i.l5 % 18.11.2005 Present: Mr. Anand Yadav, Adv., for petitioner Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Adv., for respondent/DJB Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advs. for Respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5 Ms. Anuradha Thcikur, Adv. for Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. for MCD +WPfCl 9410-13/2004 * ^ 1. On 8.3.1993 consolidationproceedingswere commenced V in Village Kanjhawala. Scheme of consolidation was prepared. The village abadi was extended. 2. Grievance in the writ petition is that post consolidation no development work has been carried out. Roads, pathways and other passages which had to be maintained after construction/laying as per the scheme of consolidation were not laid" or constructed. Street lights were not installed. Water supply was not augmented. In brief what the petitioner states is that no development whatsoever has been carried out. It is asserted that civic amenities have not been extended to the • -y extent abadi and the existing facilities in the old abadi have gone for a toss due to non-maintenance. 2. The usual replies have come from the respondents. Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Counter affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi states that electrification, sewage and water supply does not pertain to MCD. Pertaining to roads, it is stated that a request has been sent to the Deputy Commissioner, North West to supply the details of roads/public passage/fimi so that work can be carried out. 3. Response of the DJB is that the Revenue Authorities have ^ not provided the Lai Dora extension certificates. In absence ^ thereof DJB has not conducted a technical feasibility for laying water supply line. It is asserted that no villager has applied for a water connection. 4, Delhi has to be developed in terms of the provisios of the Delhi Development Act 1957 and the master plan framed thereunder. As a result of consolidation in a village, if the village abadi is extended as per the approved layout (masavi) development work has to be carried out. p 5. Responseof the respondentsshow that each one of them is passing the buck. 6. The various authorities providing civic amenities i.e. MCD, DJB and the company supplying electricity in the area have to sit together and coordinate their work. Since the various Page 2 of 3 7 departments are unable to coordinate and as a consequence development has not taken place in the village abadl of village Kanjhawala, a nodal officer needs to be appointed to monitor development. 7. Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi to nominate an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary. The said officer would ^ function as a Nodal Officer. He would coordinate the if development work with all agencies i.e. MCD, DJB and company supplying electricity in the village Kanjhawala. Action plan would be chalked out by the Nodal Officer. Action plan would ensure that development work is completed within 18 months from today. 8. The Nodal Officer would receive, if any representations made to him by the villagers pertaining to the present order and it would be his duty and obligation to ensure that civic amenities ^ are extended to the abadl ofvillage Kanjhawala within the period of 18 months as afore-directed. 9. No costs. Dasti. r November 18, 2005 dk" "T=? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. Page 3 of 3 u 0 A'? -7, 15. $~ * EV THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)9410-13/2004. SH. DINESHDABAS&ORS. Petitioners Through: Ms. Anita Tomar for Mi". Anand Yadav, Advocate. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NORTHWESTDISTRICT&ORS. Respondents Through: Ms. LatikaChaudharyfor Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Rahul Srivastava & Ms. Supama Srivastava, Advocates for MCD. Ms. Nidhi Minocha, Advocate for DJB. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW ORDER o/„ 09.11.2010 CM No.1110/2009 (for extension of time) 1. The writ petition was disposed of on 18^ November, 2005 with certain directions to the respondents. Now only the application of the respondentsfor extensionoftimefor complyingwiththe orderis pending. 2. The counsels have mentioned the matter. The counsel for the petitionersseekstimeto respondto the affidavitoftherespondentMCD. 3. However no puipose will be served in keeping this application pending.The counselfor therespondentGovt. ofNCT ofDelhiseekstime 1/- 2,3- till December, 2012 for compliance with the order. Accepting the said statement of the counsel for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi the time for compHance of the order is extended till December, 2012. All the departmentsconcernedare also directedto co-operatefor complianceofthe order. If the respondentGovt. ofNCT ofDelhi is of the opinionthat any department is creating any impediment in compliance of the order the respondentGovt. ofNCT ofDelhiwill immediatelymove an appHcationin that regard and also to intimate the petitionersto enable them to take appropriatestepsinthatregard. 4. Withthe aforesaiddirections,the applicationbeingCM No.1110/2009 is disposedof No order as to costs. Dasti. NOVEMBER 09, X pp.. SAHAI ENDLAW,J 2/-