Remember the Nov.2002 order quashing our defunct slum
policy?
see talk of January 2003 at
http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000109.shtml
The following is another November order a year later
from same Court, even Judge, in Arjun Camp cases (see
http://www.delhiscienceforum.org/dmp2021/mpisg/SP_AC.htm),
about which the January post said, 'I would like to
believe that had DDA replied in the Arjun Camp matter
or otherwise placed in court a wholesome view of the
Plan, the November judgement might have been
differently informed'.
Relief about belief, then, with regret, besides for
the unwarranted demolition in May, for not having what
it takes to dent the drifting discourse. And with
request to stop calling citizens encroachers,
unplanned, etc. (Unplanned encroacher in the instant
matter is possibly Sahara restaurant, reportedly
occupying a Janta housing site and, in general,
professional space grabbers who have hijacked the
development discourse).
---order of 12.11.03---
Heard learned counsel for the parties in part on the
issues raised in the writ petition.
The additional affidavit has been filed which states a
broad position without being specific. General
statements have been made about existence of EWS/LIG
Housing in and around Vasant Kunj and it has been
stated that Vasant Kunj should not be treated in
isolation but a holistic view should be taken of Zone
F. No details have been given as to whether in Zone F
how much EWS/LIG Housing has been constructed or is
proposed for construction and not constructed. The
example of this in Sector D, Pocket-C where LIG
housing was envisaged and construction of the other
categories has been done but construction in this
category has not been done. No reasons have been
specified for the same nor time period prescribed
within which the same will come up.
The broad issue which arises for consideration in the
present petition is a consequence of the failure of
the respondent to develop adequate LIG/Janta housing
in colonies or in peripherial areas which has also
resulted encroachment on public land. Subsequently,
these public lands are cleared by allotment of
alternative sites. It cannot be expected that the
persons engaged in vocation which are relevant for the
housing in other categories would be able to do so
from locations at distance. The net result has been
that the alternative sites are sold and the persons
come and re-occupy the original sites. Services like a
dhobi, iron women etc. are bound to be rendered in and
around the colony.
In view of the aforesaid position that the respondent
was required to explain as to whether the development
of the LIG/Janta flats had kept pace with the
construction and developments of the other categories
of the flats.
Even assuming that Zone F has to be considered as a
whole, the DDA is bound to provide specific details of
the LIG/Janta flats constructed in the said Zone and
at which time as also the quantum of accommodation
under the said categories. This would be true both of
Vasant Kunj and areas around it. In the plan filed by
the respondent portions have been marked in "Yellow"
which have already been constructed and the details of
the same are liable to be disclosed. The other areas
have been marked in Orange which are proposed for
construction but no details have been given as to why
the construction of this area has not been completed
alongwith the constructions of the categories of the
other housing. It has to be appreciated that the DDA
is the largest land owning agency in Delhi and most of
the land is developed by DDA. The object was to
provide housing to residents of Delhi in different
categories. The housing was to be made available at
cheaper rates. Provision of LIG/Janta housing thus
formed an integral part of object of housing
activities being taken over by DDA.
It can hardly be envisaged that construction is
carried out of different categories, other than these
categories only on account of the fact that it will be
profitable to do so by the DDA. In my view the DDA
must set out as to how much LIG/Janta housing has been
constructed, is earmarked for construction or as to be
proposed to be constructed as well as time schedule
thereof by referring to Zone F. The affidavit should
be filed within two months alongwith the Plan of Zone
F clearly earmarking the aforesaid areas and giving
the schedule thereof.
I think it appropriate to direct that the Director
(Land Management) shall be personally responsible for
necessary coordination to file this affidavit and
appropriate consultation will be held including with
the Vice-Chairman, DDA in view of the important and
largest issue involved in the present petition.
The response to the affidavit be filed by the
petitioner within two weeks. The costs to be paid in
the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner as
per last order.
List on 28.1.2004.
Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.
