IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 128 of 2012 With WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 18 of 2012 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ========================================== =============== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as 4 to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================== =============== BABUBHAI DALPATBHAI SHRIMALI PRESIDENT OF SABARMATI SAGARSH - PETITIONER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY & 3 - RESPONDENT ========================================== =============== Appearance :
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.128 of 2012 MRS NISHA M PARIKH for PETITIONER : 1,MR VILAS G GOSWAMY for PETITIONER : 1, MR PK JANI GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS SHRUTI PATHAK AGP for RESPONDENT : 1, MR KAMAL TRIVEDI with MR ABHISHEK MEHTA for RESPONDENT : 2 - 3.
MS SANGEETA VISHEN for RESPONDENT : 4, WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.18 of 2012 MR DP JOSHI for PETITIONER : 1, MR PK JANI GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS SHRUTI PATHAK AGP for RESPONDENT : 1, MR KAMAL TRIVEDI with MR ABHISHEK MEHTA for RESPONDENT : 2 - 3.
MS SANGEETA VISHEN for RESPONDENT : 4, ========================================== =============== CORAM : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 08/11/2012 COMMON CAV JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) As common questions of fact are involved in both the above captioned petitions, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. Both the writ petitions are in the nature of a public interest litigation, praying for appropriate writ, order or direction on the respondent-authorities to include the names of the persons who claim to be the project (Sabarmati River Front) affected families (“PAFs” for short) in the list of those persons who are required to be rehabilitated and who have been given alternative accommodation by the respondent authorities.
2.1 As far as Writ Petition (PIL) No.18 of 2012 is concerned, the same has been preferred by one Deepak Babaria claiming to be the coordinator of Ahmedabad Riverfront Slum Dwellers Association, for and on behalf of in all 1348 persons who are forming part of the list appended at Annexures-A, B and C respectively to WP (PIL) No.1887 of 2012 According to the petitioner, the list at Annexure-A comprises of 396 persons who were residing at the Sabarmati riverfront area and possess all the required proof, but have not been granted alternative accommodation. The list at Annexure-B comprises of 679 persons, who according to the petitioner do not have sufficient proof but have in their possession some documents to show that they were residents of riverfront area. A third list at Annexure-C comprises of 273 persons who had filed applications before the Retired Justice D.P. Buch Committee, but they have not been considered and have not been granted any alternative accommodation.
2.2 As far as Writ Petition (PIL) No.128 of 2012 is concerned, the same has been preferred by one Babubhai Dalpatbhai Shrimali claiming to be the President of Sabarmati Sangharsh Samittee for and on behalf of 76 persons forming the list at Annexure-A to the said petition. The petitioner claims to be espousing the cause for the benefit of these persons who were residing on the banks of Sabarmati river and who have not been allotted any alternative residential premises by the respondent authorities.
3. In the year 2005, a Public Interest Litigation being SCA No.6280/2005 was preferred by one Pathan Mohmadkhan Aliyarkhan for and on behalf of the hutment dwellers living on the banks of river Sabarmati in Ahmedabad against the State of Gujarat and others, for a direction to declare the action of the respondents in taking any action in pursuance of the Sabarmati Riverfront Development Project, without and before satisfactorily completing the just and fair scheme of resettlement and rehabilitation of all project affected people living thereon, as arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and unjustified. The other prayer was to restrain the respondents from evicting the project affected people actually living on the banks of river Sabarmati and not to demolish their houses and forcibly remove them to other places.
4. Several orders were passed by this Court after taking into consideration the submissions raised by the petitioners in the said petition i.e. SCA No.6280/2005, who were representing the hutment dwellers residing on the Sabarmati riverfront as well as the submissions and contentions of the respondent authorities who were undertaking the task of executing the rehabilitation of the genuine hutment dwellers / project affected families (PAFs). From the orders passed by this Court in SCA No.6280/2005, it is evident that directions were issued to the petitioners as well as to the respondent authorities to compile their respective lists of hutment dwellers / PAFs, who had occupied and settled on the Sabarmati riverfront of Ahmedabad and such lists were submitted on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents, which included the names of 5964 PAFs submitted by the respondent corporation whereas, a list of 4319 PAFs was submitted on behalf of the petitioners. This Court was of the view that any person whose name was not appearing in the said two lists submitted by the corporation or by the petitioners in SCA No.6280/2005 will not be treated as a PAF and will be deemed to have occupied the land after the order passed by this Court.
