W.P.(C) 9525/2009 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9525/2009 Date of decision: 25th February, 2010. RAM KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal and Mr. Sanjeev K. Chaudhary, Advocates. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate for R-1 and 4. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate for MCD, Slum & JJ Department. Ms. Geeta Mehrotra, Adv. for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 1. The petitioner Mr. Ram Kumar has filed the present writ petition claiming that he and his parents Shri. Ram Singh, Smt. Maya and his grandmother Smt. Indira are victims of the 1984 riots and, therefore, in terms of the policy framed by the respondents, are entitled to reside in Flat No. A-70Z, DDA flat, Jahangirpuri, New Delhi. The petitioner, Mr. Ram Kumar or his late father are not Sikh by religion. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to specify and state the basis on which he claims that he or his family members are a 1984 riot victims. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to FIR No.174 recorded on 1st November, 1984 in police station Mangolpuri. In the said FIR, it is stated that the looting and killings were reported in some W.P.(C) 9525/2009 Page 2 blocks of Mangolpuri. The petitioner’s property is not specifically mentioned in the said FIR. The petitioner has filed a copy of the identity card issued by the Directorate of Employment, caste certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, District North-West, Delhi and Domicile Certificate. These documents do not in any way justify the claim of the petitioner that he, his parents and grandmother were 1984 riots victim. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the certificate issued by the Danga Pirat Relief Camp, Zahangir Puri. This certificate was issued on 16th January, 1985. The said certificate only shows that one lady Ms. Indira and Mr. Ram Singh aged 55 and 40 years respectively were residing in the said camp. However, the said certificate does not give any brief history of how and why the said person were allowed to reside in the camp, though there is specific column in the certificate with the heading ‘Brief History’. This certificate alone does not justify the claim of the petitioner. 3. The respondent, MCD-Slum and JJ Department in their counter affidavit has stated that schemes have been formulated for providing relief to genuine 1984 riot victims i.e., cases where persons were injured, their relatives were killed and their shops or houses were damaged or burnt. Benefit of the said schemes has also been given to W.P.(C) 9525/2009 Page 3 others, who do not belong to the Sikh community but their residences were damaged or burnt as they had given protection to the persons belonging to the Sikh community. Accordingly, a door-to-door survey was conducted by the Slum and JJ Department, MCD of the occupants of the flats in Jahangirpuri, Delhi. Occupants of the flats were divided in various categories. In the case of the petitioner, it was found that he did not possess any documentary proof to establish and show that he or his predecessors were 1984 riots victims. It is further stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi has also not stated that the petitioner or their predecessor were 1984 riots victim. Hence, the petitioner is a trespasser, who is in occupation of Flat No. A-70Z, DDA flat, Jahangirpuri, New Delhi. In fact the said flat, as per the list maintained by the respondent, Slum and JJ Department, MCD, was in occupation of a police official and at the time of survey was found locked. 4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 25, 2010 NA