1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 592 OF 2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 759 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1023 OF 2021 O R D E R Four weeks' time mentioned in the order dated 15.11.2021 will be reckoned from 22.11.2021, when the order was uploaded on the Supreme Court Official Website. Rest of the order to remain as it is. ....................,J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI; December 10, 2021.
2 ITEM NO.801 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 64532/2021 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 65543/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 65544/2021 FOR MODIFICATION ON IA 71098/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 71100/2021 FOR INTERVENTION APPLICATION ON IA 82565/2021 FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 82566/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 84526/2021 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 91182/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 91186/2021 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 92160/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 92163/2021 FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PETITION ON IA 92847/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 92851/2021 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 103148/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 103150/2021 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 106530/2021 FOR APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING TYPED DOCUMENTS ON IA 106531/2021 ) Date : 10-12-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Tripti Poddar, Adv. Mr. Satwick Parikh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR
3 UPON being mentioned, the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time mentioned in the order dated 15.11.2021 will be reckoned from 22.11.2021, when the order was uploaded on the Supreme Court Official Website. Rest of the order to remain as it is. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (NSH)
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO.759/2021 WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1023/2021 O R D E R These proceedings are in continuation of directions issued by this Court in cognate matters pursuant to which, action of demolition of unauthorised structures on the forest land has since been taken by the Municipal Corporation Faridabad (for short, "the Corporation”). Further, a housing Scheme has been propounded by the Corporation to provide residential flats to the eligible persons affected by such demolition, in lieu of rehabilitation. These writ petitions essentially challenge the validity of certain clauses of
2 Rehabilitation Housing Plan propounded by Municipal Corporation Faridabad (for short, "the Corporation Scheme”). Broadly, six issues have been raised before us. The first challenge is to the clause providing for eligibility criteria, which reads thus: “B.3.(e) “Eligibility Criteria”- A resident of Khori jhuggi cluster squatting on PLPA-1900 notified land owned by MCF in the Revenue Estate of Village Lakkarpur will be considered eligible for allotment of EWS flats who has annual income upto Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) and if the adult earning member/head of the family fulfills any of the following conditions:- i) That name of the adult earning member/ head of the family is included in the voter list of the area concerned in assembly constituency of Barkhal in State of Haryana as on 1 st Jan, 2021 ii) That the adult earning member/head of the family has a Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP) issued by the State of Haryana as on 1 st Jan, 2021. iii) That the adult earning member/head of the family has an electric connection in his/her name provided by Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.”
3 According to the petitioners, as the flats which are likely to be allotted to the eligible persons are constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Scheme (for short, ‘the Central Scheme’), the eligibility criteria cannot be restricted to three parameters specified in clause (e), namely, voters list, Parivar Pehchan Patra and electric connection. It is urged that under the Central Scheme, the incumbent can produce Aadhar card/ Voter Identity Card/any other Unique Identification number or a certificate of house ownership from revenue authority of beneficiary’s native district, as noted in Format A, read with clauses 8.3 and 8.4 of the Central Scheme. As regards the documents required to substantiate the eligibility criteria, the Corporation Scheme also refer to voters list and electric connection besides the Parivar Pehchan Patra. In our opinion, it will be open to the aspiring person(s) applying for allotment of
4 flat in lieu of rehabilitation under the Corporation Scheme, to rely on documents referred to in the Central Scheme for the purpose of establishing his/her identity. However, those documents by itself will not be enough to substantiate the other vital facts required to be established by such applicant, inter alia , (1) that the structure referred to by the applicant did exist before the cut-off date specified in the Corporation Scheme; (2) that the stated structure was, in fact, in his/her occupation and has been demolished by the Corporation during the demolition action undertaken pursuant to the order of this Court in companion matters; and (3) no one else from the family or in occupation of such demolished structure has applied under the Corporation Scheme for allotment in lieu of rehabilitation. Indeed, it will be open to the applicants to assert such claim on personal declaration-cum- affidavit to be submitted along with the application, but the same need to be substantiated on the basis of tangible