5. In this regard, it will not be out of place to refer to the relevant paras of the orders passed by this Court in SCA No.6280/2005, which would have a bearing on the outcome of the captioned petitions.
(i) Order dated 24.6.2011 in SCA No.6280/2005:
“The matter is discussed.
2. Learned Advocate General is allowed three days' time to submit the list of hutment dwellers (with the name of Kartavya of the family) who have been allotted alternative accommodation. A copy of the same shall be given to the petitioners. The petitioners will file a list of rest of the hutment dwellers who are occupying the place and, who have not yet been allotted, within two days thereof.
3. The Court may pass appropriate order for alternative accommodation of those who are occupying the land in question i.e. Sabarmati Riverfront.
4. Post the matter on 5th July 2011 on top of the list.
5. Until further orders, a general direction is issued prohibiting any person to further occupy or construct any structure or hutment on the land in question without prior permission of the Court.”
(ii) Order dated 5.7.2011 in SCA No.6280/2005:
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there are more than 4000 families who are settled over there but their names have not been included.
It was agreed upon by both the parties that they will submit their respective list of PAFs who have occupied and settled on the Sabarmati River Front of Ahmedabad.
Pursuant to the Court's order, lists have been submitted on behalf of the Corporation and the petitioner PAFs. The list of the Corporation includes names of 5964 PAFs, whereas list submitted on behalf of the petitioner PAFs contains the name of additional 4319 PAFs. It was agreed upon by both the parties that there may be duplication of name of some of the 'Karta' of the family but no PAFs will be left and should be provided with alternative accommodation.
Counsel for both the parties i.e. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and PAFs accepts that the names of 'Karta' of no PAFs has been left out of the two lists as submitted by parties before this Court.
……………………………….. The list of PAFs submitted by the Corporation (total 5964) and additional list of PAFs submitted on behalf of the petitioners of the Public Interest Litigation (total 4319) are on the record. The same are also available with the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Corporation and learned advocate Mr.Manoj Shrimali, junior counsel who is appearing along with Mr.Girish Patel, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the PAFs.
The applicants of Civil Application No.5864/2011 and others who have approached through Special Civil Application No.7136/2011, they may verify whether their names are appearing in the list submitted by the Corporation or the list submitted by the counsel for the Project Affected Families.
Prima facie, we are of the view that if their names are not appearing, that means even the PAFs have also not recognised and not accepted them as the families residing with them.
From the list as submitted and noticed above, it will be evident that total 5964 + 4800 = 10,764 residential units have been completed or are on the verge of completion by the end of July 2011/end of August 2011.
In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that those PAFs who have already been allotted residential units (total 3798), they should shift to their residential units immediately and the rest of the PAFs should shift immediately on completion of the proposed residential units on the basis of joint list available with the parties. The Corporation will allot the residential units in favour of one or the other PAFs.
Considering the same, the following directions are issued for the present :-
1. Total 3798 PAFs shown in the list of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation who have still not shifted despite allotment of residential units are directed to shift to their respective allotted residential units by 31st July 2011.
If any of the PAFs shown in the list of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation out of total 3798 do not shift to their respective allotted residential units, it will be presumed that there is no such person residing in the area or that he does not want any alternative residential unit, and in such case if such family continues to occupy the land, they will be evicted from the Sabarmati River Front.
2. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed to allot residential units to rest of 4319 PAFs as shown by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners against the residential units which will be fully ready by July 2011 or August 2011.
3. The allotment orders should be issued in advance and the final settlement order be issued in the joint name of the husband, wife and the children of the family so that all of them can claim their right over the allotted residential unit. It should be issued with the proper residential unit number, place, etc. and produce the list of allotment before this Court and handover a copy of the same to learned junior counsel Mr.Manoj Shrimali who is appearing for the petitioners.
4. By 8th August 2011, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation will inform the Court as to whether 2784 residential units have been completed or not. If it is completed, then the Court will grant them one month's time to shift to their respective allotted residential units.
5. So far as rest of 2016 residential units are concerned, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation will inform the Court by 9th September 2011, whether such units have been completed or not. In that case, the families will be directed to shift to their respective allotted residential units within one month.
The allottees are prohibited from transferring or subletting their respective allotted residential units without the permission of the Corporation. If they intend to transfer the same, the Corporation may grant permission after charging appropriate fee as may be determined.
