ִ ̴֕ (ָ Ϥ) : ֳ֬ , ֮֯ Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Bill' 2006, ָ ֮ פ , ׻֋ ֯ ֮־֤ ָ, ׯ֔ פ פ ָ ָ פ ֋

ֳ֬ (. .. ׸֮) : ִ , ֯ ֮ ׻֋ ֚ ״֮֙

ִ ̴֕ : ֛-֛ ײػ 㻛ָ ևՅ ו֮ ׮ֵ דֻ֟ օ ֲ ָ פ ֮ ֋ ָ ָ ֮ ֮ ִ֮ ֋? -, -, ֻ-ֻ ֻ ֮ ָ, ו ָ ֋ ֮ פ ֤ ײֻ ֵ ֵ, ֻ ֲ ײֻ ֯ , ײֻ ֵ 'ֲ ֋ ' ֮ ָ ֲԤ ֋, - ߮ և, ֋ ֲԤ ֋ ֤ ײֻ , ו֮ ָ ֲԤ , ֮ ֲ ֲԤ , ָָ ? ָָ ָև ? ָָ ָև ߅ ָ, ֕ Ӿ ߓ ֮ և և Ӿ ֻ ָ ֤ ָ ֮ ֤ , ָ ֮ ֯ ֕ ׻֋ ֛ ֤֤ 㴲և פ ָ ֮֟ 㴲և , ו֮ Ӿ -, - ߑ , ׻֋ 15-15 ָ ָ , 㴲և ֣ ָ דֽ ֟ ֣ ָ , ֟ ֟ Ӿ ֤ , ֲ דֽ כ׻־ָ Ӿ ָ ָ , 㴲և ֛ ֛ ֮ ׻֋ , ֕ ֟ ֻֻ֮߮ ßֻ ׻֋ 㴲և ӑև ֮֮ ׿ֿ ָ פ ו ָ ָ ָ֤ , ֕ -, - ָ ָ ָ߲ ֲ ֛ ײػ ֮ , ֬ ֟ ֮ և, ָ֮ ֮ ֕֙ ֛ וִ , ו֮ ֮ ָ ָ, ֯ ֻ֟։ ָ ָ ֟ , ֌ ָ ֟ ֮ ֺ ֛ ֮ ֯ ֟ ָ ָ פ ߴ ָ ֋, ֻ ָ ֋, ՙ ָ ֋ ָ֮֠ , ׻ ֻ, ָ ֻ ֟ ֟ ߴ և, ײػ ֟ ֻ ִ , ׸֟ ֟ ײػ ײ֮ ױָ ָ֮ ֮ ֲ ֛ ֟ ֮֯ ׻֋ ׾֮֕ ֵ֮ ױָ, ׻ ֻ ׮ֻ֯ ֻ, ו֮ - ײػ ֮־և , օ ֕ ײֻ ֋ ױ ֻ ֮ ׻֋ ֯ ׾֮֕ և ו -֮ ִ , ִ ׮֯׻֙ ֻ ׻ ֻ ֋ ï ֋ ָ ֵֻ ֋ ֲ ֯ ָ ָ ֮օ פ ֯ ï ֟ ׸֟ ֻ֟ ִ օ ֮֟ ׻ ֻ Ӭ פ ߴ ָ , ֲ ֋օ פ פ ֆ ֻ ִ ו Ӥ, פ ߴ ֮ Ӥ ֯ ֻ֟֟ ֯ ׻֋ ׾֮֕ և ֟ ։ ֲ ָ™ ׯ֔ ֮ ֙ ߯ ׮ֱÙ ֯ 2000 ִִ ֛ ݵָև ײֻ֕-֮ ֲ ״ֻ ׻֋ ߅ ֤ 1995 ֛ פ , ֕ ֯ פ 㴲և ֋ ֮֯ ׮ֱÙ ֵ֮ 2000 ֛ Ӹ , ױ ֮֯ ? ֕ ֻ ? ֕ ָ ֓ ָ ׻֋ ֕ 㴲և ֟ , ֟ ֻ 㴲և , ߚ ֤ ִ ָ, ָ ֮֟ ָ ָ ָ Ϥ ֻ ֱ ֛-֛ ֤ ֻי ֮ , , 㴲և 50 ߙ ָ ֮ օ ָ ֵ֤ օ ֯ ָ ֓ ָ ־ ָ ָ 㴲և ָ ָ ״ּ ֤-֤ , ָ֤ ֕ ֛ ֵ֮ ָ ִ߮ ֮ ֟ , פ ֯ ֺ և (ֿ: 2Lָ)