5 contemporaneous record including official documents. These are matters which need to be verified by the authorities/Corporation besides other relevant facts as may be required on case-to-case basis. In our opinion, the eligibility criteria in the Corporation Scheme need to be modulated only to this limited extent. In other words, even if the applicant relies on the documents referred to in the Central Scheme besides the documents referred to in the eligibility criteria in the Corporation Scheme, he/she must establish other relevant facts including as noted earlier for being eligible for allotment of a residential flat in lieu of rehabilitation owing to demolition of his/her structure. The second grievance made by the petitioners is about the cost factor of the flat(s) to be allotted in lieu of the rehabilitation under the Corporation Scheme. As per clause F.8(a), the cost of flat has been fixed at Rs.3,77,500/- per flat. This
6 cost has been determined by the State Government and not by the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation invited our attention to the chart referring to the cost calculation of economically weaker sections flats constructed at site at Dabua Colony and Bapu Nagar in District Faridabad. As per the said chart, the proportionate land cost for each flat has been quantified at Rs.6,15,470/- and the cost of each flat including land cost as Rs.10,76,900/-. Despite that, the Corporation is offering the flat (under the Corporation Scheme) at the given site at the rate fixed by the State Government, being Rs.3,77,500/- only. Much debate was founded on the facts and figures concerning the calculation of the cost of flat at the given site under the Central Scheme. That, however, pertained to year 2012- 2013. That is an incomparable illustration. The same cannot be the basis to countenance the grievance of the petitioners. What is significant to note is that the allottee will
7 not be required to deposit the entire cost of flat upfront at the stage of allotment, but he/she has the option of paying it in instalments spread over a period of 20 years, in monthly instalments at a subsidised rate of interest of 2.5% per annum only. The upfront deposit is only a sum of Rs.10,000/- per allottee. In other words, the monthly outgoing towards flat cost, as informed to us by the learned counsel for the Corporation, would be Rs.1,572/- per month only. Suffice it to observe that the analogy adopted by the petitioners for questioning the cost of flat determined by the State Government at Rs.3,77,500/-, is flimsy and untenable. Hence, it needs to be rejected. The third challenge to the Scheme is to clause G.(9) providing for obligation of the allottee, which reads thus : “G. OBLIGATIONS FOF THE ALLOTTEE:- 9.(a) In addition to the cost price prescribed by the Commissioner, MCF, the allotee shall be responsible to pay water,
8 sewerage, electricity charges to the authority concerned. (b) That in case the allottee fails to clear the dues of water, sewerage and electricity charges etc. even after grant of opportunity to clear the same and the allotee remains in default, then process of revocation of allotment will be initiated. If he/she fails to deposit the arrears within 15 days of the receipt of notice from MCF, allocation of flat/property shall be revoked.” The aforesaid condition postulates that the allottee shall be responsible to pay water, sewerage, electricity charges to the authority concerned. It is not open to the allottee to argue that he/she would be using all these facilities and yet not liable to reimburse the same. Indeed, water and sewerage may be linked to the services rendered by the Corporation. Whereas, electricity would be supplied to the flat of the concerned allottee by another entity and not the Corporation. Nevertheless, common electricity used in the campus where the flat is located and the common spending in that regard may have to be shared by the occupant
9 concerned. The expression “electricity ” used in this clause may be understood accordingly. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the condition specified in clause (b) is onerous. For, revocation of allotment merely owing to default in payment of electricity charges is very harsh and excessive. The argument, though attractive at the first blush, needs to be negatived in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Corporation. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Corporation that it is a generic stipulation which would cover all maintenance charges to be recovered from the allottee concerning the allotted flat, including the monthly instalment payable in terms of Clause 8(b). Suffice it to observe that the issue regarding default and the consequences on account of such default is a matter which will have to be considered on case-to-case basis. It
10 will be open to the allottee to make representation to the authority so as to explain the fact that he/she had not committed any default or that he/she was not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the Corporation or any other entity on behalf of the Corporation. It is not open to the allottee to admit the liability towards outgoings and instalments and yet not discharge the same. Such allottee cannot be heard to remain in occupation of the allotted flat without inviting the consequences of revocation of allotment, being a condition for such allotment. Accordingly, even the challenge to Clause G.(9) does not commend to us. We reiterate that we are not expressing final opinion regarding varied situations which may have to be dealt with in reference to the said stipulation, as that will have to be considered on case-to-case basis as and when occasion arises.
