J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

W.P.(C) 1585/2022

1. The instant batch of petitions involving a similar issue have been filed seeking following reliefs :

a. Issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter dated 3rd July 2020(date of letter same in both the writ petitions) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for allotment of the house in lieu of the petitioner's erstwhile occupation/possession/ residence at the first floor of the Jhuggis of the petitioner in Kathputli Colony Delhi.

b. Issue of writ of mandamus directing that the respondent shall allocate an alternative dwelling unit to the petitioners.

FACTUAL HISTORY

2. Kathputli Colony started emerging in the 1950s, as a cluster of makeshift tents in an open field on the outskirts of Delhi by a group of inerrant puppeteers from Rajasthan.

3. In the year 2010, the DDA (hereinafter “respondent”) conducted a survey and documents were submitted to its officials. Pursuant to which, the respondent commenced the re-development of the Kathputli Colony on a public private partnership basis.

4. In the year 2014, around 300 residents of the colony moved to transit camp at Anand Parbat, Delhi. The respondent formulated a policy on 2nd July 2014, to rehabilitate the Colony dwellers and fixed the date for cut-off as 1st January 2015. Moreover the respondent constituted bodies wherein the dwellers of the various Jhuggis can file their claim for rehabilitation as well as an Appellate Authority which shall hear the appeals and redress the grievances related to determination and relocation of jhuggi dwellers of Kathputli Colony.

5. Accordingly, the petitioners filed their claim seeking an alternative dwelling unit in lieu of their respective jhuggis.

W.P.(C) 1585/2022 – FACTS OF PETITIONER NO.1

6. Petitioner no.1 filed claim for rehabilitation which was rejected by the respondent Eligibility Determination Committee (hereinafter “EDC”) by citing reason that petitioner's jhuggi does not exist and published a list of 771 ineligible slum dwellers where petitioner no.1‟s name was mentioned at serial number 476.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid list, the petitioner no. 1 filed an appeal no. 61 of 2017| 04 of 2017 before the Appellate Authority, which was specifically constituted to hear the appeals and redress the grievances related to determination and relocation of JJ dwellers of Kathputli colony. 8. The Appellate Authority heard the matter and accordingly, the Appellate Authority passed an order dated 30th January 2019, stating that the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria as per the guidelines issued by the respondent, however, the EDC wrongly and illegally rejected his claim. Hence, it set aside the communication by EDC vide undated letter issued by the Nodal Officer and directed the respondent to make allotment in favour of the petitioner no. 1 with respect to his jhuggi numbered E-278, Kathputli Colony, New Delhi.

9. Pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Nodal Officer of the respondent took suo-moto cognizance of the matter vide order dated 3rd July 2020 (hereinafter “impugned order”) and declared that the petitioner no.1 has failed to fulfil eligibility criteria as stated in DDA Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 since the petitioner no.1‟s claim was for the first floor for which the separate Ration Card was not produced by the petitioner. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 30th January 2019 was set- aside by the Nodal Officer of the respondent. Aggrieved by which the petitioner no.1 filed the instant petition.

10. Pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, the case of petitioner no.1 was re-examined and reviewed by respondent and it is found that his case was inadvertently recommended for 'non acceptance' by the Competent Authority due to mixing of his records with other 62 cases. Therefore, the respondent rectified its mistake by withdrawing the impugned letter and granting the relief as sought by the petitioner no. 1 by way of instant writ