Delhi HC restrains DDA from taking coercive action against Idgah committee
New Delhi
The Delhi high court on Thursday restrained the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from taking coercive action against the Shahi Idgah Management Committee, which is facing a recovery notice from the administrative body following its annual Ijtema congregation at the Eidgah Park near Delhi's Sadar Bazar.
On February 11, DDA issued a notice to the committee, seeking ₹12 lakh as booking charges for the religious function organised in December 2024, on the grounds that the parkland belonged to DDA.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, however, said DDA must not take coercive action until further orders, after the committee's counsel, Sanjoy Ghose, submitted that it filed a suit with the Delhi Waqf Tribunal, claiming that the park was on the Idgah land and seeking demarcation of the land where the Shahi Eidgah was situated. Ghose said the matter could not be heard due to lack of quorum and non-constitution of the tribunal and therefore, the committee had been rendered remediless.
'The problem is that the tribunal is not functional. Till that time, he (committee) has no remedy. It is a government land, but he is not encroaching upon it. It is a religious function, the recovery can come later on,' justice Mahajan said to DDA's lawyer.
'Having regard to the fact that the Waqf Tribunal is not functional, it is directed that the DDA shall not take any coercive action pursuant to notice dated 11/2,' the court said in its order.
The bench also issued a notice in the Shahi Idgah Management Committee's petition against the February 11 notice and fixed September 10 as the next date of hearing. In its petition, the committee had asserted that the park was part of the Idgah premises and DDA had no claim over it.
However, DDA's counsel submitted that a single judge, while previously dealing with the committee's petition against the installation of Maharani Lakshmi Bai's statute on September 23, 2024, had given a finding that the park was DDA's property. The counsel argued the religious function had been held on DDA land without prior approval. The committee had appealed against the single judge's decision before the division bench, but was not granted relief, the DDA counsel told the court.
Ghose, however, contended that the single judge had no power to rule on the issue of title of the park and the division bench had left open all contentions of the parties.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
8 hours ago
- New Indian Express
'We've lived here for generations': Batla House residents worried as demolition looms
NEW DELHI: Inside the maze of congested bylanes of southeast Delhi's Batla House, families pack up their possessions as they prepare to leave the place they called home for decades now. 'We've lived here for generations. Now, they just paste a notice and expect us to disappear,' said 65-year-old Abdul Rashid, who has been living in the locality since 1980. The notice in question was issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on May 26, informing residents that Khasra number 279, on Muradi Road, belongs to authority, making all structures on the land unauthorised. Residents were given 15 days' notice to vacate the land with a demolition drive set to begin on June 11. A cloud of apprehension looms as hundreds of families in the area are living under threat of eviction. 'Most people who lived here on rent have already moved away. Among the homeowners, those who have the means have also shifted. But the rest of us don't have any other option. If the authorities actually do carry out the demolitions, we will be in ruin,' Rashid laments. The DDA notice excludes houses under the PM-UDAY scheme meant to regularise Delhi's unauthorised colonies, but many claim they were unfairly left out despite submitting the necessary paperwork. Faizan Quereshi, another local, shows electricity bills and a property tax receipt dating back to 1992. 'This is not an unauthorised settlement. It was regularised decades ago. We have documents, addresses, connections, all legal.' Residents are left to endure an uncertain future. 'My children have exams. My wife is unwell. We can't sleep at night with the notice hanging around our necks,' Parveen Akhtar, a resident of Khizar Baba Colony. said. 'We don't know if tomorrow the bulldozers will come.'