The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the State Government are directed to ensure that no further encroachment is made on the Sabarmati River Front, Ahmedabad as and when the PAFs shift to their places. Any person whose name is not appearing in the list submitted by the Corporation or the list submitted by the Project Affected Families will not be treated to be PAF and will be deemed to have occupied the land after the order passed by this Court.
The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed to come out with a notice in four newspapers, two vernacular (Gujarati) and two English, both Ahmedabad Edition, circulated locally and give this information to all, that no encroachment on any Government or Corporation's land on the Sabarmati River Front will be tolerated in future. The Court may refuse to grant any relief to those who will occupy such land henceforth.
A leaflet, if necessary, will also be distributed amongst the PAFs, giving complete information with regard to their allotment, shifting and the order passed by this Court to ensure peaceful resettlement and rehabilitation of the PAFs.
Mr.Manoj Shrimali has assured the Court that the PAFs who have lodged complaint against the officials of the Corporation or the State, will not pursue the matter.
If there is any resettlement and rehabilitation committee constituted by the Corporation or the State Government for rehabilitation of the PAFs, it will be open to the Corporation or the State to bring this order to the notice of such committee and to produce both the lists of the PAFs, etc. as submitted by the Corporation and the petitioners before the said Committee for perusal of public in general.
Post the matter on 8th August 2011 on the top of the list.”
(iii) Order dated 8.8.2011 in SCA No.6280/2005:
“An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3. Learned advocate submits that out of 3798 PAFs shown in the list of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, 1104 PAFs could not be traced and/or not found to be residing in the Sabarmati River Front, Ahmedabad.
Mr.Girish Patel, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that if the list of 1104 PAFs is handed over to them then the petitioners will tract them and show the municipal authorities that they are actually residing in the Sabarmati River Front, Ahmedabad.
In the circumstances, we direct the Corporation to handover list of 1104 PAFs, who are alleged to be not traceable and not found to be residing in the Sabarmati River Front, Ahmedabad, to the counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioners, in their turn, will trace out the location of their hutment dwellers in the Sabarmati River Front, Ahmedabad and bring it to the notice of the authorities of the Corporation.
If it is found that such persons are actually residing in the slum of Sabarmati River Front in hutment, the Corporation will provide them with alternative accommodation as per the Court's order dated 5th July 2011. This procedure should be completed and list be handed over by 18th August 2011. Such non- traceable hutment dwellers be detected by 25th August 2011 and be brought to the notice of the Corporation by 30th August 2011. Then in such case, they be accommodated in the alternative area by 5th September 2011.
However, it is made clear that if such persons, who are alleged to be non- traceable, if not residing in the hutment of Sabarmati River Front, Ahmedabad and/or who are residing with their parents who have already been allotted an alternative accommodation, then in such case, as the alternative accommodation given in favour of their parents as a joint unit of the family members, they cannot claim alternative accommodation as per earlier order dated 5th July 2011. However, if the son is independent, is not dependent on the father and is found to be living separately in a separate hutment, in such case, he should be treated as separate for the purpose of separate alternative accommodation.
So far as allotment of residential units to rest of the 4319 PAFs as shown by on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, it is informed that out of the said list scrutiny was undertaken and 3539 PAFs have been identified, whereas 174 PAFs have been deleted due to duplication of entries and the procedure for identification of the status of 606 PAFs is in progress.
…………………………… Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some persons moved before the Hon'ble Justice D.P.Buch's Committee. Names of many of them could not be entered either in the list prepared by the Corporation or the list submitted by the petitioners. This is disputed by learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Corporation.
In this context, we may only observe that we are not inclined to include any additional person in the list, which was prepared by the Corporation and by the petitioners at the instance of the Court. If Hon'ble Justice D.P.Buch's Committee recommends separately for inclusion of some more names and submits a list showing the names of individuals who moved before the Committee but whose names were not included either in the list prepared by the Corporation or the list submitted by the petitioners, then in that case, the certified list prepared by the Committee may be brought to the notice of the Court. In such case, the Court may consider their case if, after allotment of residential units to all those whose names are appearing in the list, some of the units remain vacant.”
(iv) Order dated 9.9.2011 in SCA No.6280/2005:
“Learned Advocate General, on behalf of the Corporation, informed that the Corporation has handed over a list of 1104 PAFs to the petitioners' advocate on 11.8.2011. As against this, the petitioners, till date, have not submitted any list or brought to the notice of the authorities of the Corporation any list of hutment dwellers who have been traced from out of the aforesaid list of 1104 PAFs who were not traceable. The Corporation through its own efforts was able to trace out 240 PAFs from the said list of 1104 PAFs for whom the procedure for allotment is under consideration. With regard to remaining 864 PAFs, a public notice has been issued cancelling their allotment. The list was also earlier put on the website of the Corporation and respective places of project affected area. No other list has been provided to the Corporation.
