SC threatens sealing resumption

Court Irked Over Lack Of Infrastructure, Also Slams DDA On MPD

New Delhi: To the discomfiture of the Sheila Dikshit government gearing up for Assembly polls, the Supreme Court on Monday threatened to order resumption of the sealing drive in regularized colonies being angered by the alleged breach of its earlier orders banning regularization without providing for all basic providing basic infrastructure.

It also took to task the DDA for effecting as many as 37 modifications to the Master Plan-2021 within a span of one and a half years, virtually regularizing all illegal constructions and violations of the building bylaws and declaring residential areas as commercial zones.

What annoyed a Bench comprising justices Arijit Pasayat, C K Thakker and L S Panta was, more than 1,400 unauthorized colonies were given legal status under the garb of ‘‘provisional regularisation’’. In its February 14, 2006 order, the court had said: ‘‘In case the state/authorities are not in a position to make available services whereof it is admitted that there are severe limitations, there shall be no regularization of unauthorised colonies. In other words, regularisation should be made only if it is possible for the respondents to make available the services.’’

Adding to the woes of the urban development ministry was the precise identification of woeful infrastructure in Delhi by amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar, who read out a government affidavit narrating the problems of water, electricity, sewage, solid-waste disposal, public transport and parking lot in the Capital. The Bench asked ASG Amarendra Saran and P P Malhotra to file an affidavit stating why the authorities did not seek modification of the February 14, 2006 order prior to embarking on the exercise of regularising the unauthorised colonies.

On the 37 amendments to MPD-2021, the Bench asked DDA whether it had invited objections to the proposed changes to the master plan and whether it had held public hearings on these issues before effecting the modifications. ‘‘It appears that the changes were made for political reasons,’’ the Bench said.

When the DDA counsel replied that all procedures were duly followed, the court asked the authority to file an affidavit detailing the need for the changes, the objections that were received and the manner in which they were disposed of. Kumar accused the government for not carrying out the sealing drive against those unauthorised structures which did not enjoy benefit of the relief.

With the Thanks from the Time of India
Source:- The Times of India 16 Sep. 2008 P.6
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in