Don't misuse new law: HC

Bhadra Sinha / TNN / Aug 19, 2006, 01:42 IST

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

The Delhi HC appeared to be fed up with the attempts of MCD and DDA to circumvent judicial orders and stall the court's ongoing efforts to clean up the Capital.

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday appeared to be fed up with the attempts of MCD and DDA to circumvent judicial orders and stall the court's ongoing efforts to clean up the Capital.
Hearing the PIL related to demolitions, the special bench of acting Chief Justice Vijender Jain and Justice Rekha Sharma even threatened to put a stop to the litigation.
The court has summoned MCD commissioner A K Nigam on August 30 to explain why the civic body has failed to put a stop to unauthorised constructions despite a new law ordering status quo.
"We will stop monitoring this case. Why should we bother...you will take 263 years to clean up Delhi and convert it into a world class city," the bench observed.

It made it clear that the new Act — Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act — was for a bonafide purpose and not to abet unauthorised constructions in the city.
"The Act stated that constructions before January 1, 2006 should not be touched, however, it ordered status quo (on further constructions). You people are interpreting it to help the encroachers, and in the garb of it allowing further construction of illegal structures. They should have ideally stopped after the notification was effected," said a visibly "disgusted" bench.

Taking shelter under the newly-implemented law which calls for status quo on unauthorised constructions prior to January 1, 2006, the MCD and DDA tried to justify their inaction against the "mushrooming encroachments and continuance of rampant illegal erections of buildings."
In fact, the MCD went a step ahead. It justified partial or cosmetic action on some unauthorised buildings on the ground that it was demolishing only that particular portion of the structure which had come up after the new law was notified.
As per the MCD's interpretation of the new law, if some part was constructed before January 1, 2006, it cannot be razed. This, in effect, means that partially demolished buildings will now be the norm.
A visibly annoyed bench retorted: "We are very frank about this. If you feel that chaos should prevail, we will stop hearing this matter...we are really disgusted. Let's assume that this Act is valid. However, there are provisions to see that encroachment must not take place."
Appearing for DDA and MCD, senior advocate Jagmohan Sabharwal argued that his clients were facing a genuine problem in carrying out demolitions. Whenever Sabharwal got an opportunity, he sought the court's indulgence to pass specific demolition orders.
With reference to Swaran Park where illegal slums exist, Sabharwal said: "There are some slums which cannot be demolished as they are protected by the new law. My lord may pass an order and we shall comply with the same."
But the bench was not ready to pay heed to his explanations. "All this has been done by you and you must find a solution to the problem. You do not require our indulgence. You must devise ways and means to find solutions," the judges remarked.

End of Article