Back
High Court Of Delhi
WAZIRPUR BARTAN NIRMATA SANGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 2112 of 2002
Decided On : 11/29/2002
BENEVOLENCE - Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act - [Land Acquisition Act] - The court examined the legality and propriety of a policy for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers squatting on public land. The court quashed the policy that required alternative sites to be provided to slum dwellers occupying land before their removal. The court maintained the cut-off date as 31. 1. 1990 and directed verification of all persons allotted alternative sites. It allowed continued occupation of original sites on a license basis and directed clearance of alternative sites from third-party occupation. The court prohibited further allotments and conversion of allotments into ownership basis. It also directed the expeditious removal of encroachers and squatters on public land without the prerequisite of providing alternative sites.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the examination of the legality and propriety of a policy for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers squatting on public land. The court quashed the policy that required alternative sites to be provided to slum dwellers occupying land before their removal. The court maintained the cut-off date as 31. 1. 1990 and directed verification of all persons allotted alternative sites. It allowed continued occupation of original sites on a license basis and directed clearance of alternative sites from third-party occupation. The court prohibited further allotments and conversion of allotments into ownership basis. It also directed the expeditious removal of encroachers and squatters on public land without the prerequisite of providing alternative sites.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the policy for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers squatting on public land was illegal and arbitrary. It quashed the policy and issued consequential directions for the verification of all persons allotted alternative sites, continued occupation of original sites on a license basis, clearance of alternative sites from third-party occupation, and the expeditious removal of encroachers and squatters on public land without the prerequisite of providing alternative sites.
Issues: The issues involved the legality and propriety of a policy for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers squatting on public land. The court addressed the cut-off date for alternative site allotment, continued occupation of original sites, clearance of alternative sites from third-party occupation, and the expeditious removal of encroachers and squatters on public land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the policy for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers squatting on public land was illegal and arbitrary. It quashed the policy and issued consequential directions for the verification of all persons allotted alternative sites, continued occupation of original sites on a license basis, clearance of alternative sites from third-party occupation, and the expeditious removal of encroachers and squatters on public land without the prerequisite of providing alternative sites.
Final Decision: The court quashed the policy for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers squatting on public land and issued consequential directions for the verification of all persons allotted alternative sites, continued occupation of original sites on a license basis, clearance of alternative sites from third-party occupation, and the expeditious removal of encroachers and squatters on public land without the prerequisite of providing alternative sites.
( 1 ) BENEVOLENCE in administration is a necessity but this benevolence has tobe balanced against the rights of the residents of a town specially when dealing with one commodity which can never increase which is land.
( 2 ) THE validity and legality of the policy of the respondents for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers who squat on Government land unauthorisedly and are ultimately allotted parts of land acquired for planned Development of Delhi has to be decided in the present proceedings. This became a necessity in view of the fact that the land was being acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for planned Development of Delhi at public expense for public purpose. This very land was being utilised to relocate persons who had squatted and trespassed on public land and refused to move from the original place. In order to clear those areas such persons were provided land which had been so acquired.
( 3 ) IN this public interest litigation the problem arose since the squatters and encroachers on public land had to be removed who could not be so removed in view of the policy of the respondents requiring the land to be first made available to such persons for their removal and relocation as a pre-requisite to their being moved from the areas where they had squatted. In the proceedings on 13. 8. 2001 the Slum and JJ Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi stated that the removal and relocation of jhuggi was confined only to relocate the jhuggi jhonpri dwellers provided the land owning agencies bear the cost of relocation as per the approved policy. Whenever the land encroached upon is required by the land owning agency a request is made to the Slum and JJ Department to carry out a joint survey of the area in question, to determine the number of jhuggi that are existent. The most essential step for implementation in the scheme is the requirement of providing requisite land by the State Government or the Delhi Development Authority, as the case may be, which land is then developed by the Slum and JJ Department. Such relocation has not been possible in large numbers because land cannot be manufactured and increased and that itself is a limiting factor.
( 4 ) THE scheme earlier provided for a cut-off date of 31. 1. 1990 for such rehabilitation of jhuggi dwellers who possessed ration cards prior to that date, metallic token and identity card of 1990 issued by the State Government and eligibility slips coupled with proof of continuous occupation. Such persons were being provided with plots of 18 sq. mts. with another 7 sq. mtrs. for common courtyard and had to pay asum of Rs. 29,000/- for each eligible jhuggi dweller. This scheme was subsequently extended even for persons who were in continuous occupation up to 30. 11. 1998 who were provided 12 sq. metres plots on deposit of rs. 20,000/- for each eligible jhuggi dweller.
( 5 ) THIS problem of relocation of jhuggi dwellers was arising in a number of cases where public interest petitions were filed to clear public land and utilise it for the purpose meant under the Master Plan. It was in these circumstances that in terms of the order dated 13. 8. 2001 this Court decided to examine the legality, validity and propriety of such a policy and all thenecessary authorities were made parties. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and employment, Department of Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation were also impleaded as parties other than the State Government and DDA who were already parties. Affidavits and written submissions have been filed by the parties and oral submissions were heard at length. Since another petition being CW 2112/ 2002 also raised similar issues, the same was also heard along with CW 4441 /1994 in which this question of law was being examined.
( 6 ) IT would be appropriate to first appreciate the stand of the Government of india and public authorities in respect of this policy.
( 7 ) THE poli
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