11 Suffice it to observe that we find this provision to be reasonable if implemented in right perspective; as it gives sufficient space to the allottee(s) to discharge their obligation referred to therein. The fourth point urged was regarding the last date of inviting applications. It was urged by Mr. Sanjay Parikh as well as Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that since this Court has now expanded the eligibility criteria in terms of this order, the aspiring persons who are in a position to present such documents may be allowed to apply even after the cut-off date. We are not impressed by this submission. For, the original Scheme had provided for specific cut-off date, which was, in fact, extended by this Court making it amply clear that there would be no further extension. Further, this Court had already permitted the aspiring persons to submit applications supported by Aadhar Card, as was requested on
12 earlier occasion, being an interim arrangement and subject to the outcome of these petitions. Those who were interested in doing so have already applied within the extended time given by the Court. It is not possible to alter the cut-off date and reopen the entire rehabilitation process. As a matter of fact, by way of interim direction, the Court had permitted provisional allotment to those applicants who were able to prima facie establish their identity and eligibility, which is not part of the Scheme. Accordingly, we do not wish to alter the cut-off date as the final allotment process has already been delayed because of pendency of these proceedings. It is a different matter if the Corporation was to extend the cut-off date, but we do not wish to issue any direction to the Corporation to do so. The fifth point urged is regarding the efficacy of clause D.(5), concerning payment of solatium. The same reads thus:
13 “5. A solatium of Rs. 2000/- per month shall be paid to the eligible residents of Lakkarpur Khori jhuggies for making their own rental arrangements till the time the EWS flats at Dabua colony and Bapu Nagar are made habitable by MCF but not exceeding six months in any case.” This arrangement was by way of concession ex-gratia. It was not in vogue before the demolition action had commenced. It has now been made part of the Scheme. The outer limit has been specified, which, in our opinion, is a reasonable condition. In any case, those who were prima facie eligible for allotment, have been allotted provisional accommodation as an interim measure. Since they have been provided temporary accommodation, the question of paying them solatium amount does not arise. Further, the Corporation is not in a position to keep it open-ended because of limited resources at its disposal. The Corporation has already paid Rs.2,000/- per month to eligible residents of Lakkarpur Khori Jhuggis for making their own arrangements until allotment of flat in lieu of rehabilitation as per the Corporation Scheme.
14 That was for the initial period of six months, which cannot be extended by Court’s order, being a policy matter. The grievance of the petitioners before us is that no solatium amount has been paid to the persons eligible for rehabilitation. That is a matter which can be raised before the Commissioner in the first place. Such representation be made by the concerned person(s) within four weeks from today. The Commissioner to consider those application(s) in light of the stipulation in the subject Scheme on case-to-case basis expeditiously and not later than four weeks from its receipt. The last challenge is to clause G.(11), which reads thus : “11. The EWS flat shall be used exclusively for residnetial purposes only and not for any other purposes.” According to the petitioners, the petitioners were doing some commercial
15 activities in the premises which have been demolished. That, however, cannot be the basis for issuing direction to rehabilitate the person in the residential flat and permit him to continue with such activities. The eligible person after allotment would be obliged to use the flat only for residential purpose being condition precedent for rehabilitation under the Scheme as propounded, being a Housing Plan and not for commercial activities as such. Accordingly, even this challenge does not commend to us. Besides this, nothing more is required to be dealt with in these petitions. These petitions and pending applications are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ....................,J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 15, 2021.
