Indian Express 29.04.2010
Civic bodies slammed for buck-passing on road encroachment
Utkarsh Anand Tags : encroachments, delhi Posted: Thursday , Apr 29, 2010 at 0124 hrs
New delhi: Irked by non-compliance with its order on removal of encroachments in a West Delhi, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday ordered the vice-chairman of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and additional commissioner of the state government’s Slums and JJ department to appear before it on May 12.Slamming the counsel appearing on behalf of these agencies, the court said it had heard enough excuses regarding which agency was liable to carry out the demolition of encroachments in Jwala Heri area on Main Rohtak Road. The top officials would now have to furnish explanations for the lapse
In February last year, the Bench had directed the MCD and the DDA to remove the encroachments from the roads meant for use of the residents of three group housing co-operative societies on Rohtak Road in Paschim Vihar.
The court’s directive on Wednesday came when advocate Raj Panjwani, appearing for petitioner Viraat Co-operative Group Housing Society, told the Bench that a major portion of the 80 metre-wide road in the area was still encroached and the civic agencies had done nothing till date.
“Let the vice-chairman, DDA; commissioner, MCD and additional commissioner of Slums and JJ department appear personally before the court and explain the reasons for non-implementation of the order,” a Division Bench of acting Chief Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Mukta Gupta said.
Standing counsel for the government Najmi Waziri submitted before the Bench that there was no legal protection available to the encroachers in question as they occupied what was for others the right of way. “The rules and the guidelines were unequivocal on the point that all encroachments along the roadside and on the pavements were to be cleared,” said Waziri.
The DDA counsel told the court that the land in question had been transferred to the MCD after a notification.
Responding to this, the MCD counsel sought more time, claiming the civic body was arraigned as a party much later and the counsel needed instructions from the senior officials. The counsel further said general wing of the MCD would be the agency to take action on this.
The counsel for the Slums and JJ department, meanwhile, argued that they were merely the implementation agency and could act only on orders given by a civic body.
Justice Gupta then said, “We have had enough of buck-passing. Nobody wants to work. We are not bothered by who is going to do it; if it is encroachment, it has to be removed.”
Reproaching the laxity of the civic agencies, the court said: “A year and two months have passed and the agencies have failed to implement the order. You cannot take the court for granted.”
