GANGA SHARAN AND ORS. Vs. MCD AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitions are filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to the respondents, restraining them from initiating any coercive action of demolition and dispossession of the petitioners from their respective Jhuggis/hutments situated at Gautam Puri, Badarpur, Molar Band, New Delhi. The petitioners have also sought quashing of any order passed by the respondents, cancelling the allotment/occupation made in their favour in respect of their jhuggis under the Rehabilitation Improvement Scheme of respondent No. 1/MCD.

(2.) ON a pointed query posed to the counsel for the petitioners as to the basis of the allotment allegedly made in favour of the petitioners, on the strength of which they are occupying the hutments in question, it is candidly conceded that except for petitioner No. 1 in W.P. (C) 5823/2010 to whom allotment of the hutment was originally made, all the remaining 61 petitioners in that petition are occupying the hutments in question either after the same were vacated by the original allottees, or in some cases, occupation of the hutments is on the strength of their illegal sale by the original allottees. None appears for the sole petitioner in WP(C) No. 6439/2010. From a perusal of the averments made in the petition, it can be ascertained that the petitioner herein is also not an original allottee and has come to occupy the hutment through a power of attorney executed in her favour.

(3.) IT is further stated that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the order dated 17.11.2009 passed in W.P. (C) 10567/2009 entitled Naresh Kumar and Ors. vs. MCD and Anr. is misplaced inasmuch as the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the original allottees and not by parties like the present petitioners, who have no legal claim to the allotted plots and furthermore, the opportunity of hearing which was claimed by the petitioners therein, was granted based on the facts of that case. In the present case, the petitioners are admittedly not recognized by respondent No. 2 as the original allottees and hence, the question of granting an opportunity for hearing does not arise.