ִ ̴֕ (֟) : ֯ ו֋, situation ֲָ ߅ ֣ ֛ ֕ ָ߲ ߸ ߓ և ֮ և ֕ situation ֲָ ֕ 1995 ֛ פ ֋ ֕ ָ-ָ ֛ פ ֋ ֮ ֻ ׻֋ , ײֻ ו֮֟ ֛ ֕ ֮ , regularise ֮ ָ ֛ ֮֮ ֋, ָ և ֋, ָ ֮ ֵ ֋ ִ߮ ָ illegal ֛ ֮֮ ֋, ֲ ׻֋ agitation օ ֮֯ ֛ Ӥ 200 ֻ ֮ פ ֵ, ֲ ֟ ׻֋ ָ פ ֺ , ׻֋ ß ׮ֻ ֋, פ ֵ, ִ 6 ָ ֋, ֮ ֻ פ ֋ ֕ ֮ ֮և ֮ ߕ ֮ , פ, Õ֤, ָָ֑, ָ, פ, ֣ ֮ ֋ ָ ֮ ֛ ׮

, Ӳև ֻ֟ ? פ DDA , Ӳև MHADA , MHADA ֻ ָ ֮ ָ ֋ , 25-25 ֻ ӟָ֕ ָ ״ֻ, ֓ ־֮ ֋, ָ ֋, ֕ ָ ״ֻ ׻֋ ֮

, ߕ , ֛-֛ ֮, סֵ ֮ ִ ׻֋ ֕ ָ ָ ײֻ ֮ ؓ֟ և, Ӳև ֻ , ׮֯׻֙ Ӳև ֛ ֣-֣ ֻ פ -

" ֟ ָ ֮֮ ,

ָ ֟ כ ֻ֮ ?"

֕ Ӥ ֻ֟ ָ ָ߲ פ ָ ֮ ׻֋ ָ ֮ , ׸֟ , - ָ ֮־ פ ֟ פ ֤ ָ פ ֟ , ָ פ ֟ ֕ ֈ ׸֟ ָ ָ ֮־ , ֱֻ ꌿ֮ ׻ֵ ֋, ׻֋ ֯ ִ ֺ ׾֮֕ ֋Ӆ ָ ׻י ٙ ֮ פ ߟ ֋, ֯ ׻֋ ָ ֮־֋ ֟ ָ ֟ ָ ֛-֛ ֮ ׻֋ ß ֟ , ֟ ֛-֛ buildings ָ ֯ mike ֆ, ָ ׸ noise pollution , ֻ ֆ ֛-׼ ֟ , ߮ ֮ , ֛ , ׻֋ ָ , ֟ ָָ ֮֟ ָָ ֮֟ ָ ֟ ָָ ֮֮ ׻֋ ׻֋ ו֮ ָ߲ ֮ פ ֟ , ֮ פ ֮ ֋ , ֻ ָ ן ֮ ̟ , ָ ָ߲ ֵ , և, ֻ ׻֋ -߮ ָ ָ , ֮ ֙ ָ ָ ִ߮ , ־ ִ߮ ִ߮ , ָ߲ ֻ ִ߮ ִ߮ , ו ִ߮ ָ , ִ߮ ָ ׻֮ פ ֋ פ ֮ , alternate accommodation פ ֋ ָ accommodation פ ֋ ֲ ֣ ֮ ֟ ִ֯ ֯ ֮֯ ײֻ ָ ֮ פօ ׸ ײֻ ִ֬ ָ߲ ׻֋ ֋ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

. ִ ӛָ (ײָ) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֬ , פ ֛ ֟ , פ ֛ ָ߲ ֋ ן-֯ן ֋, פ פ ֲ ״ֻ ֟ Ӿ ָ ֻ߿֮ ֻ ֮֮ ״ֻ ֟ , - פ ֟ 2M/AKG ָ ֿ:


. ִ ӛָ (֟) : ׯ֔ 6 ߮ פ ֛ ֵ ן , unauthorised ׮ֵ -֛ ֻ ֮ ֻ , ָ ׻֋ ָ ד֮ ֜ և ָ ֮ ו֮ ִ , ו֮ ֮ , ן , ִ ֛ ꅠ ׻֋ ָ ד֮ ֜ ևԅ ֋ ֛-֛ , ֛-֛ ٙ ָ ָ, ϤԮ ָ פ ϤԮ ֛ ֈӛ ֮ և