India Gazette
10 hours ago
- India Gazette
"Will move SC to challenge DDA's demarcation of properties in Batla House area": AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan on Thursday said he would move the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) demarcation of properties in the Batla House area of Okhla. The move followed directions from the High Court's Division Bench, which granted affected residents three days to file individual writ petitions. This comes a day after Khan withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court that had sought to stop demolition action initiated by the DDA. Speaking to ANI, the AAP MLA said, 'The Division Bench has given time for the affected parties to file their writ individually within three days. We have also withdrawn our PIL. People have been living there since 1971, and you suddenly declared it unauthorised and separated it from the PM-UDAY scheme.' '...The manner in which DDA wants to demolish this entire area is beyond my demarcation done by them is not accurate. I withdrew my plea because I will challenge the demarcation before the Supreme Court,' he said. Khan withdrew the PIL on Wednesday to inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the court. The withdrawal was allowed by a division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, which suggested that individual residents approach the court with their grievances. 'In furtherance of the last order, senior counsel on the instructions of briefing counsel seeks permission to withdraw the petition filed by the petitioner, who is a public-spirited person, so he can inform the residents of Batla House to file an appropriate petition before the court,' the High Court said. At the outset of the hearing, the High Court noted that some aggrieved individuals have already been given protection by the court after hearing their individual petitions. The High Court at the beginning emphasised that any adverse order while deciding the PIL may affect the rights of the individuals who are already before the single-judge bench. The court has also emphasised that any aggrieved individual may approach the court like other people who have already approached the court. This issue is not a subject matter of the PIL. Khan had filed a PIL challenging the notice issued by the DDA for the demolition of alleged illegal properties in the area of Batla House in Okhla. The High Court on Monday had refused to grant an immediate interim stay on the demolition, which was proposed for June 11. Earlier, the apex court on May 7 refused to grant relief and directed the demolition of the illegal properties. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the petitioner and argued that they (DDA) are pasting notices on the properties which fall beyond the khasra no. 279. The order of the Supreme Court was regarding the illegal properties within this khasra. The counsel for respondents contended, on the other hand, that the PIL is not maintainable as the Supreme Court specifically directed that the individual aggrieved persons adopt the legal remedy. DDA's counsel also said that the notices issued by the DDA are not generic and are in compliance with the Supreme Court. All the notices were given 15 days to respond. No demolition was carried out during the notice period. (ANI)
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
DDA demolishes Bhoomiheen camp in South Delhi
At the crack of dawn on Wednesday, residents of Bhoomiheen camp in south Delhi's Kalkaji watched as bulldozers tore through their houses, where multiple generations of their families had lived. Only a field of rubble and dust could be seen where a sea of houses stood a day ago. The settlement — which first came up in the 70s ( according to residents) — was demolished five days after the Delhi high court dismissed all petitions filed by some camp residents against the demolition barring one. The process to remove the residents from the DDA-owned land first began in June 2023 but was halted when those who had not been rehabilitated filed writ petitions in the high court. However, this time around, the deed is done. 'We do not know what we will do. We have nowhere to go now,' said 43-year-old Manoj Tiwari, as he stared at the bulldozers in action. Tiwari, who runs a snack shop in the area, said that his family has not yet been allotted a house in Kalkaji. While DDA said that 1,862 households in the area were rehoused in Pocket A-14, Kalkaji extension in 2023, residents placed the total number of households at over 3,000. A DDA official told HT, 'Under in situ slum rehabilitation project at Kalkaji, after applying the eligibility criterion as per DUSIB's rehabilitation/relocation policy 2015, approved by the then government of Delhi, some residents were found to be eligible for rehabilitaion, and some were not.' According to policy, households included in voter lists from years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 (prior to January 1), and possess any of the valid documents such as passport, electricity bill, driving licence, among others, are eligible for alternative accommodation. A person's name should also appear in the voter list of the year of survey (2019), said the official. On June 6, the HC directed DDA to provide alternative housing to one of the petitioners, which the body said it has already done, and to re-examine 26 of the cases and pass speaking orders within six weeks. 'None of the petitioners has any legal right to continue occupying the JJ cluster incessantly, to the detriment of the public at large,' the court had said. Prakash Goswami, 44, a small goods vehicle driver who claimed that he was in Bhoomiheen camp, alleged that he was denied housing despite having all the documents. 'The officials said that since I did not vote in 2019, I am not eligible for a house. I had gone to Bihar at the time because my mother had died,' he said. Savita Tiwari, 36, who too was born in the camp, alleged that the 2019 survey wrongly mentioned that she did not possess a ration card. 'But I have a ration card. I have showed it to officials. I have shown it in court. Why am I not eligible for a house then?' Goswami, his wife and three children stood on Wednesday morning, along with the camp's hundreds of residents, and watched bulldozers flatten the colony. 'I don't know where we will sleep tonight,' he said. .