3. …………….
4. ……………
5. With regard to certain persons who claimed that their names were not shown in either of the list prepared by the Corporation or by the petitioners, who were directed to approach Justice D.P. Buch Committee, it is stated that in absence of any order by the Court for producing any list, such list has not been accepted.
6. Learned Advocate General submits that if Hon'ble Justice D.P. Buch Committee recommends any inclusion of some more names on its own volition, the Corporation is ready to accommodate them and allot them certain units. He submits that it should not exceed more than 883 persons as extra 883 units are available, for the present, for allotment.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that pursuant to the earlier observations some other persons who alleged that their names were not included in the earlier list, the petitioner has prepared a separate list of 883 persons with regard to whom the Corporation has agreed to allot if they are properly identified by Hon'ble Justice D.P. Buch Committee. It is informed that another list of around 550 has been submitted by another group, but somebody will have to verify whether they were actually residing in the slum in question. It is informed that all of them had applied earlier before Hon'ble Justice D.P. Buch Committee.
8. ……….
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that every time number of persons cannot be added in the list for the purpose of rehabilitation. Originally, the Corporation identified 5964 PAFs. The petitioners allege that about 4390 PAFs were left out. With regard to aforesaid 10354 PAFs, direction has already been issued for their rehabilitation within the time stipulated by the Court with the consent of the Corporation. Subsequently, it was alleged that certain more persons have been left out. Now the petitioners state that 883 PAFs have been left out. On the other hand, another group states that another 550 PAFs have been left out. Thereby, total 1433 PAFs have been left out.
10. In this context, we may only mention that we are not inclined to issue any direction for rehabilitation of such persons without proper verification and identification. As suggested by the learned counsel for the Corporation, we allow the petitioners to submit the list of 883 persons before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. The other list of 550 persons be also submitted before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. Both the lists should be submitted within a week. On receipt of the aforesaid lists, Justice D.P. Buch Committee may find out from the record whether any one or other out of the aforesaid list has earlier applied for rehabilitation. The persons, out of those two lists, whoever has applied for their rehabilitation before Justice D.P. Buch Committee, their names be segregated and the list be prepared by the said Committee, which list be forwarded to the Corporation. In such case, the Corporation, after proper verification and identification of such persons, out of the list submitted by Justice D.P. Buch Committee, will allot the units in the last phase by 15th December 2011. It is made clear that no further list will be entertained either by Justice D.P. Buch Committee or by this Court.
11. In the meantime, to ensure that Sabarmati riverfront project starts fullfledged, for which in fact all these rehabilitation measures have been taken, we direct that all the persons who have been allocated the units, should occupy their respective units by 31st October 2011. Those who are still claiming allotment, with regard to such person, the matter may be verified by Justice D.P. Buch Committee. They will shift to other place. If needed, they may request the Corporation to point out temporary place where they may continue till identification is completed by Justice D.P. Buch Committee. In any case, total Sabarmati riverfront area should be vacated by 8th November 2011.
12. ……………..
13. ……………..
14. ……………..
15. ……………..
16. ……………..
17. ……………..”
(v) Order dated 22.11.2011 in SCA No.6280/2005:
“2. It is at this stage the learned advocate Mr.Shrimali appearing for the hutment dwellers mentioned the matter before us and requested that the matter be take up for hearing urgently as massive demolition drive at the instance of the Corporation is in progress. Upon request made by Mr.Shrimali, we directed the Registry to notify the matter today for hearing at 02-30 p.m. Accordingly, we took up the matter for hearing.
3. A serious grievance has been redressed that the Corporation ought not to have undertaken the demolition drive as 1112 Project Affected Families, who have been actually allocated the flats have not been able to shift and occupy the flats as they are not habitable. According to Mr.Patel substantial work is still to be completed in the said flats and it is not possible for the Project Affected Families to shift to those flats. It is also brought to our notice that so far as batch of 1242 Project Affected Families are concerned, the exercise of identifying the families is under progress and on adducing necessary evidence in this regard, a list will be finalised by the Corporation and those families will also be allocated flats.