, ֟ ֻ ײػ ֮ , ָ , ֱֻ ֮ ֮֮ Ͼֻ פ ֮ ֮ꅠ , 20 , 25 , 30 ֮ ֮ꅠ ֲ ֮ ֮ , ִֵ ו֮ ֮־ֵ , ָ֮ ֮ ָָ ִ߮ , ֮ ן ֮ ִֵ ֵօ ו֮ ִֵ ֮־ֵ, ׻ ֤ , ߛߋ ֤ ָ , unauthorised ׮ֵ ֮֟ , -- Ͽ֮ ָ ֿ߾Ԥ օ ֱֻ ָև ֮ ָ ֕ ״ֵ֕ ֮֟ ֛ ֮ ֻ , ֮ ֻ ꅠ , ׸-ֻ, ֻ, ߾ֻ, ֛ ָ ֮ ֮ ֻ, ܵ פ ׿ֵ֟ ֟ , ׻ ׿ֵ֟ ֟ ֟֟ , , ׻ ֻ ֋ ָ-ߙ פօ ׻ ֻ ֲ ֻ, ߾ֻ , ׻ ֻ ֛ ָ ֮

, ֛ ־ֻ ֮ , ֛ ־ֻ ֮ ֻ ָ ֋ פ כ ֟ և ֟ -כ ֯ ֮ Ù ֵ֮ , י ֵ֮ ֣ unauthorised ָ , ֻ-֓, ׸ָ ִ ֋ פ ָ֛ ֟ ָ , ֮ ״ּ ״ֻ ֋ ? ֛ ָ ָ ֮ ֻ ָ -֛ ֻ ׻֋ ֯ -כ և, ָ ֮ ־ã ׸ ֋ ֓ ֣, ׸ָ ֣ ֛ ָ ֟ ו֋

, ײֻ ֵ , ֙ ײֻ ָ ײֻ ֳ ֱ ֛ ״ֻ֮ ײֻ ֳ ָ߲ , ֮ ָ-ָ Ѿ ֋ פ ֮֮ ו֮ ֛ ֮ , ״ֻ֮ פ ֱ ןֵ-֯ןֵ ֮֟߅ ֮֟ פ ֮ ֮֮ ֻ ٻִֵ ֳ

(2/֋֋ ָ ֿ:)


0 ִ ӛָ (֟) : פ Ù פ ֛ ן , ָ פ ֮֮ ָ߲ ֣ ֲ ֱֻ ֵԾ ֮ ֻ ׻֋ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ֛ ֣-֣ ָ߲ ֮ ֯ ׮׿֟ ױ ֯ ָ߲ , ָ߲ ֿ߾Ԥ ״ֻ ֯ ֮ ֵ ׮׿֟ ֱ֟ ״ֻ߅

ֲ ֣ ײֻ ִ֣Ԯ - ֮־֤


SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (GUJARAT): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, there are just a few points towards the end of this debate that I wish to place before this hon. House in regard to this Bill which has been proposed by Shri Reddy. It is quite obvious that the hon. Minister has a very serious problem to tackle. It is a problem that he has inherited. The problem, in a nutshell, is that the city has grown in a disproportionate manner. The population of this city, in 1962, was only 50 lakhs. That was the projected strength of Delhi. And the first Master Plan, when it was prepared in 1962, projected a population of 50 lakhs. In 1981, it was still about 62 lakhs. By 2001, it was 1.28 crore. Today, we have a population size which would be nearing almost 1.5 crores. When you have a city of this size, one part of the problem which the Minister has to tackle is that he has to work for a plan development of the city; work for urban renewal so that Delhi can become, internationally, a quality city. On the other hand, one of the serious drawbacks in the planning of the city that has taken place is that the city, as most of the Members have felt, attracts a lot of poor people, migrant labour, who come to Delhi in search of jobs. The city having grown disproportionately and economic activity in the city having multiplied, the city needs commercial establishments also. One of the failed aspects of the Delhi's town planning has been that for a city of almost 15 million, the number of shops which is required, the number of office places which is required, the number of commercial establishments which is required and for a city which has huge economic potential, those establishments are very few in number. To cater to the city where employment is also generated and people get work places, there is a lopsided development of the city which has taken place. The population of all kinds, commercially affluent, migrant labour, etc. has grown. But neither a provision for their residences nor commercial and office spaces, keeping in touch with the economic activity, has kept pace with that. Therefore, the obvious problem which the hon. Minister has inherited is that once people are there and they require a shelter to live, they require a place to work, if those authorised avenues are not made available to them, the unauthorised avenues would come into existence. Therefore, de facto reality of Delhi is that the Master Plan requirements, building byelaws requirements have actually become pieces which are rustic legislations. They have a lot of rust in it. We can try and enforce them and find that they are becoming unenforceable. Therefore in a very modest opening statement, the Minister said, "Well I need, at least, one year to sort this mess out, therefore, we have constituted an Expert Committee, headed by Shri Tejendra Khanna and he is going to make recommendations as to how do we sort this problem out; what are the new kinds of commercial establishments we require and what do we do about the old problem which has accumulated over the years. Therefore, till then, let us suspend the penal actions which are being taken against these structures." (Contd. by 2O)


SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (contd.): That, in effect, is the spirit of this Bill. And, my colleague, Shrimati Sushma Swaraj, has already said that in an endeavour to find a solution for the people of Delhi, if one more opportunity the Government wants and one more methodology the Government wants, we would not like to be seen standing in the way. In fact, we would have been happier had this come a few days earlier so that the problem could have really been sorted out, and we would have happily supported the proposal. But I do not know against whom my friend, Mr. Jai Parkash Aggarwal, was angry. A part of his anger was directed against the court; a part of his anger was directed against us. But, I think, his real anger was directed against his own party. His party has been in power in the Municipal Corporation for almost the last eight years. His party has been in power in the State of Delhi for the last seven years. These demolitions and sealings have been going on in the last three to four months. His party has been in power at the Centre for the last two years. They have not only been silent spectators, but they also probably thought that the do-nothing approach was the best approach, and, therefore, these problems would solve themselves out. Let us see how the Government, at different levels, has been trying to sort this out and how this problem arose in the first instance, three months ago. The Delhi High Court, about two-three years ago, said that if the property was misused for a commercial purpose, the Municipal Corporation had no power to seal it. So, the law would look at the other direction if a property was being misused. The extreme action of sealing was not permitted. Shri Aggarwal's party, which controls the Municipal Corporation, had said, "My powers are being taken away. How can this High Court say that we don't have a power to seal? We must seal." So, the Congress (I) Party which rules the Municipal Corporation decided to challenge that, and then the Congress (I) Party's Municipal Corporation succeeded before the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said, "Yes; the High Court judgement is wrong. There is a power to seal." So, when the Apex Court of the country gave them the power to seal, the Court obviously said, "We have now given you the power to seal. So, please start sealing." Then, his party realised, "If I start sealing, then, I will start losing votes." And, immediately, a panic reaction started. So, they went back to the Court and said, "Well; we can't do all these at the same time. So, please give me six months to find a solution. Officially, the Government of India moved an application. While the application was pending, Mr. Agarwal's party realised that votes were further being lost; buildings were being demolished; buildings were being sealed, and, they thought, "The time-table given by the Court is too cumbersome; it is not sure whether the Court will give us six months or not. So, let us go to Parliament and ask for one year." Now, it is a problem of your own creation. You are trying to find solutions to a problem which you yourself created. Let me now say that having said that we will support this Bill, if you want to find a solution to this, I cannot stop myself from saying that after having committed so many faux pas, you are now landing yourself, through this legislation, in the next round of your problem. We are supporting this Bill. But we must be aware of what we are doing, and what the future fall-out is going to be, not only for the structures which are threatened but also for us, as an institution, sitting in this august House. When this House legislates, we must do it in a manner that we are fully conscious that we are doing the correct thing, that we are constitutionally following the correct processes and that we are going through the correct course. There is a presumption of validity to whatever we legislate. Now, what are we choosing to groom? If I may just put it in brief what my real apprehension and fear is, a Bill like this, once it is passed even unanimously by this House, with all our support, we are not actually finding solution to the problem that you are trying to solve. I am sure the Minister and his officers are consulting the best legal minds. (Continued by 2P)


SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): What, in effect, is this Bill? This Bill says, one -- if I read the Bill in totality -- there is a Municipal Corporation law which provides for demolition of unauthorised structures, which provides for sealing of unauthorised structures, which provides for sealing of structures which are misused; that will continue to operate; that law is not overridden. This Bill says, to re-study the Master Plan and the whole concept of planned development of Delhi, as to how to clear the mess of the last so many years which have come, we need one year and, therefore, in one year, we will find a solution to mixed land-use, to the persons living in jhuggi-jhonpris, to construction which is beyond the sanctioned plan, etc.; we need a one-year period. What do you do during that one-year period? During that one-year period, and my fear, really -- I am sure the Minister will take note of this -- is about Section 3 of sub-section 2 of this Bill, and that says, with the amendment which has been proposed by the Lok Sabha, "Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, status quo as on 1st January, 2006 shall be maintained in respect of categories of unauthorised developments mentioned in sub-section (1)". Ostensibly, the purpose of the Bill is noble. The purpose of the Bill is that there is a 30-40 years mess which has been created and we need to sort it out; we need to help people out from this miserable situation; we need a little breathing time to clear this mess out and, therefore, till then, we will demolish anything or seal anything. But, in the process, we must do it in a manner that it is sustainable. We cannot do it in a manner which appears to be an eyewash. We cannot do it in a manner which becomes prima facie unsustainable. We pass a law and then we suddenly realise that the constitutionality of the law runs into serious forms of trouble. We may sit here and share Mr. Jai Prakah Aggarwal's anger and say we are angry with the court; but then they will do their job of determining the constitutionality. Let me say what, in effect, will be the effect of this sub-clause (2).

