W.P.(C) No.282/2011 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17th January, 2011. + W.P.(C) 282/2011 % AMAR SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mrs. C.M. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divjeet Singh Vohra, Advocate Versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shifalika Dalmia, Advocate for Ms. Anju Bhattacharya, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for R-1. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Adv. for Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether 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 NO in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The 60 petitioners claim to be similarly situated as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2562/2010 & W.P.(C) No.413/2007 disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15th November, 2010. The petitioners claim to be residents of DBS Camp, Jangpura-B, Near Balmiki Mandir, New Delhi wherefrom they were removed on 8th November, 2006. They claim to be entitled to re- location in accordance with the Policy of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. W.P.(C) No.282/2011 Page 2 of 4 2. The petitioners have however not impleaded the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board being the successor of the Slum & J.J. Department of the MCD which has been impleaded as the respondent No.3. On oral request of the counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.3 is allowed to be substituted with the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and the presence of Mr. O.P. Saxena nominated counsel for the Board has been requested in the Court and he has been heard. 3. The counsel for the respondent No.4 DDA has contended that this Court in the order dated 15th November, 2010 on behalf of the respondent No.4 DDA instructed the Board to carry out the survey. The counsel further contends that the respondent No.4 DDA would instruct the Board to carry out the survey only when prima facie convinced of the claims of the petitioners. 4. I am of the opinion that the responsibility for determining whether a person is eligible for relocation or not is of the Board and no prima facie view either by the respondent No.4 DDA or by this Court can be taken. It is for the Board to determine as to who in accordance with the Policy of the Government for relocation is entitled therefor. Therefore whenever a person claiming to be entitled to relocation in accordance with the Policy approaches the Court, the only relief which can be granted is to refer the said person to the Board. If the DDA or the land owning agency is of the opinion that the said person is not entitled to relocation, it would be entitled to put forth its case before the Board. W.P.(C) No.282/2011 Page 3 of 4 5. The counsel for the respondent No.4 DDA next contends that the time for approaching for relocation cannot be open ended and the petitioners having approached for relocation after more than three years ought not to be granted any relief. 6. Though there is merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondent No.4 DDA but as far as the present case is concerned, since the survey has already been directed to be conducted qua others also claiming to be occupants of the same land and who had approached shortly before the present petitioners and qua whom no such argument was raised by the respondent No.4 DDA, it is not deemed expedient to enter into the said question in this petition and the same is left open. 7. Accordingly, the same order as in W.P.(C) No.2562/2010 & W.P.(C) No.413/2007 has to follow in the present case also. The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board is directed to determine whether any of the petitioners are eligible for the relocation under the Scheme of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The petitioners to appear before the Board in this regard along with documents of their eligibility on 15th February, 2011 at 11:00 hours and on such other dates as may be directed. The survey be completed preferably within six months thereafter. Needless to state that if the petitioners or any of them are found eligible to relocation, they be relocated in accordance with the Policy of the Govt. of the NCT of Delhi. The petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. W.P.(C) No.282/2011 Page 4 of 4 CM No.516/2011 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Dasti under signature of the Court Master to the Counsel for the parties. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 17th January, 2011 gsr