4. So far as batch of 1433 Project Affected Families is concerned, as per the earlier order, we had requested the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.P.Buch Committee to undertake exercise of identifying the families. We are informed that out of 1433 Project Affected Families, the Committee has been able to identify 682 Project Affected Families who can be allocated flats. So far as balance Project Affected Families are concerned, the exercise is under progress.
5. In the above view of the matter, we propose to issue following directions:
I. So far as 1112 Project Affected Families are concerned, we direct that each of the Project Affected Families shall immediately shift to the allocated flats and take over the possession. Mr.Patel, learned counsel appearing for them, has assured the Court that 1112 Project Affected Families will immediately shift to the flats allocated and will take over the possession.
The learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi has assured that whatever pending work is to be undertaken, the same will be completed by 31st December 2011.
In this view of the matter, we direct that so far as 1112 Project Affected Families are concerned, they will immediately take possession and shift to the allocated flats and at the same time direct the Corporation to complete the pending work at the flats by making them habitable.
II. So far as second batch of 1142 Project Affected Families is concerned, the learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi appearing for the respondent-Corporation states that they can complete the exercise of verification no sooner each of the Project Affected Families produces credible evidence in the form of Ration Card, Voter's Card or Photo Identity Card. We may only say that the Corporation may also take into consideration the evidence like Birth Certificate. We direct that 1242 Project Affected Families shall adduce credible evidence in this regard within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of such evidence by the Corporation, the Corporation will complete the work of verification by next two weeks. We direct that so far as 1242 Project Affected Families are concerned, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks and we also direct the Project Affected Families to fully cooperate with the Corporation in this regard.
III. So far as third batch of 1433 Project Affected Families is concerned, we are informed that 682 Project Affected Families have been identified by Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.P. Buch Committee and since they have been identified, there should not be any difficulty for the Corporation to allocate flats to those 682 Project Affected Families. The exercise of identifying the rest 751 Project Affected Families is under progress and as and when it is completed, the Corporation shall take appropriate steps in that regard.
IV. So far as all those persons who have been evicted for the Sarbarmati River Front Project pursuant to the demolition drive undertaken and who are yet to be allocated flats, they shall be rehabilitated at a particular place for the time being. We clarify that they may be rehabilitated at a place having basic amenities like water supply, electricity supply, etc. The learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi states that all these persons shall be shifted to two different places which have been identified as Girdharnagar and Ganeshnagar situated at Asarwa and Piplaj respectively. We direct that the Corporation shall provide all facilities, including transporting the Project Affected Families to the said places along with their household articles. They shall be kept at a particular place till the time entire exercise of verification and identification is completed and they are actually allocated the flats as per the scheme. We also direct the Corporation to see that there are basic amenities like water supply and electricity supply at the said places i.e. Ganeshnagar and Girdharnagar.
The learned Advocate General has shown us the photographs of Ganeshnagar at Piplaj, where the Project Affected Families are to be kept. Total four albums of the said photographs are taken on record of the case.”
6. The petition i.e. WP (PIL) no.18 of 2012 was heard at length on 11.5.2012 and having heard the respective parties, we were of the view that for the effective disposal of the dispute involved in this Public Interest Litigation, the Committee of Justice D.P. Buch constituted by this Court in Writ Petition No.6280/2005 should be impleaded as a party respondent and therefore, we had directed the petitioner to take steps to implead the said Committee and Notice was accordingly issued on the newly added respondent. We had also directed that the newly added respondent should inform this Court whether identification of 1443 Project Affected Families as indicated in the order dated 22.11.2011 passed in SCA No.6280/2005 and other allied matters was completed or not and the matter was thereafter posted for hearing on 25.6.2012.
7. Pursuant to our order dated 11.5.2012, an affidavit dated 25.6.2012 was filed on behalf of the Committee, wherein the following aspects were pointed out which are reproduced herein below:
“3. I say and submit that vide order dated 9.9.2011 in SCA No.6280 of 2005, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the Committee to consider a list of 883 PAFs (submitted by the petitioners of SCA No.6280 of 2005 before this Hon’ble Court) and another list of 550 PAFs (submitted by the petitioner of the present petition Shri Dipak Babaria before this Hon’ble Court in SCA No.6280 of 2005) totaling 1,433 PAFs. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe as under:-
“9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that every time number of persons cannot be added in the list for the purpose of rehabilitation. Originally, the Corporation identified 5964 PAFs. The petitioners allege that about 4390 PAFs were left out. With regard to aforesaid 10354 PAFs, direction has already been issued for their rehabilitation within the time stipulated by the Court with the consent of the Corporation. Subsequently, it was alleged that certain more persons have been left out. Now the petitioners state that 883 PAFs have been left out. On the other hand, another group states that another 550 PAFs have been left out. Thereby, total 1433 PAFs have been left out.