Sir, the Constitution of India has divided the powers of various organs of the State. We, as legislatures have our own powers. Courts have their own powers. You have constitutional courts created by the Constitution. Those constitutional courts have powers under articles 32 and 226, which are constitutional powers. When articles 226 and 32 were introduced in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had said that these were the articles which were the soul of the Constitution; without these, the rest of the Constitution will become meaningless because there will be no enforceability of the other provisions. Now, courts, in pursuance of that jurisdiction, have passed certain orders, or, in the course of the next one year, till 31st December, 2006, may pass some more orders; you have not suspended the municipal law; you have not suspended the Master Plan; you have not suspended the sealing power. So, the courts will continue to act and pass their orders. Effectively, whatever orders courts now will pass under article 32 and article 226, for a period of one year, will remain inoperative. Are we, therefore, trying to suggest that we have chosen a legal course by which the constitutional jurisdiction of the constitutional courts in relation to municipal matters of Delhi will remain suspended for a period of one year? If that is the course we have chosen, there will be serious question marks and doubts created whether this is the correct course we have followed.

What then is the correct course? The correct course is known to any student who studies this subject. If courts have given judgments which we disagree with, Parliament does not have the power say, in one line, that the judgment stands overruled. The `separation of powers principle' does not permit that. But Parliament is empowered to say that the basis on which the judgement was given, the foundation of that judgment, was a certain law; we change that law and since the basis and the foundation of that judgement is gone, the judgement itself is gone. That is legally the correct way of doing it. What this law does is, it does not do anything to the Master Plan, the sealing power, the demolition power; it allows them to exist, but merely says courts orders enforcing that power will not be operative for a period of one year.

(Contd. by 2q/tdb)


SHRI ARUN JAITLEY (CONTD.): So, you don't change the basis on which the Supreme Court had decided, or, the High Court had decided those cases. All you are doing is, by a one line order you are saying, 'the constitutional jurisdiction of courts will not apply to the municipal matters of Delhi for a period of one year'. Sir, as I have said, I would urge the Minister, I have personally also told him, to have a re-look at the matter. As far as my party is concerned, if you are endeavouring seriously to find a solution, as I said, this is not a problem which you have created, you have inherited this problem, you are trying to sort this mess out, we will be one with you even in this effort, though we have serious doubts about the validity of this method. But, this method may eventually become very short-lived, and really not very sustainable. Therefore, I would urge the Minister, while supporting the Bill he has moved, to seriously reconsider the legal course of correcting the problem that he is faced with because this solution may actually land him in a problem which may be of a larger magnitude, and no amount of anger which Mr. Jai Parkash Aggarwal and I may express against the court will be of any help. Just as we will continue to legislate, they will say, 'we are continuing to protect the constitutional authorities under our powers of judicial review'. We require statesmanship both in the judicial institution and the parliamentary institution, for both institutions to coexist. One's anger against the other is not the solution. And, therefore, I would again urge the Minister, while supporting his effort, to kindly re-consider whether he has followed legally the correct course which can be sustained before other authorities also. Thank you, Sir.


׮ ֵ (׿ִ ֻ) : ָ, ֤ ߴ և , ֲ פ ӛÙߕ ֮ ֟ , ֲ ָ דֻ֋ At that time, nothing had happened here in Delhi, when all the industries went back to far off places. At that time, we shouted a lot here for the people who were working in those industries. But, nobody listened to our voice. Now, this time, once again, the Supreme Court has given some order, and we are discussing about that in the House. We are very much worried about the slums and other things. Do you know how the slums have come up there? I think, many of the Members who have been living in Delhi know that in the Gole Market area, while the buildings were being constructed after demolishing the hutments, workers were required for construction of those buildings. Those workers built those buildings and started living in nearby places, which later developed into slums. You have not done anything for those slum-dwellers. Similarly, this thing happened at other places also. If we don't solve their problems, whether they are in Delhi or, -- my friend has also mentioned about Mumbai -- in Chennai and in other urban areas, -- we will continue to face this problem. The same thing is there in all these places. The Government is not thinking for these slums at all; the Government is not thinking about the poor workers also. We have to think in terms of having a proper Master Plan for them. Once again, you are talking about the Master Plan of the DDA. Every Member has mentioned how these buildings have become commercial buildings, and in what manner it has been done, and in what manner the DDA is making shops and other things. If a person manages to get a small shop here, you give him permission for a sweet-meat shop, i.e., methai ki dukan. That poor fellow has no place, except this shop where he can prepare his food. So, he starts doing some unauthorised construction in that shop. In due course of time, when the new markets come up, you give permission for construction up to second floor. So, they are once again coming up in ground floors and so on. So, if you don't go through the activities of the DDA, how they are doing this thing, how they have done it, you are not going to solve this problem. In addition to this, at the same time, another problem has arisen because the Government is not building any government quarters. The people who come here in search of government job or private job, they need some residential flats. (Contd. by 2r)


