High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/4877/2016

Arjun Dass And ORS v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation

2016-08-12Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur2 pages

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4877/2016 ARJUN DASS AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through Mr.

Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Namrata Mukin and Ms. Anushruti, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 12.08.2016 CM No. 20337/2016 (Exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4877/2016, CM No. 20336/2016 and CM No. 20335/2016 There are four petitioners before this Court. They are aggrieved by the fact that inspite of their representation given to the Department the same has not been answered. Their grievance is that although pursuant to acquisition proceedings the respondent / NDMC had agreed to allot alternate plot to the petitioners. This allotment which was made in the area of Punjabi Basti was not as per their eligibility. Submission is that the RTI Eligibility Criteria was obtained (mentioned at page 34 of the paper book) but the same has not been followed in the case of the four petitioners before this Court.

Submission is that petitioner no. 1 had an original allotted area of 47 sq. m. He was allotted 12 sq.m plot against his eligibility of 20 sq. m. Qua petitioner no.2 his original site was 65 sq.m; he was allotted only 6 sq.m against his eligibility of 28 sq.m. The third petitioner had an original allotted area of 36.5 sq.m. He was allotted 12 sq.m against his eligibility of 20 sq.m. The petitioner no. 4 had an original area of 151 sq.m he was allotted only 6 sq.m against his eligibility of 28 sq.m. Counsel for the respondent on advance notice has put in appearance. Copy of the paper book has been provided to counsel for the respondent. The fact that the eligibility criteria of respondent no.1 finds mentioned at page 34 is not in dispute. This petition be accordingly treated as representation qua the four petitioners. Their representations will now be answered in accordance with law. These representations shall be answered preferably within an outer limit of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

The survey qua the affected area will be carried out in advance before the demolition of the same is carried out. No further orders are called for in this petition. Petition disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 12, 2016 gb