Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Manoj Kumar And Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2409, 5767, 5779 of 2015
Decided On : 03-04-2019
Puneet Taneja, Adv., Laxmi Kumari, Adv., Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Adv., K.K. Kiran, Adv., Sunil Kumar Jha, Adv., M.S. Akhter, Adv., Rajeshwar Singh, Adv., Shushant Tripathi, Adv., Manika Tripathy Pandey, Adv., Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
The eligibility for alternate shop allotment under the Relocation and Rehabilitation policy was determined based on the nature of the structures and the status of the occupants, and the court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the relevant Circulars.
Headnote:
Relocation and Rehabilitation - Delhi MRTS Project - Circular dated 31.01.2002, Circular dated 25.10.2006 - The court discussed the relevant Circulars and concluded that the petitioners' claim for alternate shops did not fall within the relevant policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought alternate shops in lieu of their shops removed for the construction of MRTS. The Committee rejected their claim, stating that their shops did not qualify for alternate allotment and that they were encroachers of Government land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claim did not fall within the relevant policy and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: The eligibility of the petitioners for alternate shop allotment and their status as tenants or encroachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the Circulars dated 31.01.2002 and 25.10.2006 to determine the eligibility of the petitioners for alternate shop allotment and concluded that their claim did not fall within the relevant policy.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed as the court found no infirmity with the impugned order.
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
The petitioners have filed the petition impugning the order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Manoj Kumar and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT and Anr.: W.P.(C) 79/2012, rendered on 21.08.2013.
2. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to alternative shops in lieu of their shops located at Purani Lakdi Market opposite Shyam Lal College, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The said shops were removed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for construction of Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS). By the impugned order, the Committee has rejected the aforesaid claim on the ground that petitioners' case does not fall within the "Relocation and Rehabilitation policy in respect of project affected persons of all categories due to implementation of Delhi MRTS Project".
Factual Background
3. The material facts and the issues involved in these petitions are similar, and hence the same were heard together. The facts as relevant to W.P.(C) 2409/2015 are noticed for addressing the controversy involved in these petitions. The petitioners in the said petition are hereafter referred to as "the petitioners".
4. The petitioners claim that they were tenants of three shops (Shop No. 10, 11 and 13) located in Purani Lakdi Market, Opposite Shyam Lal College, GT Road, Shahdara and were carrying on the business of selling of ballis, bamboos, and wooden logs from the said shops.
5. Dmrc commenced the construction of MRTS Project (Shahdara Phase) and, in the year 1999, took over portion of Purani Lakdi Market. It is stated that all 29 shops were taken over which included two shops of the petitioners (Shop No. 10 and 11). DMRC issued two separate certificates dated 15.09.1999 and 15.07.1999 certifying that the petitioners were in possession of the Shop No. 10 and 11 respectively and the same had been handed over for carrying out the work relating to the MRTS Project.
6. On 31.01.2002, Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued a Circular containing the policy for relocation and rehabilitation of project affected person due to implementation of phase of Delhi MRTS Project. In the same year, DMRC also expressed its intention of taking over the remaining shops at Lakdi Market in all 47 shops. The same also included Shop No. 13, which was in occupation of petitionerno.1.
7. The petitioners and certain other persons filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) 734/2002 captioned Ansar Ahmed and Ors. V. UOI and Ors., inter alia, challenging the decision of DMRC to take over the shops at Purani Lakdi Market. It was contended that the same was not necessary for DMRC to implement the MRTS Project. This Court did not accept the aforesaid contention and the said writ petition was disposed of. However, the Court also directed the competent authority to consider the petitioners' case for allotment of alternate shops on the basis of its policy.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners as well as other persons who had filed the writ petition, preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court (LPA No. 984/2002), inter alia, praying that DMRC should issue a certificate to the respective shopkeepers to claim alternate allotment. The said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 13.12.2002, wherein the Division Bench recorded the statement of the learned counsel appearing for DMRC to the effect that a survey had been conducted on 28.12.2002 and the appellants therein had been found to be in possession of the site in question.
9. On 12.08.2003, DMRC sent a letter to DDA recommending that the petitioners' request for alternate premises be considered sympathetically.
10. On 25.10.2006, the Land and Building Department of Government of NCT of Delhi issued another Circular providing the guidelines for relocation and rehabilitation of project affected persons. The petitioners' claim that they are entitled to alternate s