SHRI ABANI ROY (Contd.): And many unauthorised constructions have come up in Delhi for accommodating them, or people have indulged themselves in expanding DDA flats--MIG flats, LIG flats. Like this, it is going on--encroachments and encroachments. So, we have not realised the fact: What really has happened in Delhi, what really has happened in DDA and what is the actual need for it. So many master plans are there. Today, whatever be the master plan, the work is not done in a civilised manner. Here, after demolishing or disturbing the business houses, and so on, at many places--Aggarwalji was mentioning Chandni Chowk and Sadar Bazar, Karol Bagh, Sarojini Nagar, Lajpat Nagar, Kalkaji, etc.--- how have they come up? And why? These are the resettlement colonies. People are not doing their jobs. They are making shops inside their homes, and so on. You have to realise all these problems before finding out a solution.

I think, this Government should think of the young people's employment if you really want a good city. DDA, MCD and NDMC require a proper vigilance wing and not the vigilance that you have. They are doing all these things; they are allowing these things; and, at the time of demolishing, they keep silent! On many occasions, I would like to say that the DDA, the MCD and the local police are doing all these things. You see how they evacuate slum-dwellers; they evacuate them even by burning their small places. These slum-dwellers are rag pickers or those who pull rickshaws. Such people live there. You may remember how Seelampur area was evacuated. Just to mention I am saying that DDA, once upon a time, gave 25 yards to slum-dwellers. What moneyed men have done was, they have taken over hundred yards from them by giving them some money and they have evacuated them. That way, once again they have come on to the footpath or slum areas. So, all these things should be kept in mind.

I do not think you would be able to do it in a year; at the same time, do not try to keep in mind the elections after one year and do something on that basis. Also, do not consider it politically. Try to settle the matter in a better way keeping in mind what needs to be done for Delhi and other urban areas also. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI MANOHAR GAJANAN JOSHI (MAHARASHTRA): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I am really thankful to you for giving me an opportunity to speak on a very important Bill from the point of view of the city of Delhi.

Sir, at the outset, I would like to support the Bill that is before us. My party supports the Bill only because it is in the interest of the poor people of the city. For the last several years, I have seen the people who stay in slums. I know their plight, I know their difficulties and, therefore, I have been always talking that for every social worker or for every representative of the people, it is his first duty to look at the interests of the poor people and, therefore, I am welcoming this Bill.

Sir, the question before us is whether this Bill is sufficient enough to achieve the goal that it has set. I personally feel that apart from the legality of the Bill which the hon. Member, Shri Arun Jaitley, has brought before us, I would like to request the hon. Minister and the Government to consider, once for all, their approach towards mega-cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai or Kolkata. (Contd. by 2s)


SHRI MANOHAR GAJANAN JOSHI (CONTD): I say so because I do not think that the action, which the Minister proposes to take in this particular case, is useful in the long run. I found in the Indian Express, dated 29th April, 2006, that when the hon. Minister requested the court for extending a time limit by six months to settle the matter, the court had said, "The Union Urban Development Ministry today came in for some strong criticism from the Supreme Court, which refused to stop the ongoing sealings of unauthorised commercial outlets in residential areas.

The Urban Development Ministry had earlier pleaded that the sealings should be temporarily suspended for six months, during which it hoped to implement the new Master Plan allowing mixed land use. 'Sealing will go on,' ruled the Bench. That was not all. The Court also blamed a nexus between various departments, officers, those who govern, those who manage these and traders for the present situation.

Therefore, Sir, I personally feel that it is absolutely necessary that while discussing this Bill, we must be able to decide what do we exactly want. My question is very simple to the hon. Minister, whether we should frame laws and rules or their implementation in the interest of those tenants, those people who stay in the city by constructing the authorised buildings and by making payment of taxes to the Government regularly. In this particular case, the petitioners were those residents who are law-abiding, and they were making complaints against those who had constructed unauthorisedly. I am really surprised when I see that some of the people always say that let anybody construct a house anywhere, even on the footpath or on the road, he should be protected and he should be safeguarded. Sir, I know that the Government may do these things today, but the future generation will find that the authorised structures will not remain in the city. The whole city will be of unauthorised structures. That is what exactly has happened in the city of Mumbai. Sir, I must say that in 1968, I found that the datum-line in Mumbai was fixed for unauthorised construction and -- I am talking of 1968 -- thereafter from time to time it was extended because of political pressures. Today also at least 50 per cent of the people in Mumbai city are staying in slums. A very simple question is, who is responsible for all this, who did it and why this was done. I know a very simple reason is given by the hon. Minister and everybody gives that reply that this is done because those people come from outside, they have no jobs, they have no residences to stay, and, therefore, they construct unauthorisedly and we are here to protect those who are not law-abiding citizens. Is this the thing that we want to do? (Contd by 2T)


