LPA 546/2010 Page 1 of 4 #53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 546/2010 & CMs 13876/2010 & 13879/2010 SMT. NARGIS & ORS. ..... Appellants Through Mr. P. Chakraborty, Advocate versus DDA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Standing Counsel for R-1. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Standing Counsel for R-2. Reserved on : 5th August, 2010 % Date of Decision : 16th August, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 24th May, 2010 passed in WP(C) 13309/2009 whereby appellants-petitioners’ prayer for allotment of alternative plots after demolition of jhuggis has been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that appellants-petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria. LPA 546/2010 Page 2 of 4 2. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for appellants stated that when the appellants were evicted on 16th January, 1988, they were in possession of ration cards. He further contended that after the survey of all the jhuggis, the claims of the appellants had been verified and they had been issued slips for alternative plots. Accordingly, Mr. Chakraborty submitted that respondent-DDA was under an obligation to hand over possession of plots bearing Nos. B-1/134, B-1/139, B- 2/34, B-2/218, C-5/46 and C-5/54, Kondli Resettlement Colony to the appellants on the basis of specific draw held on 29th June, 1993. 3. Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in relying upon the policy dated 8th May, 1989 of respondent-DDA as it was to apply to jhuggis removed on or after 1st January, 1989 whereas the appellants’ jhuggis had been removed on 16th January, 1988. Mr. Chakraborty lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order had travelled much beyond the scope of the direction given by another learned Single Judge of this Court on 19th August, 2002 in W.P.(C) 3124/1999. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the paper book, we are of the opinion that jhuggi dwellers have no legal vested rights to claim allotment of an alternative residential plot. The right for an alternative plot only flows from the policy, if any, framed by the respondent-DDA. Consequently, the appellants would be entitled to an alternative plot only if they are so eligible under the respondent-DDA’s policy in vogue, namely, the policy dated 8th May, LPA 546/2010 Page 3 of 4 1989 read with policy dated 12th September, 2003. We are further of the opinion that allocation of a demolition slip or allotment on the basis of draw would not entitle the appellants to an alternative plot irrespective of the fact whether they fulfil the condition precedent stipulated in the policy framed by the respondent-DDA. 5. We are further of the opinion that if the aforesaid two policies are read together, it is apparent that the jhuggi dwellers would only be entitled for allotment of an alternative plot if he/she possesses the ration card issued on or before 30th April, 1986. We are in agreement with the view of learned Single Judge that possession of a ration card on the date of demolition i.e. January, 1988, would not entitle the appellants to an alternative plot. 6. In our view, the conditions stipulated by the respondent-DDA is based on sound logic because if the cut off date of settled possession is not much prior to the date of demolition, then many individuals on coming to know about the proposed demolition in a particular area would erect jhuggis in the said area. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that even a small plot of land in Delhi is extremely valuable. 7. We are also not impressed by the argument that the learned Single Judge by way of the impugned order has acted contrary to the decision of another learned Single Judge’s order dated 19th August, 2002. Upon a perusal of the order dated 19th August, 2002, we are of the view that the said order only directed respondent no. 1 to intimate to LPA 546/2010 Page 4 of 4 the appellants the decision with regard to the issue of eligibility of a person to be allotted an alternative plot. It, in no manner, restricted the grounds on which respondent-DDA was to decide the plea of alternative allotment. In view of aforesaid, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine. MANMOHAN, J CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 16, 2010 rn