16 ITEM NO.304 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 92847/2021 - AMENDMENT OF THE PETITION IA No. 106531/2021 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING TYPED DOCUMENTS IA No. 82566/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 65544/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 91186/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 64532/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 106530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 84526/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 103150/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 92851/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 71100/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 92163/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82565/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 71098/2021 - MODIFICATION IA No. 92160/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 65543/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 91182/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 103148/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH W.P.(C) No. 759/2021 (PIL-W) IA No. 82248/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 82250/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 79663/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82274/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82271/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) W.P.(C) No. 1023/2021 (X) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.114426/2021-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.114427/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T...) Date : 15-11-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
17 For Parties Mr. Sanjay Parikh,Sr. Adv Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Tripti Poddar,Adv Mr. Satwik Parikh Adv Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas,Adv Mr. Colin Gonsalves,Sr Adv Ms. Anupradha Singh Adv Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur,Adv Ms. Hetvi Patel,Adv Mr. Haider Ali,Adv Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Mr. Kamal Gupta,Adv Ms. Sunaina Phul,Adv Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta,Ld SG Mr. Arun Bhardwaj,Sr. Adv Ms. Ruchi Kohli,AAG Ms. Srishti Mishra,Adv Ms. Monika Gosain,AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Anil Grover, Sr.AAG Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG/AOR Mr. Himanshu Satija, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Mr. B.K. Satija AAG/AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli AAG Mr. Himanshu Satija,Adv Mr. Bhanwar Jadon,Adv Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The writ petitions and pending applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file.)
1 ITEM NO.301 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 92847/2021 - AMENDMENT OF THE PETITION IA No. 106531/2021 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING TYPED DOCUMENTS IA No. 82566/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 92851/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 71100/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 92163/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 65544/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 91186/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 64532/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 106530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 84526/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 103150/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82565/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 71098/2021 - MODIFICATION IA No. 103148/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 92160/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 65543/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 91182/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH W.P.(C) No. 759/2021 (PIL-W) IA No. 82248/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 82274/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82250/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 79663/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82271/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) W.P.(C) No. 1023/2021 (X) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.114426/2021-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.114427/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T...) Date : 12-11-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh,Sr. Adv Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Tripti Poddar,Adv Mr. Satwik Parikh,Adv Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas,Adv Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv Ms. Anupradha Singh, Adv Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur, Adv Mr. Haider Ali,Adv Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AAG Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain,AOR Mr. Arun Bhardwaj,Sr. Adv Mr. B.K. Satija,AAG/AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli,AAG Dr. Monika Gusain,AOR Mr. Anil Grover, Sr.AAG Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG/AOR Mr. Himanshu Satija, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Ms. Babita Mishra, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List these matters on 15 th November, 2021. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER
1 ITEM NO.302 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 92847/2021 - AMENDMENT OF THE PETITION IA No. 106531/2021 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING TYPED DOCUMENTS IA No. 82566/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 71100/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 92163/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 65544/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 91186/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 64532/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 106530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 84526/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 103150/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 92851/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82565/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 71098/2021 - MODIFICATION IA No. 92160/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 65543/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 91182/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 103148/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH W.P.(C) No. 759/2021 (PIL-W) IA No. 82248/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 82274/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82250/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 79663/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82271/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) W.P.(C) No. 1023/2021 (X) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.114426/2021-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.114427/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T...) Date : 22-10-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
2 For Parties Mr.Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Mr. Anil Grover ,Sr. AAG Mr. B K. Satija, AAG Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr Adv Ms. Anupradha Singh Adv Ms. Kawalpreet Kaur Adv Mr. Haider Ali Adv Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Mr. J.K Sud, LD ASG Ms. Vimal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Mr. Manish, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr.Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Mr.Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Mr.Tripti Poddar, Adv Mr.Satwik Parikh, Adv Mr.Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Kamal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Phul, Adv. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv., Addl.AG Mr. B K. Satija, AAG Ms Ruchi Kohli, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.No... /2021-application for direction filed on 21.10.2021 Two reliefs have been claimed in this application.