SHRI MANOHAR GAJANAN JOSHI (CONTD.): Is this the intention of this Parliament, to do a thing which is illegal, to support it? It is well known why we support it. We support it only because we are all interested in getting a number of votes. There is no other reason for bringing this Bill excepting for their appeasement and the court also said in the same words, 'the Appeasement Policy'. That is what the court meant. Sir, who made these problems? The problems are man-made. Let me say it categorically that these problems are not the acts of God. We made the problems. If we wanted we could have resolved them. We would have been able to solve them and if we could not solve them it is because of our political interest. Therefore, after one year the Government is bound to come to Parliament and say, 'let us give them further one year'. If there are elections in between, I am sure, that no Government will dare to demolish these structures. Therefore, I always feel that cities become full of unauthorised slums only because of non-implementation of laws. We have enough weapons in our hand. We do not want to become strict. We do not want to become strict only on humanitarian grounds. No, we do not want to become strict only because we are dependent on them. Therefore, if the Committee is not given proper directives then forming such a Committee would be of no use. I have seen how it happens in other countries. It is the implementing authority, the executives, the officers, the principal officers, and the Government officers. Sir, these unauthorised structures would not have come unless those officers supported by political persons, take little bribe and put the whole city into difficulty. Is the Minister in his reply going to say that, "in this particular case, after a date which is fixed, if any unauthorised structure comes up we will see that the concerned ward officer -- ward officer means the officer of an area -- and also the Inspector of Police will be seriously punished?" I am saying this because this experiment was also done by me. As a Chief Minister, I was holding the portfolio of Urban Development Minister and, therefore, in Mumbai we did it and the responsibility was fixed. Are you going to do it or not going to do it? Before this Bill comes into effect, I would like the hon. Minister to say that we are very strict about the unauthorised constructions. We are going to give them only one opportunity and after giving this opportunity those who will construct and those who will support it, I am afraid, sometimes the municipal councillors, sometimes the Members of the Assembly and, maybe, the Members of Parliament also go on supporting these structures at the cost of those people who want to stay in the city by abiding all laws. Therefore, I find that this Bill as it stands, if it is for one year, firstly, let the Government vouch that after one year there won't be an extension; and secondly, during this year also if somebody constructs unauthorisedly, it will be a criminal offence. If you make it and if we all decide that we want our cities to be good cities, it can be done. Sir, only one example I want to give about the city of Beijing. The city was full of unauthorised structures. They made strict laws and, particularly, in the interest of town planning they made the laws so strict that today you will not find slums in the city. The slums are very rare. Not only this -- I am giving you an illustration of China -- but even in other cities we find that unauthorised, illegal works are going to be tolerated and we are feeling that we are doing something great. It is not doing great. As a matter of fact, the Government must first apologise for allowing these types of unauthorised constructions and thereafter, they can suggest that on humanitarian grounds we want to help these people and we are prepared to help them and this can be done. (CONTD. BY NBR/2U)


SHRI MANOHAR GAJANAN JOSHI (CONTD.): Sir, I have only two suggestions to make. The first suggestion is: unauthorised structures that exist today should be strictly checked. I have no doubt in saying that a number of people from Bangladesh are staying in these unauthorised structures. Are you going to give them houses though they have come here illegally? Do you know that we help these people living in these types of slums on humanitarian grounds, but they become danger to the country? And, therefore, it is not that everybody's house should be regularised. He may be poor. But, he must be an authorised citizen of our country.

Lastly, I think, the law should not be meant only for the city of Delhi, but it should be a national policy. All big cities should be included and once and for all a national policy should be formulated. And, I am sure, such a national policy will help the other big metropolitan cities and also the number of Municipal Corporations. With these words, I conclude. Thank you very much, Sir. (Ends)

SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (PONDICHERRY): Hon. Vice-Chairman, Sir, I am speaking on this Bill because I have given a notice on this subject.