November 12, 2003 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
MLB
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
policy?
see talk of January 2003 at
http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-listing/000109.shtml
The following is another November order a year later
from same Court, even Judge, in Arjun Camp cases (see
http://www.delhiscienceforum.org/dmp2021/mpisg/SP_AC.htm),
about which the January post said, 'I would like to
believe that had DDA replied in the Arjun Camp matter
or otherwise placed in court a wholesome view of the
Plan, the November judgement might have been
differently informed'.
Relief about belief, then, with regret, besides for
the unwarranted demolition in May, for not having what
it takes to dent the drifting discourse. And with
request to stop calling citizens encroachers,
unplanned, etc. (Unplanned encroacher in the instant
matter is possibly Sahara restaurant, reportedly
occupying a Janta housing site and, in general,
professional space grabbers who have hijacked the
development discourse).
---order of 12.11.03---
Heard learned counsel for the parties in part on the
issues raised in the writ petition.
The additional affidavit has been filed which states a
broad position without being specific. General
statements have been made about existence of EWS/LIG
Housing in and around Vasant Kunj and it has been
stated that Vasant Kunj should not be treated in
isolation but a holistic view should be taken of Zone
F. No details have been given as to whether in Zone F
how much EWS/LIG Housing has been constructed or is
proposed for construction and not constructed. The
example of this in Sector D, Pocket-C where LIG
housing was envisaged and construction of the other
categories has been done but construction in this
category has not been done. No reasons have been
specified for the same nor time period prescribed
within which the same will come up.
The broad issue which arises for consideration in the
present petition is a consequence of the failure of
the respondent to develop adequate LIG/Janta housing
in colonies or in peripherial areas which has also
resulted encroachment on public land. Subsequently,
these public lands are cleared by allotment of
alternative sites. It cannot be expected that the
persons engaged in vocation which are relevant for the
housing in other categories would be able to do so
from locations at distance. The net result has been
that the alternative sites are sold and the persons
come and re-occupy the original sites. Services like a
dhobi, iron women etc. are bound to be rendered in and
around the colony.
In view of the aforesaid position that the respondent
was required to explain as to whether the development
of the LIG/Janta flats had kept pace with the
construction and developments of the other categories
of the flats.
Even assuming that Zone F has to be considered as a
whole, the DDA is bound to provide specific details of
the LIG/Janta flats constructed in the said Zone and
at which time as also the quantum of accommodation
under the said categories. This would be true both of
Vasant Kunj and areas around it. In the plan filed by
the respondent portions have been marked in "Yellow"
which have already been constructed and the details of
the same are liable to be disclosed. The other areas
have been marked in Orange which are proposed for
construction but no details have been given as to why
the construction of this area has not been completed
alongwith the constructions of the categories of the
other housing. It has to be appreciated that the DDA
is the largest land owning agency in Delhi and most of
the land is developed by DDA. The object was to
provide housing to residents of Delhi in different
categories. The housing was to be made available at
cheaper rates. Provision of LIG/Janta housing thus
formed an integral part of object of housing
activities being taken over by DDA.
It can hardly be envisaged that construction is
carried out of different categories, other than these
categories only on account of the fact that it will be
profitable to do so by the DDA. In my view the DDA
must set out as to how much LIG/Janta housing has been
constructed, is earmarked for construction or as to be
proposed to be constructed as well as time schedule
thereof by referring to Zone F. The affidavit should
be filed within two months alongwith the Plan of Zone
F clearly earmarking the aforesaid areas and giving
the schedule thereof.
I think it appropriate to direct that the Director
(Land Management) shall be personally responsible for
necessary coordination to file this affidavit and
appropriate consultation will be held including with
the Vice-Chairman, DDA in view of the important and
largest issue involved in the present petition.
The response to the affidavit be filed by the
petitioner within two weeks. The costs to be paid in
the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner as
per last order.
List on 28.1.2004.
Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.
November 12, 2003 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J
MLB
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/