10. In this context, we may only mention that we are not inclined to issue any direction for rehabilitation of such persons without proper verification and identification. As suggested by the learned counsel for the Corporation, we allow the petitioners to submit the list of 883 persons before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. The other list of 550 persons be also submitted before Justice D.P. Buch Committee. Both the lists should be submitted within a week. On receipt of the aforesaid lists, Justice D.P. Buch Committee may find out from the record whether any one or other out of the aforesaid list has earlier applied for rehabilitation. The persons, out of those two lists, whoever has applied for their rehabilitation before Justice D.P. Buch Committee, their names be segregated and the list be prepared by the said Committee, which list be forwarded to the Corporation. In such case, the Corporation, after proper verification and identification of such persons, out of the list submitted by Justice D.P. Buch Committee, will allot the units in the last phase by 15th December 2011. It is made clear that no further list will be entertained either by Justice D.P. Buch Committee or by this Court.
11. In the meantime, to ensure that Sabarmati riverfront project starts fullfledged, for which in fact all these rehabilitation measures have been taken, we direct that all the persons who have been allocated the units, should occupy their respective units by 31st October 2011. Those who are still claiming allotment, with regard to such person, the matter may be verified by Justice D.P. Buch Committee. They will shift to other place. If needed, they may request the Corporation to point out temporary place where they may continue till identification is completed by Justice D.P. Buch Committee. In any case, total Sabarmati riverfront area should be vacated by 8th November 2011.
12. ……………..
13. ……………..
14. ……………..
15. ……………..
16. ……………..
17. ……………..”
I say and submit that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Committee initiated scrutiny of the list of 1,433 PAFs. The Hon’ble Court also observed in its order dated 9.9.2011 that no further list would be entertained either by the Committee or by this Hon’ble Court.
4. I say and submit that at the time of the passing of the order dated 22.11.2011 in SCA No.6280 of 2005, the Committee had identified 682 PAFs as being eligible for allotment of residential units (which is recorded by this Hon’ble Court in the said order dated 22.11.2011 in SCA No.6280 of 2005). Subsequently, the Committee proceeded to scrutinize the balance list and has concluded the identification from the said list and pursuant thereto identified another 397 PAFs as being eligible for allotment of residential units from the list of 1,433 PAFs, subject to verification and compliance of formalities. In all the Committee has been able to identify and recommend allotment of residential units to 1,079 PAFs out of the list of 1,433 residential units, subject to verification and compliance of formalities. The final figure is as below:-
5. I say and submit that as per the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in SCA No.6280 of 2005, the Committee has concluded the scrutiny of the list of 1,433 PAFs as referred to herein above.”
8. Thus, it is clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Justice D.P. Buch Committee that the list of 1433 (list of 833 persons submitted by the petitioner of SCA No.6280/2005 + list of 550 persons submitted by Shri Dipak Babaria who was also present during the hearing of SCA No.6280/2005) was scrutinized by the Committee and the figures have been stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Committee.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief as prayed for in both the writ petitions or not.
10. We are of the view that both the petitions do not deserve to be entertained, since this Court has already passed several orders in SCA No.6280/2005 for the purpose of resettlement and rehabilitation of the Project Affected Families residing on the Sabarmati riverfront on the basis of the lists submitted by both the parties and those whose names figured in the lists submitted by the parties, were considered on fulfilling the criteria and have been granted alternative accommodation. It would be relevant to state that the petitioner of WP (PIL) No.18 of 2012 was present at the time of hearing of the earlier petition i.e. SCA No.6280/2005 and had submitted a list of 550 persons (forming part of the list of 1433 persons as mentioned in the order dated 9.9.2011 passed in SCA No.6280/2005), and the said list was scrutinized by the Justice D.P. Buch Committee along with another list of 883 persons submitted by the petitioners of SCA No.6280/2005. This Court has already considered the cause of the project affected families and the aspect of resettlement and rehabilitation in the earlier round of litigation i.e. SCA No.6280/2005 and has categorically directed vide various order including the order dated 9.9.2011 passed therein that no further list will be entertained either by the Justice D.P. Buch Committee or by this Court. That being so, the present petitions cannot be entertained and no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the both the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
11. For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) zgs/mohandas (J.B. PARDIWALA, J.)