--- P Prakash <[email protected]> wrote:

Alleging a multi-crore scam in the whopping Rs 450
crore land deal, Mr
Singh, talking to , asserted that the land was still
in the legal possession
of the slum and JJ wing of the municipal body and
meant for the resettlement
of the slum dwellers of the adjoining Bhumiheen
camp.


---
Manjit is wrong as usual. In 2004 after sajjan kumar
and baijal directed DDA to go ahead with the Tehkhand
project for corp builders, that munch of VP Singh on
which Manjit is now expert had fielded from the
kalkaji slums writ petition to claim the District Park
for co-op/ngo builders. Judgment text below: (note: LG
is DDA chairman)


WP(C) 8237/2005 (Bhumiheen Camp & Ors v/s DDA & Ors)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
25.11.2005

Present : Mr. K.C. Mittal, Adv., for petitioner
Mr. N. Kumar, Adv. for Ms. Sujata Kashyap, Adv. for
respondent No.3
Mr. C.M. Rao, Adv. for DDA

+WP(C) 8237-56/2005 and CM 6056/2005
*
1.        Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the
grievance of the petitioner is not to re-settlement
per se of the residents of the slum cluster, Bhumiheen
Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Counsel states that the grievance is that on 2.6.1995
a decision was taken at the level of the Lieutenant
Governor, Delhi that the Bhumiheen camp slum dwellers
would be relocated on a plot of land admeasuring 32
acres at Tehkand. Counsel states that in the said
decision besides the Lieutenant Governor, Chief
Minister of Delhi, Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi,
Vice Chairman (DDA), Commissioner (MCD), Commissioner
(Land Management, DDA), and Director (Slum and JJ
Wing) were involved. Accordingly, Counsel states that
the decision notified vide Annexure P-1 to relocate
the slum elsewhere is vitiated in law.

2.        Annexure P-1 is a public notice dated 13.4.2005.
It notifies to the residents of the camp to remain
present at the site of the camp on 18.4.2005 together
with passport size photographs, ration cards, identity
cards issued by Election Commission of India and any
other proof showing residence at the slum cluster.

3.        Notwithstanding that Annexure P-1 does not
indicate the place where relocation of eligible
persons is proposed to be affected, counter affidavit
filed by MCD and DDA reveal that the eligible
squatters are not intended to be relocated at Tehkand,
they may be relocated at a different place. In para 5
of the counter affidavit filed by MCD it is stated as
under :-
"5. That some land was shown to the Slum department by
the DDA in Mouza Sahurpur in South Delhi but till date
no action was taken to hand over this land to the Slum
Department"

4.        As per counter affidavit filed by DDA it is stated
that survey was carried out and as a result of survey
a large area of land would be required for relocation.
It is stated that DDA has not decided on the land to
be allotted for relocation. However, qua the land at
Tehkand it is stated by DDA, (the stand I may note is
in conformity with the Slum and JJ Wing, MCD) that the
site at Tehkand has been decided to be utilized for
housing and not for slum relocation.

5.        Issue of rehabilitation and relocation of slum
dwellers is governed by a policy decision taken by the
Central Government and adopted by the Government of
Delhi, DDA and MCD. The said policy decision has been
noted in extenso in the Division Bench Judgment of
this Court reported as 103 (2003) DLT 654, Wazirpur
Bartan Nirmata Sangh Vs. UOI and Ors. I need not
therefore reproduce the policy as the same stands
reproduced in the said decision.
6.        Since the decision to relocate the slum at the
site at Tehkand was taken at high level meeting in
which the Lieutenant Governor was involved, in my
opinion the correct course of action to be followed by
the statutory authorities was to refer back the matter
to the Lieutenant Governor for re-decision pertaining
to the site of relocation.

7.        Petition accordingly stands disposed of with a
direction that the site where residents of Bhumiheen
camps, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi would
be relocated would be decided by the Lieutenant
Governor and while taking the decision the Lieutenant
Governor will take into account the views expressed by
DDA, Slum and JJ Wing, MCD and also of the office
bearers of the petitioner association which represents
the interest of the residents of the Bhumiheen camp.

8.        Needless to state the decision would be limited to
the place and site of the relocation. Entitlement to
relocation would be as per the relocation policy of
the Government.

9.        Interim order dated 13.5.2005 requiring status quo
to be maintained with regard to the possession of
jhuggis at site would continue till decision aforesaid
is taken by the Lieutenant Governor and based on the
survey, eligible persons are offered alternative site.

10.        Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that
the past experience has been that the site at which
relocation is effected does not have any civic
amenities.

11.        It is further directed that the site at which
relocation would be effected would be one where at
least minimum civic amenities like water, toilet
facilities and availability of electricity is provided
for.

11.        Petition stands disposed of.

12.        No costs.

13.        Dasti on payment of charges.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
November 25, 2005
dk