AAP MLA withdraws PIL against DDA demolition notices in Batla House

New Delhi : Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanat Ullah Khan on Wednesday withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court challenging the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) notices proposing demolition in the Batla House area of Okhla.
Khan withdrew the PIL to inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the court.
The withdrawal was allowed by a division bench 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.
"If they are breaching the order of the Supreme Court, then the remedy lies with the supreme court," the court said.
Senior advocate Khurshid said that the Supreme Court order is very clear; it is for houses within the Khasra Number: 279. Demarcation has not been done, Khurshid added.
It was further submitted that the notice mentioned Khasra Number 279, but these are pasted on houses beyond this khasra. The court said that it is not a matter of PIL.
"If this is not a PIL, then treat it as a writ petition. Refer it to the bench already hearing the matters," the senior advocate said.
The High Court said,"If the Supreme Court order is not followed, then the remedy is in contempt. If any person is aggrieved, he can come before the single bench. He (Petitioner) should tell people to approach the court with an appropriate petition."
"We gave a representation; the same was rejected," Khurshid said. "All I need is time to go to the court. For a week they (DDA) hold their hand," he added.
The bench said that overall justice needs to be kept in mind, supreme court didn't say to bulldoze everything. Any adverse observation by this court will impact the individual petitioners.
If the petitioner withdraws the petition, I will give three days to approach the court, the division bench said.
"I am only asking for seven days," Khurshid insisted. "Let do it in three days," the bench said.
"Then 3 working days," Khurshid argued.
The court said, at this point the counsel appearing for DDA did not give their consent and assurance that they are ready to give three days.
Thereafter, the court proceeded with the matter on merit.
The High Court also raised a query: How is it maintainable as a PIL? In the response, senior advocate Khurshid said, "I am asking for demarcation as per the order of the court. We said that the notice is to be given to every individual, and an opportunity is given to everyone."
The court said that it can not pass a blanket order. "Individuals can approach the single-judge bench. If the DDA is not willing to give any assurance."
We want a solution not violating the order of the Supreme Court, the High Court said.
"It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petition is maintainable as a PIL as the general public of the area is concerned. Some of the innocent persons approached this court and were given protection by the single judge of this court," the petitioner argued.
Residents of the area of Batla House were not aware of their legal rights to challenge the notice of demolition, Senior advocate submitted.
It was also submitted that the respondent (DDA) issued a generic notice and pasted it outside the house, which does not fall within the Khasra Number 279.
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.