3 As regards the first relief of not insisting for upfront payment at the time of issue of provisional allotment letter, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for Faridabad Municipal Corporation (for short "the Corporation") submits that it appears that some letters have been issued inadvertently. Hence, the same will be recalled. Further, the upfront amount would be collected from the concerned allottee(s) only upon issuance of final allotment letter after draw of lots as per the latest scheme. This submission is placed on record. In respect of prayer clause (b), it is submitted by Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation that the grievance in the application about payment of solatium amount for six months to affected persons, as per the policy, will be looked into and corrective steps taken if there is any case of non- payment, subject to verification. In light of above, nothing more is required to be done on this application, for the time being. The same may remain pending till the next date of hearing, when appropriate statement can be made by learned counsel appearing for the Corporation after taking instructions.
4 We appreciate the stand taken by Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation that instead of pursuing the proceedings before this Court, the grievances such as mentioned in the present application can be brought to his notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/applicants, so that he would be in a position to give appropriate advice to the concerned official and call upon the Corporation to take corrective measures, as may be required. In future, before filing application of this nature, the petitioners-applicants must first intimate the learned senior counsel for the Corporation about any issue in respect of which redressal is sought by the concerned person, which can be examined by the Corporation and if it remains unresolved for more than two weeks from the date of intimation, it would be open to the petitioners/applicants to file application before this Court. Hearing on the issue of validity of the Rehabilitation Scheme had commenced but in the midst of hearing as connectivity problem occurred at the end of Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned senior counsel, the hearing could not continue. Hence, as requested, the matters be
5 now listed on 12.11.2021. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
1 ITEM NO.301 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) ( IA No. 92847/2021 - AMENDMENT OF THE PETITION IA No. 106531/2021 - APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING TYPED DOCUMENTS IA No. 82566/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 91186/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 64532/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 106530/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 84526/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 103150/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 92851/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 71100/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 92163/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 65544/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82565/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 71098/2021 - MODIFICATION IA No. 65543/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 91182/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 103148/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 92160/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH W.P.(C) No. 759/2021 (PIL-W) IA No. 82248/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 79663/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82274/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82250/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 82271/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) W.P.(C) No. 1023/2021 (X) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.114426/2021-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.114427/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T...) Date : 27-09-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
2 CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Tripti Poddar, Adv. Mr. Satwik Parikh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anupradha Singh, Adv. Mr. Haider Ali, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Kamal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Phul, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AAG Ms. Srishi Mishra, Adv. Ms. Monika Gusain, Adv. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. (AAG) Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gauraan Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Brijender Singh Dhull, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. B.K Satija, AAG HARYANA/AOR Mr. Himanshu Satija Adv Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Ms. Adira A. Nair Adv Mr. Jayant K. Sud, ASG Mr. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramaniyam, Adv. Mr. Manish, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These petitions have been listed to consider the
3 challenge to eligibility criteria specified in the Rehabilitation Policy/Scheme. In the context of issues raised by Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned senior counsel, and the suggestions which have been made during the course of hearing, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, prays for time to take instructions and revert back on those matters. He submits that, if possible, the Corporation will file appropriate affidavit disclosing the reasons, if the suggestion regarding inclusion of further documents to establish the eligibility and entitlement of the applicant is not acceptable to the Corporation. That issue will be considered on 4 th October, 2021. During the course of submissions, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned senior counsel, invited our attention to the condition requiring deposit and payment of equal monthly installments, in case allotment is made to eligible applicant. Some suggestions have been given by Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned senior counsel, on which the Corporation will like to reflect before making any statement. Even this aspect can be clarified in the affidavit, to be filed by the Corporation.