Sir, I rise to support the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Bill, 2006, moved by the hon. Minister of Urban Development. I thank him for bringing this Bill so that the chaos, confusion and the kind of panic among the people of Delhi that has existed for more than six months will now die down and there is a ray of hope for the people of Delhi that their wishes and aspirations -- as far as buildings are concerned -- will be fulfilled. I heard some of the hon. Members. It is not a political issue. As far as illegal, unauthorised constructions, encroachment of Government lands in Delhi, pavement dwellers and businessmen occupying unauthorisedly the public premises are concerned, it is all being inherited for a long time. Now, all of a sudden, after the court's judgment, the Central Government and the State Government of Delhi have to intervene to set the things right. I would like to remind a point to this august House. As far as Delhi is concerned -- it is immaterial whether it is the Congress Party or the BJP -- whenever elections take place, the first thing that they mention in their election manifestoes is, 'As soon as we come to power, we will regularise the unauthorised colonies.' It is irrespective of political parties. Once they come to power, this promise will be put in the cold storage. And, ultimately, the people, who have been emboldened by their promise, construct unauthorised structures with the hope that one-day-or-the-other they would be regularised. Sir, there are more than 800 unauthorised colonies in Delhi. Of course, there are conflicting figures that 80 per cent of the constructions i.e., about 34 lakh houses out of 40 lakh houses, have taken place unauthorisedly or illegally. There are urban slums and, thereafter, there are business premises where unauthorised constructions are carried out. The people who have a house construct unauthorisedly by encroaching upon the Government land and, sometimes, they also violate the Building By-Laws and construct three/four-storied buildings. And, above all, the builders encroaching upon the Government land are making money out of it. Sir, the builders are flourishing in Delhi for the last ten to fifteen years by encroaching upon the Government land by using the official machinery and political personalities and they have been making hay in Delhi.

(CONTD. BY "2W")


SHRI V. NARAYANASAMY (CONTD.): Now, after the judgement of the court, it has become necessary for the hon. Minister to intervene. Ultimately, after trying various methods to resolve the issue, the hon. Minister has provided relief, at least, for one year. Within one year, the hon. Minister wanted to resolve the issues of mixed land use not conforming to the Master Plan, the construction beyond the sanctioned plans, and encroachment by slum and jhuggi-Jhompri dwellers. I would like to have clarification on one provision, which is very vague; and, it is this. Clause 3, sub-clause (1) says, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any relevant law or any rules, regulations or bye-laws made thereunder, the Central Government shall within a period of one year of the coming into effect of this Act, take all possible measures to finalise norms, policy guidelines and feasible strategies to deal with the problem of unauthorised development with regard to the under-mentioned categories, namely:- (a) mixed land use not conforming to the Master Plan; (b) construction beyond sanctioned plans; and (c) encroachment by slum and jhuggi-Jhompri dwellers...." This is a very vague provision. I would like to know from the hon. Minister what concrete measures he is going to take because there is a court judgement with regard to this. It is not going to be reprieve for one year. When the hon. Minister brings a Bill, the Government should evolve a policy, and that policy will have to be implemented within the period of one year so that they satisfy the observations made by the court in the judgement. Since we cannot go beyond the court judgement, the hon. Minister has to see, within that framework, how relief has to be given to the genuine people. Secondly, how is the Government going to deal with the people who have been occupying the Government land? I am mainly concerned with the slum dwellers in Delhi. If they are removed from that unauthorised occupation, what measures the Government is taking to give them alternative accommodation to those people? That is very important because nearly 35 to 40 per cent of the people, living in the slums in Delhi, have to be given alternative accommodation by the Government. It is the responsibility of the Government. You cannot simply wash off your hands by saying that you have removed the illegal occupation and removed those people. You allowed them to occupy those places, whether it is Delhi; whether it is Mumbai; or any other place. It is the duty of the Government to see that those people are given alternative accommodation, otherwise there will be another chaos, on this issue, after one year.

Now, Sir, I come to the commercial buildings that have come into existence in the lal dora areas. I had put a question in this august House. It was unstarred question No. 2837. The question was: Whether it is a fact that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has carried out demolitions at properties No. 1 and 2, M.G. Road, declaring them as unauthorised and illegal constructions. If so, who were responsible for these illegal constructions? The hon. Minister had conveniently avoided to reply the second part of the question. He has replied that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has reported that the properties at No. 1 and 2, M.G. Road, constructed by M/s. Grand Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. and by M/s. Prakash Infrastructure Systems, Delhi respectively, have been demolished as they were unauthorised constructions. The second part of my question was: Who were responsible for these illegal constructions? The reply by the hon. Minister is very bureaucratic. This part of the question was not replied. Sir, in the border areas very big buildings are coming up and nobody checks them. They say that it is not covered under their rules and guidelines. So, this was the reply that I had received. (Contd. by 2x -- VP )