There is a news report in Express Newsline about plans
to clear riverbed encroachments:
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=131036

Following is the text of MPISG being hand-delivered to
LG / DDA today:

Sub: Proposed evictions in Yamuna Pushta by DDA:
     *Request for hearing*  
Ref:        
(i)Express Newsline report of 26/05/05 (text
enclosed);
(ii)Proceedings in WP 6500/2005 on 23/05/05 (Gita
Dewan Verma v/s DMRC & Ors) in the matter of illegal
DMRC constructions at Shastri Park on the riverbed;
and
(iii)Prior request for hearing in this matter, made
vide letter of 05/05/05 (enclosed)

Respected Sir,
According to the news report under reference at (i),
DDA will start evictions from Pushta in name of court
order of 03/05/05 that said that "policy of the DDA
for relocation would not apply to the river bed. It is
not an encroachment on land. It is a water body and it
is required to be maintained as a water body by the
DDA and all other authorities."  

In the matter under reference at (ii), counsel for the
respondents (including DDA) produced a Gazette
Notification of 25/04/05 (ie, after notice of 13.04.05
to file in 2 weeks replies that were not filed) for
land use change (thereby unambiguously admitting that
the constructions were unauthorized, ie, encroachment
on public land that can be used only according to Plan
under law) and put forth the defense that the site is
not water-body but dry land – on 23/05/05.

The Gazette Notification of 25/04/05 says 150
objections were received to the proposal for land use
change and after "careful consideration of all aspects
of the matter" Central Government decided to modify
the Plan. The objections of the Petitioner (part of
the petition, to which respondents did not file
replies on notice of 13/04/05 and have to file replies
by order of 23/05/05) as well as of others, including
those evicted from and remaining in Pushta, are also
based on the contention that construction on the
riverbed of unplanned commercial structures amounting
to encroachment on public land alongside illegal
evictions from riverbanks of those who are backlog on
implementation of mandatory Master Plan provisions for
EWS housing plots is indefensible. We seek details of
the “careful consideration” that found our
contention irrelevant and riverbank water-body and
riverbed dry-land – for confidence in worth of
filing responses to Public Notice for Delhi Master
Plan 2021.

We have never asked for slums to be allowed to remain
on the riverbank, only for them to be relocated
according to Plan. In DMP2021 Public Notice period
first the Gazette Notification of 25/04/05 was issued
and now Pushta evictions are proposed. None of the
DMP2021 "experts" have objected to the fait-accompli
being contrived to render Public Notice meaningless.
Instead one named in draft DMP2021 as general
consultant as well as member of sub-group on
environment is quoted in the news report under
reference as "Yamuna river bed expert" airing views
(on housing) unrelated to planning law or sense,
having lately been quoted airing similar views on
metro in reports of a recent consultation at DUAC
(whose approval is claimed for IT Park, etc). We seek
now debate also with the environment sub-group for
DMP2021 in addition to debate we already sought with
the one on shelter.

We have a prima-facie case that the state is acting in
willful ways and we are only seeking restoration of
rule of law, which is what Hon'ble President had
interpreted the mandate of the UPA government as. In
view of our letter under reference at (iii) we appeal
to you to grant us a hearing before any more
willfulness mars the riverbed.

Yours sincerely

sd/-
MPISG Planner
sd/-
MPISG Convener - Riverbed

----Translated text of letter of 05/05/05----

Request for hearing in the matter of Yamuna riverbed

Respected Lt Governor,

According to news reports of 04/05/05 government has
managed to obtain from court an order for clearing
slums from Yamuna riverbed by 27/07/05, complete with
warning of action for contempt on order of 03/03/03.

It is noteworthy that the order od 03/03/03 was for
removing all unauthorized structures from the riverbed
in 2 months. In the absence of legal Zonal Plan for
the riverbed, on 07/03/03 a suggestion was written to
central and Delhi government to place an action plan
for compliance in court. It was also suggested that
compliance begin with DMRC constructions at Shastri
Park since that site alone involves polluting misuse
over 52 Ha and partnership of both governments and
location there of a police station would make removal
of any other structure violative of Art 14. It was
also suggested that action plan for implementation of
DMP solution for EWS housing endorsed by Planning
Commission in report of 2002 be placed in court in the
SLP filed by the state against order of 29/11/02 in
the same matter calling for legal slum policy after
quashing illegal slum policy, also because on 03/03/03
both High Court and Supreme Court had passed orders in
this matter.

There was no compliance on the order of 03/03/03 in 2
months then. In 2004, after proposals for Games
Village, IT Park, etc, on the riverbed, had picked
pace, a high-level committee decided to begin
compliance with clearance of the stretch of Pushta
across those sites. Amidst anti-people propaganda in
name of a green-scheme by tourism minister and
anti-law propaganda by rights-enterprises, in flagrant
violation of laws and court orders began the shameless
willfulness of warlike dispossession on the west bank
and construction of  a wholly illegal commercial IT
Park on the east. Attempts to illegally evict
cultivators in name of slum clearance were also made.
In the illegal resettlement for some several including
children died.

Although DDA Act does not allow eviction of anyone
without opportunity for hearing, for five months of
forcible evictions there was no hearing on complaints
against illegalities in the eviction process or
illegal construction or dubious interferences of
organizations, on demands for lawful relocation, or
even on later invitations to hear the truth about
Pushta. Later hearing was also denied on requests for
examination under s.41(3) of DDA Act and for placing
DMP solutions in committees appointed by the court for
the river and by the ministry for slums, responses to
s.11A public notices for IT Park (September),
industries (October) and property development at Mall
Road (December), representation to you after the court
directed you to treat metro petition for clearance
around IT Park as a representation, complaint against
improvement after eviction of children of their of
school for misuse to run night shelter by
international NGO that had facilitated Pushta
clearance, request for opportunity to place facts
about demolition of religious structures across IT
Park in the inquiry ordered by you, etc.

Action is also pending on, besides Planning Commission
recommendation of solving the slum problem with DMP
housing solution, on references of CVC in the matter
of deaths of evicted children in Bawana and President
in the matter of illegal IT Park and assurance of
Parliamentary Standing Committee in the matter of
willfulness about court orders. Compliance is also
pending on court orders of January 2005 for summary of
submissions in another matter about solving the slum
problem by the DMP solution and of April 2005 for
reply in 2 weeks in a petition against the IT Park.
CAG has indicted authorities for wasting crores on the
river on ad-hoc interventions (that disregard the
holistic DMP solution) and the illegal slum policy
that the court had quashed and has again expressed
reservations about is proposed in DMP2021 for which
Public Notice is out.

Before any anti-people or anti-law action or
propaganda starts in name of fresh court order in a
matter in which only government is party, we seek from
you the hearing that we had sought from Principal
Commissioner cum Secretary  vide enclosed letter of
24/04/05.

sd/-
Convener-Riverbed
sd/-
MPISG Planner