Arjun Camp cases were heard today (21.10.05).
These were filed in Aug 2002 by all of about 200
families in a duly listed MCD slum on a District Park
site in Vasant Kunj, for lawful relocation of all to
nearest DMP EWS site (instead of illegal resettlement
of about a fifth to Madanpur Khadar 20 km away). The
nearest site, about 1 km away, is still occupied by
Sahara Restaurant that sent also J Shamit Mukherji to
jail in the DDA scam in April 2003. The settlement was
demolished in May 2003 (on tenth attempt, with illegal
resettlement also in contempt of the Nov 2002 order
quashing illegal slum policy). The first (non) reply
was filed in August 2003. Reply under signature of DDA
VC (Anil Baijal) led to order of Nov 2003 by J Sanjay
Kishne Kaul that made the clear connection between the
slum problem and failure to develop mandatory EWS
housing. Baijal conceded the failure in case of VK and
justified it on grounds including provision elsewhere
in the F-Zone and the court directed an affidavit
setting out zonal details, which was filed in January
2004. The Rejoinder pointed out non-provision of EWS
plots and shortfall in terms of DMP targets of LIG
units throughout the Zone (the so called Janta flats,
like resettlement plots, have no basis in planning law
or sense). For a year the matters could not be heard,
mostly because they would reach too late in the day,
though all the judges that heard them did grant short
dates, especially in 2005 (in context of DMP2021). J
Ravindra Bhatt ordered written submissions for final
arguments, which the petitioners filed around February
2005, but Respondents did not. On July 5 the matters
came up for the first time before J Mukul Mudgul and
submissions of the Petitioners were heard. Then there
were four adjournments, the last with the order that
no further ones would be granted at request of
Respondents.
Today the Respondents (through counsel Shobna Takiar
and Sumita Kapil and two others seated with them) made
their submissions. They questioned locus of the
Petitioners and called them encroachers. They
contended that VK scheme, dated in 84-85, is not
covered by DMP-2001 notified in 1990; because of high
cost of development in rocky area they had not
provided for much EWS housing; of sites earmarked most
are not developed because they are encroached; those
built are under occupation of non-poor because the
poor sell off or misuse; integration has to be at
Zonal and layout level and they have provided adequate
EWS housing in Zone-F. They read (I could not figure
out why) from the order of Nov 2003 and from (what
Petitioners have filed from) DMP-1960 and it is not
clear why.
Submissions in Rejoinder (through Amit Sharma) also
began. Amit read out what opposite counsel had started
and stopped reading in order of Nov 2003 and pointed
out how the F-Zone details filed were short of what
had been ordered and unrelated to the petitions (they
contained no reference to EWS plots). Lordship had
already pointed out that the encroacher question was
not before the court and Amit added that the
Respondents had settled it by evicting the Petitioners
before filing reply and were deliberately delaying the
matters to be able to make the petitions infructuous
through DMP-2021. He urged that DMP-2021 not be
allowed to get in the way of these matters and
Lordship passed a direction to this effect.
After some more arguments, a date for remaining
Rejoinder submissions / final hearing was fixed.
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com