SAROJ vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 28th August, 2024 + W.P.(C) 10305/2024 SAROJ …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Mr. M. Shaz Khan, Mr. Adnan Yusuf, Mr. Rafid Akhter and Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Advs. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. …..Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel with Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Shobhan Sachdeva, Ms. Kritika Gupta, Adv. for R-1/DDA Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal and Mr. Rajat Srivastav, Advs. for R-3,8 and 9 Mr. Prashant Manchadna, ASC with Ms. Medha Haeridas and Ms. Ankita Singh, Advocates for R-5 Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Ms. Aakriti Garg and Mr. Neeraj Vats, Advs. for DUSIB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 49195/2024
1. This application is moved on behalf of the applicant/petitioner seeking interim directions against the respondents to maintain status

quo in relation to rehabilitation of JJ Cluster #585 Near NDMC Water Supply Control Near Kalibari, near RML Hospital, New Delhi and also stay consequential demolition action threatened vide notice dated 23.08.2024.

2. Learned counsels for the respondents No. 1 to 7 are present on advance notice.

3. In short, the grievance of the applicant/petitioner is that she has been residing at the site in question as an enlisted JJ1 Dweller for the last 40 years and now she is proposed to be relocated to a site at Narela, which is about 30-40 kms away from the present site.

4. Although, on filing of the present writ petition notice has been issued to the respondents and the matter is now listed on 05.09.2024, this interim application is moved alleging that the respondents are going ahead from uprooting the people from the site and demolishing the structures existing at the site and relocating the beneficiaries to the allotted sites.

5. Mr. Sanjay Katyal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1/DDA vehemently opposes any interim relief and it is pointed out that out of 134 Slum Dwellers, who were found to be residing at the site, 104 have been found to be eligible and the proposal for relocation has been approved by everyone except the petitioner, who does not wish to be relocated to Narela on flimsy grounds. It is also pointed out that 45 families have already shifted and 15 families are almost on the way to be getting shifted and rest of them would also be shifted in due course of time.

1 Jhuggi Jhopri

6. It is further pointed out that plea by the petitioner that she instead of Narela, be allocated designated flats at Dwarka, which is about 20 kms away, cannot be acceded to since such flats have an area of 35 Sq. Mts. whereas relocation policy allows 24 Sq. Mts. of area. It was vehemently urged that the legislative intent is clear by way of Section 20A read with Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that no injunction should be granted in case of infrastructure projects. It is pointed out that present site is required for expansion of RML Hospital where Maternity and Children Wards are to be constructed in larger public interest.

7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, at this stage of the case, this Court finds that the plea by the petitioner seeking interim reliefs, as prayed, cannot be granted in the face of the fact that in situ rehabilitation is not possible and the timeline for the infrastructure project of expansion of RML Hospital has started. The balance of convenience too lies in favour of the respondents. Hence, the present application is dismissed.

8. Re-notify on the date already fixed i.e. 05.09.2024.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. AUGUST 27, 2024 Sadiq