4 Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, pointed out that the e-portal of the Corporation has some technical glitches and as of now is available only in English version. The suggestions given by learned counsel may be examined by the Corporation and appropriate remedial steps can be taken by the Corporation to the extent possible. As aforesaid, list these matters (related to rehabilitation policy/scheme) on 4 th October, 2021 as a separate group. The other issue (related to forest and non-forest land) involved in the group of cases being C.A.Nos. 10294/2013, 11000/2013, 8173/2016, 8454/2014, W.P.(C) Nos. 1008/2021 and 1031/2021 will also be considered on 4 th October, 2021. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER
1 ITEM NO.27 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 759/2021 PRIWASEE SANGTHAN WELFARE SOCIETY Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.79663/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT ) Date : 19-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Mr. Kamal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Phul, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter along with SLP(C) Nos. 7220-7221 of 2017 and connected writ petitions involving identical issues on Friday, i.e., 23.07.2021 at 02.00 p.m. before the same Bench which had passed orders on 19.02.2020, 05.04.2021 and 07.06.2021. This date will be in supersession of date given earlier in the connected cases.
2 Liberty is granted to serve advance copy of the petition on the respondents, including Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana, Faridabad Municipal Corporation and Central Agency. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.301 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 64532/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 07-06-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Colin Gonsalves,Sr.Adv. Ms. Anupradha Singh,Adv. Mr. Haider Ali,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Ruchi Kohli,AAG Mr. B.K.Satija,AAG Mr. Arun Bhardwaj,Sr.Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra,Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Jayant K.Sud,ASG Ms. Vimla Sinha,Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Ms. Sanya Sud,Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav,AOR Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel has pointed out that his appearance had been wrongly notified in the Cause List. 1
The Registry to delete the name of Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel from the Cause List. Heard learned counsel for the parties for some time. In our opinion, the petitioners are bound by the directions given by the High Court and reiterated by this Court in order dated 19 th February, 2020 and again on 5 th April, 2021, in another proceedings pending before this Court with regard to the same subject matter. The relief claimed by the petitioners in this writ petition can be considered de-hors compliance of the directions given on earlier occasions by this Court in orders dated 19 th February, 2020 and 5 th April, 2021 respectively. Therefore, we reiterate our directions given to the Corporation as well to the State of Haryana as noted in the stated orders of this Court and expect that the Corporation will take all essential measures to remove encroachments on the subject forest land without any exception, not later than six weeks from today and submit a compliance report in that behalf, under the signature of the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. Similarly, the Secretary of the Forest Department of the State of Haryana shall also cause to verify the factual situation regarding encroachments on the subject forest land and submit independent compliance report under his signature. After those certificates are submitted within 2
six weeks as aforesaid, the Court may consider of passing further directions including regarding due verification of factual statement recorded in the certificates through an independent agency. We make it clear that the Corporation shall proceed in the matter as observed in our orders dated 19 th February, 2020 and 5 th April, 2021. The State in general and the local police in particular, shall give necessary and adequate logistical support to enable the Corporation to implement the directions given by us to evict the occupants/encroachers including by forcible eviction from the subject forest land and to clear all the encroachments therefrom. The Superintendent of Police, District Faridabad shall be personally responsible for ensuring adequate logistical support and police protection to the officials of the Corporation as we have already indicated in the earlier orders. We further make it clear that the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation and the Secretary of the Forest Department shall be personally responsible to oversee the implementation of the directions given in this order and submit their compliance report(s) within six weeks. 3
List this matter on 27 th July, 2021 along with SLP(Civil)Nos.7220-7221 of 2017. (NEELAM GULATI) (VIDYA NEGI) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER 4
ITEM NO.301 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 64532/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 03-06-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anupradha Singh, Adv. Mr. Haider Ali, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Ld. ASG Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List this matter on Monday, i.e. 07.06.2021. Registry to notify the appearance of Mr. Vishwajit Singh and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the State of Haryana respectively in the cause list. The Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners is at liberty to inform the Secretary of the concerned Department about the listing of this matter on 07.06.2021, including to the Standing Counsel, aforementioned. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
ITEM NO.302 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 592/2021 SARINA SARKAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 64532/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT) Date : 31-05-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The petitioners are granted liberty to serve advance copy on the Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana as well as Municipal Corporation of Faridabad. List this matter on Thursday, i.e. 03.06.2021. (DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)