Sonia Udaybeer Singh v. DDA & Ors.

1. This public interest litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:- “(A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent DDA and other respondents to stay any further demolition of the slums opposite Palam fly over, Near Mahavir Enclave, South West Delhi. (B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent DDA and other respondents to make available prefab material for the slumdwellers to allow them to properly make their jhuggies slums opposite Palam fly over. Near Mahavir Enclave, South West Delhi.

(C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent DDA and other respondents to forthwith make 2019:DHC:6220-DB arrangement for the food, nutrition and water of all the persons displaced especially for the children and elderly, disabled and lactating mothers.

(D) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing ^ the respondent DDA and other respondents to forthwith make arrangement for medical teams to visit the site of the demolition and provide immediate medical care to the persons injured in slums opposite Palam fly over, Near Mahavir Enclave, South West Delhi. (E) Pass an order directing the respondent DDA to initiate an enquiry and take appropriate action against the officers who were responsible for demolishing the slums slums opposite Palam fly over. Near Mahavir Enclave, South West Delhi. (F) Pass an order directing the respondents to conduct a survey of the slumdwellers in the slums opposite Palam fly over, Near Mahavir Enclave, South West Delhi. (G) Pass an order of status quo anti to allow the earstwhile jhuggie dwellers to erect their jhuggies in the same manner as was there in the past and or rehabilitate them in accordance with law. (H) Pass an order directing the respondent DDA to produce before this Hon'be court its rehabilitation policy as on date and rehabilitate the slum dwellers in accordance with the said policy if any.

(I) Pass an order directing Respondents to cease any further evictions or harassment of residents that live in the abovementioned area until appropriate rehabilitation in accordance with the prayers in the present petition is provided.”

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the land in question is situated in Khasra No.87/19 (4-11) at Palam Village, Delhi. It appears that there was encroachment by several persons upon the Government land. The encroachment has already been removed by the concerned authority on 24th May, 2017.

3. Earlier staus quo was granted in this writ petition but the same was vacated vide order dated 21st June, 2017 and the Delhi Development Authority was permitted to complete the construction of raising the boundary wall to secure the aforesaid land in question.

4. Thus, it appears that the encroachment has already been removed and the said land is now surrounded and protected by a compound wall. There is no ownership vested in the encroachers upon the land in question and hence no illegality has been committed by the respondents in removing the illegal encroachers from the Government land. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition as public interest litigation.

5. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that earlier a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.25767/2016 was also filed by one of the encroachers on the land in question which has been disposed of by the concerned trial Court without granting any relief. In view of this submission also, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J NOVEMBER 21, 2019 anb’