB Chairperson)

in continuation of letters under reference, with requests as above

Member Secretary, CGWA

for information re Metro Depot, as Public Notice of December 2002 for land use change of Metro Depot site said views of CGWC still had to be sought

Delhi Science Forum

in continuation of copy of letter of 25.02.03 re commonalities between metro depot in O-zone/riverbed and in illegal scheme in J-zone/ridge stopped by court in WP 4978/2002

Representation of 04.02.2004

Secretary, MoUD

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011

Sub: Representation pursuant to Hon’ble Supreme Court hearing of WP 35/2004 on 03.02.2004 to seek a meeting about resettlement according to law and equal application of court orders

Respected Sir,

As Petitioner in WP 35/2004 that Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted on 03.02.2004 to be withdrawn to make representation to authorities, also on behalf of others in Yamuna Pushta, I seek for clarification on following points of law and policy apropos slums, river and application of court orders a meeting between concerned officers and residents / others who have raised these in previous representations.

Apropos slums, Hon’ble High Court, in its judgement of 29.11.2002 quashed the illegal resettlement policy and left it to government to come out with an alternative. Representations have been made since then for compliance in terms of alternative, specifically with reference to failure to develop 4 lakh EWS plots as per mandatory Master Plan provisions, which, in effect, makes slums ‘implementation backlog’ on Plan targets – a view borne out by Census 2001 and Planning Commission report of 2002 and acknowledged in Hon’ble High Court’s order of 12.11.2003. Despite representations, authorities have not placed before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP against order of 29.11.2002 either this view or illegalities of quashed policy in terms of arbitrary eligibility criteria, demolition process that skirts legal provisions, and sub-standard development wasteful of public resources in name of resettlement – issues sub-judice before Hon’ble High Court. The authorities have been granted leave to continue with resettlement policy subject to outcome of SLP, but paperwork in ongoing interventions in Pushta, unlike elsewhere, does not even mention this and the way in which ‘slips’ are being issued, without necessary particulars, suggests further lapse in even arbitrary procedure. We seek clarification of basis in law / policy of the process being followed for our sudden relocation with undue haste.

Apropos the river, Hon’ble High Court’s order of 03.03.2003, referring to efforts elsewhere to preserve river waters and surroundings and keep them free from pollution, directed removal of all unauthorised structures on Yamuna bed and embankment. This is significant in view of massive pucca structures being built in violation of Master Plan on riverbed, duly notified by CGWA for drinking water potential. Despite representations pursuant to Hon’ble Court’s order authorities did not even draw up an action plan for removal based on extent of encroachment and pollution by various uses, nor did further ‘schemes’ stop, despite representations suggestng shifting these elsewhere. And through fair weather following the order no effort was made to comply with it in respect of slums. We seek clarification of extent to which sudden relocation of just Pushta will better the quality of the river and of the larger action plan for compliance of the Hon’ble Court’s order for this.

We also seek clarification about the following anomalies vis-a-vis court matters and orders:

(a) Whereas authorities reportedly told Hon’ble High Court that they are not able to demolish Sainik Farms (a posh unauthorized colony posing environmental nuisance in terms of ground water depletion in a CGWA notified area) as Zonal Plan for J-Zone is not notified, they are keen to demolish Yamuna Pushta even though Zonal Plan for riverbed area (O-Zone) is also not notified.

(b) Whereas authorities have been restrained by Hon’ble High Court from ‘pick-and-chose’ action against unauthorized colonies pending policy, they are not extending spirit of this order to slums even as alternative slum policy sought in judgement of 29.11.2002 has not materialised – despite existence of adequate Master Plan provisions, besides draft national slum policy (1999) and Planning Commission report (2002), and promise of ‘white paper’ in May 2003.

(c) Whereas authorities have been directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court to shift non-conforming industrial units to industrial areas and take action against misuse of industrial areas, they have not come out with any policy to shift from the riverbed, say, electro-plating units (category-B and category-F under Master Plan and, therefore, eligible for relocation to, say, industrial estates like Okhla, Wazirpur, etc, after misuse of industrial space there is stopped).

(d) Whereas Hon’ble High Court has given orders to authorities for implementation of conditions for 25% free seats in schools (consistent with Plan provision for 25% EWS house plots that authorities have not developed), authorities are relocating the poor in segregated projects on city outskirts in a manner that can only serve to absolve private schools of their legal obligation by making it impractical for the poor to avail this statutory benefit.

(e) Whereas in case of a posh South Delhi school that moved court against a notice served on it in March 2003 for demolition of illegal buildings, authorities did not contest its plea for time till end of academic session (despite area residents’ representations about, among other things, environmental pollution from diesel generators for air-conditioning by the school) and Hon’ble High Court granted time till May 2004, in the case of students in Yamuna Pushta authorities are vehemently arguing against the plea that students not be made to suffer for others’ tardiness.

Far from being opposed to relocation from our flood and fire-prone location, priority claim for us in EWS housing has been staked time and again. A number of the foregoing issues have been raised in earlier representations by us or / on our behalf by Dr A V Baliga Memorial Trust, Mahanagar Asangathit Mazdur Union and Master Plan Implementation Support Group. In view of the above being points of law and of, especially, statutory provisions that entitle us to opportunity for hearing prior to demolition, we seek a meeting for their clarifications before any attempt to demolish our homes.

