To:
PIO Sh. S.P.Padhy, Director (LM)-I, A-1/104, Vikas
Sadan /
FAA Sh. R.K.Vats, Commissioner(LM), B-Block, 3rd Fl,
vikas Sadan

Dear Sirs,

I was informed of visit on 19.01.06 by AE Mr Mittal
and others to Pushta to convey, verbally, plans for
demolition on unspecified date in the near future. In
the afternoon I called your no. as provided in list of
PIOs/AAs. Mr Rajinder Rawat kindly provided me the no.
of Dy Dir (LM), Mr BS Barboojar, who kindly confirmed
that Mr Mittal is an officer of LM Deptt and informed
me that action in Pushta is proposed for compliance of
a court order. I informed him about other court orders
requiring other actions by DDA first and about my RTI
request, under s.4(1)(d), to LG Sectt about some of
these having been transferred to DDA VC as per e-mail
to me on 13.01.2006 and of a subsequent RTI Appeal in
a related riverbed matter.

On advice of Dy Dir(LM) I am writing to appraise LM
Deptt of said RTI and court matters and to make RTI
request in their context, for which I request as
follows:
(a) I request information about all relevant facts
relating to and reasons for decision of LM Deptt to
initiate the instant action in Pushta.
(b) I request this information under s.4(1)(d) r/w
s.4(1)(c) of RTI Act (as affected person in view of my
pending court matter, RTI request, etc).
(c) I request it well before any action in Pushta so
as to allow me sufficient time to take steps to
protect my rights under DD Act and RTI Act, which any
precipitate action on the riverbed in pendency of my
matters will infringe.  
(d) I request to be told forthwith, with reasons, if
you wish to reject my request.

The pending RTI / Court matters in context of which I
make these requests are set out at the end of this
message. Please let me know if you require any
clarifications for me and please permit me to urge DDA
LM Deptt to not recklessly resort to certain court
orders without consulting other DDA Departments and/or
in isolation from the framework of statutory mandate
of DDA and larger matrix of RTI / court matters
pertaining to DDA.

Yours sincerely,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner

cc: for information

wrt RTI request to LG Sectt, transferred to DDA VC
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00827.shtml
* Sh VP Rao, Addnl Secy & PS to Lt Governor / PIO LG
Sectt
* Sh Dinesh Rai, DDA VC

wrt note on RTI Applications nos.485 & 486, now in RTI
Appeal
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/anomie/RTI/dda/060114/
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00852.shtml
* Sh AK Jain, Commissioner (Planning) / First
Appellate Authority
* Sh PV Mahashabdey, Director (MPPR) / PIO, MPD-2021
matters)
* Sh PM Parate, Director (RYP) / PIO, Riverbed/O-Zone
matters)

az plan

cc: for favour of ensuring timely receipt by
addressees
Dirctor (Systems) / Commissioner (Systems)


-----------------------------------------------------------
RTI & court matters related to instant decision of LM
Deptt
-----------------------------------------------------------

3. My pending writ petition pertaining, inter alia, to
riverbed is WP 6500/2005 (Gita Dewan Verma v/s Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd & Ors) in which DDA is
Respondent No.4. This relies, inter alia, on other
court matters and orders, including order of 03.03.03
(for removal of all unauthorised structures on the
riverbed and banks). Lawful compliance of order of
03.03.03 is also central to my s.11A Public Notice
responses to DDA including those subject of my
petition. The three broad imperatives preventing
precipitate Pushta clearance that I have raised in my
matters pending disposal by due processes are set out
below.

(1) Without a comprehensive scheme, consonant with
O-Zone Plan, for all unauthorised constructions on
riverbed and banks lawful compliance of order of
03.03.03 and orders subsequent to it is not possible.
DMRC counter-affidavits in my writ petition have
revealed that commercial IT Park on the riverbed was
constructed unauthorisedly, without building permit
in/around 2004. From DDA additional counter-affidavit
dated 18.10.2005 in my writ petition, it is clear that
most responses received on IT Park Public Notice refer
to the anomaly of Pushta clearance from river bank
along side unauthorised construction of IT Park on
riverbed. On/around 18.01.2006 an RTI Appeal has been
moved on RTI Applications (no. 485 & 486) to DDA
Commissioner (Planning) about one of these responses.
This is based on a note prepared by me with reference
to third-party information disclosed in my writ
petition and not to the Applicant. My own RTI request
to LG Sectt that has been transferred to DDA VC as per
e-mail dated 13.01.2006 to me refers specifically to
IT Park with reference to Delhi High Court directions
of 17.12.2004 for LG in a petition by DMRC and to
ongoing demolitions by Court orders, in which latest
order of 18.01.2006 also favours demolition of
(post-2000) IT Park, inaugurated by CM, before
demolition of (older) Pushta settlements across it.

(2) Without lawful relocation to EWS housing consonant
with Master Plan provisions, Pushta clearance would be
in contravention of MPD and DD Act. On 07.09.2005
Secretary MoUD has filed an affidavit in Supreme Court
undertaking relocation to a re-housing scheme at
Tehkhand for which DDA has also issued s.11A Public
Notice on 31.08.2005. These developments subsequent to
the filing of my petition are referred to in a
Rejoinder affidavit in it. I have also filed, with
reference also to other court matters/orders, detailed
response to Public notice of 31.08.20005 that is
pending disposal. All this is mentioned in my
aforesaid RTI request to LG Sectt with reference to
subsequent court directions of 25.11.2005 for LG about
the re-housing scheme undertaken by MoUD in Supreme
Court for Pushta. Pushta clearance by other orders
without re-housing required by these would amount to
making them infructuous by selective compliance
amounting to misuse of court orders.

(3) Without lawful disposal of s.11A Public Notices
from Pushta / about Pushta clearance in 2004, it would
be unlawful for DDA to effect further Pushta
clearance. At first hearing for Master Plan 2021
Public Notice on 03.10.2005 (to which I was also
invited) quorum was not complete and re-hearing has
been sought on response filed, among others, from
Pushta with reliance on the above-mentioned matters as
well as prior s.11A Public Notice responses and
numerous representations for lawful procedures that
were made throughout Pushta clearance in 2004 by
myself and by residents whom I, as planner, was able
to then inform. My writ petition is about violations
of s.11A process. I have also made a s.41(3)
application and RTI requests in this regard apropos
MPD-2021 Public