The Delhi High Court on June 11 refused to grant any relief in a PIL filed by AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan against demolitions in the Batla House area. The court observed that passing a general protection order could affect individual cases.
New Delhi, June 11: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant any relief in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan regarding the demolition drive in the Batla House area. The demolition was scheduled for the same day.
A bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia made it clear that issuing a general protection order under a PIL of this nature could negatively affect the rights of individuals who had filed or may wish to file their own legal cases.
The bench observed that, “passing a general order of protection in a PIL of this sort was likely to jeopardise the case of individual litigants.”
After understanding the direction in which the court was proceeding, the lawyer appearing for Amanatullah Khan chose to withdraw the PIL.
While dictating the order, the court noted, “The petitioner’s counsel seeks permission to withdraw the petition so that the petitioner who is a public spirited individual informs the local residents of Batla House area about their right to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum within three working days. The petition is disposed of.”
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for Amanatullah Khan, argued that the land demarcation was not carried out properly as required by the Supreme Court’s earlier order. He pointed out that the top court had, on May 7, directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to remove all illegal constructions from Khasra number 279.
The land in question measures approximately 2.8 bighas or 0.702 hectares, and is located along Muradi Road in Okhla village.
Khurshid further said that many properties being targeted for demolition do not even fall under Khasra number 279. He accused the DDA of issuing vague notices without clear verification.
He said, “The DDA, in the garb of a showcause, simply issued a generic notice pasted outside a number of premises which do not even fall in Khasra number 279 for which the order was passed by the apex court,” and added that innocent residents may lose their homes despite not violating any norms.
In response, advocate Shobhana Takiar, representing the DDA, stated that the PIL was not maintainable because the Supreme Court had clearly instructed that only affected individuals should approach appropriate forums for legal remedies.
She said, “The PIL was not maintainable for the Supreme Court’s specific direction asking only those aggrieved to adopt appropriate legal remedies.”
She also clarified that the DDA’s notices were not generic, but were issued in line with the top court’s direction.
“The DDA notices were not generic, but in compliance with the apex court’s direction, granting 15 days time to respond,” she added.
The bench also noted that some residents had already approached the courts and were granted relief. A single judge had previously issued a status quo order for certain properties in the area. On June 4, another similarly-situated property in the Batla House locality had also received interim protection.