Yours sincerely,


Rameshwar Prasad

Letter of 06.02.2004

Secretary, MoUD, GoI

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

Sub: Illegal and unconstitutional regularization moves and contradictory other moves

Dear Mr Khanna,

I am aware MoUD has made it clear, including in court matters of my clients, it does not “desire” to reply about violations of Delhi Master Plan by authorities represented on DDA of which it is nodal ministry, nor to interfere in illegal ‘schemes’, ‘policies’ and ‘approvals’ violating Plan provisions and due process for their modification or even proposed legislation in disregard of Delhi Development Act. I am writing because I do not think MoUD is free to take such a position.

The move to regularize unauthorized colonies, like ‘guidelines’ it claims to be consistent with, is devoid of basis in law and in conflict with judicial and other lawful processes. I understand the Minister has announced colonies only on government (not private) land will be regularized. Apart from the fact of most such colonies, typically carved out between s.4 and s.6 notifications, being on private land and really what ‘guidelines’ recommend in name of ‘benefit for farmers’, I wish to reiterate that:

(a) Delhi Development Act does not contemplate government’s ownership of public land, only responsibility of development according to Plan and public land is not largesse for government to dole to whomever and in whatever manner it pleases (say, through regularization of AR Dairy Farm and sub-standard slum-like housing in Holambi Kalan) in violation of Delhi Master Plan.

(b) (As argued in detail in letters apropos announcements for industries) sweeping regularization is tantamount to abdication of mandate of planned development, in name of which land has been compulsorily acquired for 40 years in Delhi, and skirts s.11A process of Master / Zonal Plan modifications that guarantees citizens safeguards against infringement of their Plan entitlements.

(c) Unless the problem of unauthorized colonies is analysed with reference to departure from Master / Zonal Plan provisions, implications for Plan goals and constraints and possibilities of Plan adjustments on a case-by-case basis, no systematic solution (including identifying infrastructure possibilities and appropriate development charges as well as untenable colonies to be demolished) can be found. Such analysis is mandatory under monitoring and review provisions of the Master Plan and at present, in view of the on-going Plan revision, also under the Act.

Besides being untenable in law, this ‘approval’ seems unconstitutional for making distinction between:

(i) lapses by authorities (on ‘government land’) and by others (on private land), and

(ii) misusers of public land in, on one hand, AR Dairy Farms, unauthorized colonies on riverbed, etc, and, on the other, slums in, say, Lajpat Nagar and Yamuna Pushta.

Apropos Yamuna Pushta, I am enclosing herewith the representation made on 04.02.04 pursuant to Supreme Court proceedings of 03.02.04. I find it unfortunate that while courts are being moved over Pushta, authorities are not presenting full facts. Likewise, I find unfortunate MoUD’s media remark of hope of no ‘fresh’ PIL against regularization. If I recall correctly, the ‘stale’ PIL was filed prior to an election, only as pre-emptive move against populist regularization. In most PIL (and NGO / politically fielded aggrieved party cases) in Master Plan matters no party place in courts Master Plan solutions to problems under consideration. Whether this is to sweep under the carpet failures by authorities or misuse by vested interests or for any other motive is irrelevant to implications of making problems intractable with delay, denying citizens’ entitlements in planned development and undermining public confidence in city planning and courts. I am enclosing a statement2 issued to protest a so-called ‘housing rights event’ to make a spectacle of this anarchy at WSF 2004 global platform last month.

In particular, in continuation of previous letters I seek to know:

(a) Details of action plan (in absence of O-zone Plan) for compliance of High Court orders for removal of ALL unauthorized development on Yamuna riverbed.

(b) Status of posh unauthorized colony coming up in Master Plan J-Zone Green Belt behind D2 Vasant Kunj, in which Union Labour Minister inaugurated on 05.02.2004 a DDA sports club next to a Liver Institute that Chief Minister inaugurated in August 2003.

(c) Status of Public Notice responses / other requests pertaining to O-zone and J-Zone (connected in river-ridge ecosystem) and industrial land use (connected to river issues and regularization ideas)

In general, I reiterate my oft-made request to MoUD to take its responsibilities under Delhi Development Act with the seriousness that city problems hurtling at breakneck speed towards intractable chaos beg. And to please place before the courts, and if possible also media, full facts so as to clarify rather than obfuscate matters instead of hoping for no ‘fresh PIL’ challenging unlawful and simplistic interventions doomed to sustain rather than solve city problems.

Yours sincerely


Gita Dewan Verma

Letter of 10.02.2004

Secretary, MoUD, GoI

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110011

Sub: Yamuna Pushta: Request to issue instructions against precipitate action in view of orders of the Hon’ble High Court in WP 5007&5009/2002 today

Ref: My letter of 06.02.04 enclosing a representation of 04.02.04 pursuant to proceedings of 03.02.04 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Dear Mr Khanna,

Precipitate demolition under the circumstances will amount to gross injustice and will serve to further erode public confidence in planning law as well as in courts. I request the same be held in abeyance till representations and court cases based on MPD-2001 entitlements have been disposed off.

Yours sincerely


Gita Dewan Verma

cc:with same request

  • Vice Chairman, DDA
  • Commissioner, MCD
  • Chief Secretary, GoNCTD
  • Commissioner, Delhi Police    
  • 1. source:
  • 2. source: