Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
This is an archive article published on February 7, 2024
‘Encroachment is like committing dacoity’: HC to officials on unauthorised construction near Nizamuddin Baoli
The HC was hearing a PIL moved by an NGO, Jamia Arabia Nizamia Welfare Education Society, claiming that “illegal and unauthorised construction” was being done at ‘Khasra number 556 Ziyrat guest house’ near the baoli (stepwell).
Nizamuddin ki Baoli in Delhi. (Express archive)
The Delhi High Court Wednesday asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to indicate if any action was taken by officials concerned on “unauthorised construction” at a sealed property near Nizamuddin ki Baoli and Barakhamba Tomb, which are centrally protected monuments.
The HC was hearing a PIL moved by an NGO, Jamia Arabia Nizamia Welfare Education Society, claiming that “illegal and unauthorised construction” was being done at ‘Khasra number 556 Ziyrat guest house’ near the baoli (stepwell).
During the hearing today, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora orally said to a senior MCD official, who was present in court, “The unauthorised construction was brought to the notice of some MCD officials by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and Delhi Police. What is the date on which it was brought to the notice of your department and what action was taken on the file? We have been told that from October 2023, this property was noticed and we (HC) took cognizance of the matter in January. ASI made a statement that they brought it to your notice in December last year. What has your department done since October and who is the person who dealt with it since then?”
It also remarked that encroachment is like “committing dacoity” where the “state loses its assets”.
The senior official said matters of such nature are “marked to the junior engineer of the area concerned to go and verify”. The bench asked if the file was marked and whether the concerned person went and verified the property. It orally said to the official, “Please read the file and come tomorrow. We want your say on this. Please clarify if we are wrong on facts. We don’t want innocent people to suffer because the CBI steps in.”
On February 2, the bench had taken a “prima facie view” that the matter requires to be investigated by the CBI.
The official, however, submitted that in this particular scenario, both agencies – DDA and MCD – should have taken action as both agencies have their respective jurisdictions.
Story continues below this ad
The bench further orally observed that it was “unable to understand” how two authorities – DDA and MCD – who have “overlapping jurisdictions” with respect to the property in question “gave up” their rights over the property and action was initiated only when the matter was taken up by the HC.
The MCD counsel said that while he “won’t shield his officers, that does not absolve other agencies of their statutory obligations”.
The HC then asked the counsels appearing for the DDA and ASI to ask the officials concerned to appear in the matter and listed it for hearing on Thursday.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Live Blog