Now BJP is taking the ManjitSingh-VPSingh line to
demand CBI probe on Tehkhand. All majors have
reported, eg:

Recall 2002 origin of project in meeting between VP,
Ananth Kumar, SPARC and Delhi munches, following
Sheila Dikshit imaginings. Original illegal transfer
to Slum & JJ had transpired in Rajniwas when ML
Khurana was CM. Tehkhand pilot-project idea was
hatched just after Anil Baijal became DDA VC post-scam
and materialized in Nirman Bhawan after Baijal became
MUD Secy and Sajjan Kumar became area MP. VP & Co and
Dikshit & Co separately cried foul. Now Dikshit & Co
are floating own pilot-projects and VP has floated
poltickle party with Raj Babbar (while SPARC matriarch
has become national mission adviser and DUAC under its
boss from Mumbai is propagating task-forced
imaginings). Without a whisper of dissent (not
counting the too-little-too-late noises) the Delhi Spl
Bill sailed through Parliament with reco of the Mumbai
model being piloted in Tehkhand (complete with
Minister promising 1 lakh flats program in tabling
speech) in brazen reversal of reco of a couple of
months ago of Lok Sabha Standing Committee. The TK
Committee gentlemen and our future CMs Maken &
Harshwardhan are busy selling the
imaginings-become-Bill to or with the politically
organized albeit purportedly civil society
organizations and the Left has conveniently turned
ostrich... yet again, the united colours of capital
polticks of planning, or rather of development without
planning, propel us on the fast lane to where all also
insist we are not going!

btw, chaps have not filed replies in the humble writ
petition of Rajinder & Anr
and, thanks to Indiabulls / SEBI, press did not
altogether ignore the order of 3 May:

Legal hitch in Delhi land sale
New Delhi, May 4: Indiabulls and DLF’s prized realty
catch in the capital has got entangled in a legal
logjam with Delhi High Court issuing a notice on the
validity of the change in land use...

--- Gita Dewan Verma <[email protected]> wrote:

--- 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


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

Manjit is wrong as usual. In 2004 after sajjan kumar
and baijal directed DDA to go ahead with the
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
for co-op/ngo builders. Judgment text below: (note:
is DDA chairman)

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


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
grievance of the petitioner is not to re-settlement
per se of the residents of the slum cluster,
Camp, Govindpuri Extension, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Counsel states that the grievance is that on
a decision was taken at the level of the Lieutenant
Governor, Delhi that the Bhumiheen camp slum
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),
(Land Management, DDA), and Director (Slum and JJ
Wing) were involved. Accordingly, Counsel states
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
with passport size photographs, ration cards,
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
filed by MCD and DDA reveal that the eligible
squatters are not intended to be relocated at
they may be relocated at a different place. In para
of the counter affidavit filed by MCD it is stated
under :-
"5. That some land was shown to the Slum department
the DDA in Mouza Sahurpur in South Delhi but till
no action was taken to hand over this land to the

4.        As per counter affidavit filed by DDA it is
that survey was carried out and as a result of
a large area of land would be required for
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
in conformity with the Slum and JJ Wing, MCD) that
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
Central Government and adopted by the Government of
Delhi, DDA and MCD. The said policy decision has
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
the statutory authorities was to refer back the
to the Lieutenant Governor for re-decision
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
be relocated would be decided by the Lieutenant
Governor and while taking the decision the
Governor will take into account the views expressed
DDA, Slum and JJ Wing, MCD and also of the office
bearers of the petitioner association which
the interest of the residents of the Bhumiheen camp.

8.        Needless to state the decision would be limited
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
to be maintained with regard to the possession of
jhuggis at site would continue till decision
is taken by the Lieutenant Governor and based on the
survey, eligible persons are offered alternative

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

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

11.        Petition stands disposed of.

12.        No costs.

13.        Dasti on payment of charges.

November 25, 2005

mpisgmedia mailing list

+ Planning collaborative at