The court highlighted the importance of a definite decision on regularisation of unauthorised colonies and the need for consistent policy and non-discriminatory actions by the respondents.

( 1 ) PETITION has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be resident of Suraj Park, Auchandi bawana Road comprised in Khasra No. 36/26 in the revenue Estate of village Sameypur, delhi seeking a restraint order against the respondents from dispossessing them from the property in question and prohibiting them from demolishing the building constructed.

( 2 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that the colony in question is one of the colonies mentioned in the list of 1071 un-authorised colonies in respect of which the question of regularisation is pending consideration. It is not disputed that the land in question stands acquired and the land owner has failed in the challenge to the acquisition proceedings right till the highest court.

( 3 ) THE question of regularisation of these un-authorised colonies form subject matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 4771/93, titled common Cause v. Union of India and Anr. wherein the Division Bench vide Order dated 17. 08. 1998 observed as under:-

" In respect of the colonies on the government land and other colonies which are not to be regularised for one reason or the other. It is high time that the Government takes a definite decision. Over the years, we have passed repeated orders impressing upon the government that the result of not taking decision is resulting in corruption at various levels. We are not suggesting, for the present, whether a particular colony shall be regularised or not but what we are directing is to take a definite decision and if it is decided not to regularise a particular colony then to carry out that decision to its logical end by demolition action not merely demolition of only few selected houses but the colony as a whole. "

( 4 ) AFORESAID fact shows that despite directions from time to time, the respondents had not taken any decision finally on the issue of regularisation of the unauthorised colonies and if they are to be regularised on what terms and conditions. This is unnecessarily giving rise to a spate of writ petitions.

( 5 ) THERE is no doubt that the respondents can proceed in respect of these colonies as long as a consistent view is taken. The land has been acquired for public purpose.

( 6 ) IN such matters, directions have been passed in order to ensure that there is no pick and choose by the respondents in dealing with the occupants of these colonies and a consistent policy is, followed. The said directions would apply to the present case also but for one other issue which arises for consideration. This issue arises in view of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-DDA that the property of the petitioner does not form a part of Suraj Park. It is, however, stated that the same directions as issued on 24. 09,2002 in CWP No. 2423/ 1999 titled mahender Yadav and Anr. v. DDA and ors. may be passed in the present writ petition.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that he has no objection if this question is determined after verification at site by the director (Land and Management) of DDA, since his contention is that there can be no doubt about the petitioner s property forming part of Suraj Park in view of the documents filed with the writ petition.

( 8 ) IT is, thus, directed that the Director (Land and Management) shall take necessary steps and issue directions for verification at site after notice to the petitioner to confirm whether the property of the petitioner is located within the unauthorised colony of suraj Park. The needful be done within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner will co-operate for the said purpose. The petitioner shall appear before the Director (Land and, Management) Head Quarter on 04. 03. 2003 at 3. 00 PM and thereafter necessary directions will be passed. No further notice would be required for the said purpose to the petitioner.

( 9 ) IN case the Director (Land and management) comes to the conclusion that property of the petitioner is within the unauthorised colony