Dismissed

Ramshakhi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/469/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench held that five individual jhuggis located on government land allotted to the State of Jharkhand for a guest house are encroachments. The court ruled that the GNCTD relocation policy applies only to larger settlements of 50+ households, disallowing the petitioners' claim for rehabilitation and dismissing the writ.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs claimed in the petition for non-interference with the construction project and to enforce rehabilitation rights were dismissed.

Ramshakhi & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 469/2016 & CM No.1913/2016 (for stay)

¶4

RAMSHAKHI & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Advs. for R- 1&2. Mr. Harsha Peechara & Mr. Mananjay Mishra, Advs. for NDMC. Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Adv. for R-4/GNCTD. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan & Mr. Nishant Prateek, Advs. for R-5.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

¶6

% 19.01.2016

¶7

This order is in continuation of yesterday’s order.

¶8

The counsel for the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and the counsel for the Union of India (UOI) / Land & Development Officer (L&DO) state that the locale was got examined yesterday evening and the land on which the five jhuggis of the petitioners are located was found to be a plot of land in the ownership of UOI / L&DO and which has on 7^th March, 2014 been allotted to the State of Jharkhand on ‘as is where is’ basis for construction of a second guest house for the State of Jharkhand. The counsel for the NDMC states that during the visit yesterday, five jhuggis were found and else the construction on the said plot by the State of Jharkhand underway of Jharkhand Bhawan.

¶9

W.P.(C) 469/2016

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

The counsel for the NDMC in the Court has shown the photographs taken yesterday.

¶12

It has further been enquired whether the said plot of land has a boundary wall and a gate.

¶13

The counsel for the NDMC states that there is a boundary wall and a gate to the plot and the portion of the plot where the said jhuggis are situated has also been separated from rest of the plot by a boundary wall

¶14

It is thus obvious that the petitioners are not in occupation of any land meant for the common use of the public but have encroached upon a plot of land belonging to the UOI / L&DO and which as aforesaid has been allotted to the Government of the State of Jharkhand for construction of a second guest house in Delhi.

¶15

The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have a right of rehabilitation / relocation, being in possession of the subject land for the last more than 30 years. However, the counsel for the petitioners is unable to show any Policy of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) in this regard.

¶16

The counsel for GNCTD (Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board [DUSIB]) states that the Policy of Relocation does not apply to such individual jhuggis and is applicable only to jhuggi jhopri basti inhabited at least by 50 households as existing on 31^st March, 2002. Attention in this regard is invited to Section 2(g) and 2(g)(iii) of the DUSIB Act, 2010. He thus states that the petitioners do not qualify for re-location or rehabilitation under the Policy of the GNCTD.

¶17

W.P.(C) 469/2016

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

The counsel for the petitioners also confirms that there are only five jhuggis on the subject land.

¶20

The petitioners are thus found to be the encroachers over land of UOI/L&DO and are not found to have any right of rehabilitation / relocation. The petitioners thus are not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

¶21

Moreover, the petitioners by so encroaching upon government land cannot be permitted to hold up the public project underway of construction of the Jharkhand Bhawan on the subject land.

¶22

The counsel for the petitioners at this stage states that the matter be adjourned to enable him to trace the Policy under which the petitioners claim a right of rehabilitation.

¶23

The counsel for the petitioners even if before the filing of the petition did not have sufficient time to trace the policy, since yesterday had time to do so. Matters cannot be adjourned in this fashion.

¶24

There is thus no merit in this petition.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

No costs.

¶27

Dasti under signature of Court Master.

¶28

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

¶29

JANUARY 19, 2016 ‘gsr’..

¶30

W.P.(C) 469/2016

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Ramshakhi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramshakhi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A-One Marketing Division Vs Chief Post Master General & Ors.

Cpl Shankar Bhagwan Sah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jamil Khan & Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner & Ors.

Ashish Srivastava Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

M/S Kallu Ram Jai Kumar Jain Vs Nationa Capital Territory of Delhi& Another

Wasimuddin Vs UOI and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs UOI and Ors.

Md. Abdul Hamid Vs UOI and Ors.

M/S Globe Eco Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Kuljit Singh and Anr. Vs Power Finance Corporatiion Ltd. and Anr.

Prem Prakash Sharma Vs Naresh Kumar Sharma & Ors.

Kanta Devi Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Smt Asha Rani Gupta Vs Shri Rajender Kumar

Asha Rani Gupta Vs Ndmc and Ors.