Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 30th January, 2023
SMT. BENI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate.
(M:9811046710)
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Naveen Roheja, Advocate.
(M:9810129691) for DUSBI.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Smt. Beni, who was a resident of Jhuggi No.27, Kali Bari Marg, G-Point, Gole Market, New Delhi along with her husband and children, between 2001 till 2010. The case of the Petitioner is that the husband of the Petitioner deserted her in 2009 and the entire JJ cluster is stated to have been demolished in 2010. According to the Petitioner, she is entitled to relocation and rehabilitation, as per the policy of the GNCTD. She, accordingly, along with her jhuggi dwellers filed the W.P.(C) 1798/2011 titled ‘Dharampal Singh & Ors. Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors.’. The said petition was disposed of on 10th October, 2011 with the following observations. “20. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:a. The petitioners to vacate the said site on or before 6th November, 2011; b. If the petitioners or any of them or any other person in occupation fail to vacate the site by the said date, the respondent Hospital shall be entitled to use reasonable force for their removal so that the land is available for the expansion project of the respondent Hospital. The respondent no. 10 SHO, PS - Mandir Marg is directed to ensure that the respondent Hospital has possession of the vacant site as on 7th November, 2011; c. The respondent DUSIB is directed to have the eligibility of all the seventy petitioners for relocation under the Policy determined on or before 15th December, 2011; d. The Electoral Office and the Food Supply Office are directed to immediately respond to the verification sought by the respondent DUSIB; e. The ten petitioners who are stated to have not submitted their documents to the respondent DUSIB to submit the same on or before 31st October, 2011; f. The petitioners to appear before Mr. Harish Vats in the first instance on 17th October, 2011 at 1100 hours and thereafter on subsequent dates as may be required to. The respondent DUSIB to submit its report to the land owning agency i.e. L&DO on or before 20th December, 2011; g. The respondent L&DO is directed to relocate such of the petitioners as are found eligible as per the report and as per the Policy of the Government: h. The petitioners or such of them if remain aggrieved by the said report shall have remedies in law; i. The government schools near to the place where the petitioners are re-located temporarily or permanently, to allow the transfer of the children of the petitioners from the government school which they are presently attending to the new school; j. The CEO of the respondent DUSIB to comply with the direction aforesaid.” As per the above order, all such dwellers who were found to be eligible were to be relocated, as per DUSIB’s policy.
3. Thereafter, guidelines were issued by the GNCTD titled as ‘Guidelines for implementation of the Scheme for relocation/rehabilitation and allotment of flats to the Jhuggi Jhopri dwellers under JNNURM-2013’ (hereinafter, ‘JJ Scheme’). The Petitioner applied for rehabilitation under the said scheme. The Eligibility Determining Committee held a camp between 5th January, 2016 to 15th January, 2016, where out of the 85 jhuggi dwellers, who had filed the petition, only 52 were found to be entitled to rehabilitation. The Petitioner was declared ineligible.
4. The Petitioner challenged the declaration of in-eligibility before the Appellate Board of DUSIB. The said Appellate Board rejected the appeal of the Petitioner on the ground that she did not produce the voter ID card for the year 2009 and 2010. The said order reads as under: “Smt. Beni is present in person. Her appeal is against the decision of the Eligibility Determination Committee to declare her ineligible for allotment of alternative dwelling units for the reason that her name does not exist in the voter list of 2009 and 2010 required as per eligibility criteria to make her eligible. She has been heard by the Appellate Authority. She could not produce document showing her name in the voter list of the year 2009 and 2010. Hence her appeal is rejected and the case is closed.”
5. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the scheme, various other documents can be accepted as the proof of residence in the jhuggi. The only ground, which appears for rejection of Petitioner’s appeal is that the voter ID card has not been submitted. This, according to the Petitioner, is contrary to the decision of the ld. Division Bench in W.P.(C) 5378/2017 titled ‘Udal and Ors. v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and Ors’. where the same issue was being considered by the Court and it was held that the authority would have to take a holistic view in the matter.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of the Respondents, it is highlighted that the guidelines clearly state that the voter ID card is mandatory and other documents would be in addition to the voter ID card only.
7. A perusal of the scheme shows that for any jhuggi dweller to be considered for rehabilitation under the JJ Scheme, the following documents are sought by the authorities.
8. This scheme was considered by the ld. Division Bench in Udal (supra) where the Court held that the parties would be permitted to place on record other documents including ration card, school records, driving license, aadhar card etc for being considered eligible of the rehabilitation scheme.
9. The mere fact that the parties cannot produce the name featuring electoral roll, would not be enough for disqualification of jhuggi jhopri dwellers for rehabilitation. The observations of the Court in Udal (supra) are as under:
10. In the present case, the Petitioner relies upon various school records of her two daughters to establish that she was resident of the said jhuggi. She also relies upon her own bank records, bank passbook etc. for the said purpose.
11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has raised various objections and shows contradictions in the documents of the school records of her daughter Kavita.
12. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Board shows that the only ground on which she has been disqualified, is because of her name not being in the voter list of 2009 and 2010. Considering the decision in Udal (supra), the Appellate Board would have to consider all other documents as well before arriving at a conclusion as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation or not. The Petitioner’s case cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the voter ID card was not produced. The decision of the Ld. Division Bench is clear and categorical that other documents which may establish residence at the said Jhuggi would have to be considered holistically. The purpose of these policies is to ensure rehabilitation and relocation to economically weaker sections and would have to be interpreted in a broader and beneficial manner rather than a narrow and pedantic manner.
13. Accordingly, let the Appellate Authority under the DUSIB Act, look afresh into the Petitioner’s case considering all other documents produced by her and take a decision on the same within 4 months.
14. The Appellate Authority may also look into and enquire as to whether the Petitioner’s husband has been allotted any alternative accommodation or not. The Petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority for hearing on 20th February, 2023 at 11:30 am. A reasoned speaking order shall be passed by the Appellate Authority after giving proper hearing to the Petitioner.
15. The writ petition is disposed of along with all pending applications in the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE JANUARY 30, 2023/dk/am