1. This application has been filed by Yamuna Khadar Slum Union, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi and Mr. Shakil Ahmed, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, Delhi in a decided matter directing taking of steps for rejuvenation of river Yamuna, including removal of encroachments from the flood plain zone. The applicant has filed copies of earlier orders of this Tribunal dated 13.01.2015 and 11.09.2019 in O.A. No. 6/2012, Manoj Misra v. Union Of India and 07.12.2017 in O.A. No. 65/2016, Manoj Misra v. Delhi Development Authority
2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. Applicant has also filed copies of following orders of Delhi High Court:
Sl. No. Order Directions 1 Order dated 14.10.2019 in W.P.(C) no. 10900/2019, Yamuna Khadar Slum Union v. DDA Directing finding of alternative place. 2 Order dated 24.10.2019 in LPA No. 681/2019, DDA v. Yamuna Khadar Slum Union In appeal against above order dated 14.10.2019, the above order was stayed after referring to orders of NGT dated 13.01.2015 and 11.09.2019 in O.A. 6/2012 and dated 07.12.2017 in O.A. 65/2016. 3 Order dated 13.11.2019 in LPA No. 681/2019, DDA v. Yamuna Khadar Slum Union Dismissing early hearing application no. CM Appl. 48778/2019. 4 Order dated 25.09.2020 in W.P.(C) 7032/2020, Shakil Ahmed v. DDA Granting stay of demolition for 5 days. 5 Order dated 18.11.2020 in in W.P.(C) 7032/2020, Shakil Ahmed v. DDA Dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn. 6 Order dated 07.10.2020 in LPA 276/2020, Shakil Ahmed v. DDA Dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. 7 Order dated 14.05.2018 in W.P.(C) 5214/2018, Bela Estate Mazdoor Basti Samiti v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Granting status quo. (Prior to DB order at Serial No. 2) 8 Order dated 16.12.2020 in W.P.(C) 5214/2018, Bela Estate Mazdoor Basti Samiti v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Adjourning the matter with the modification that survey may be carried out before demolition. Reference has been made to order dated 12.11.2020 in W.P.(C) 8963/2020, Muslim Kassar Vikas Sangathan (Reg.) v. Delhi Development Authority, giving liberty to the writ petitioner to move this Tribunal.
3. At this stage, we may mention that the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5214/2018 moved this Tribunal by way of M.A. No. 07/2021 in O.A. No. 285/2020, Muslim Kassar Vikas Sangthan (Regd.) v. Delhi Development Authority on 02.02.2021 and the Tribunal considered the matter as follows:—
“1. This application has been filed in a decided application against grievance of proposed demolition of Dhobi Ghat at Batla House, Delhi, falling in the ‘O’ zone of Yamuna river, as per order of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) dated 18.11.2020 as follows:
“The above mentioned letter was received in this office on 06-11-2020 for the above mentioned subject, the above mentioned was examined and therefore, you are hereby informed that, Dhobi Ghat at Jamia Nagar, Okhla situated in Zone “O” which comes under Development area No. 173 and the said area has been de-notified by Delhi Development Authority vide reference No. F-2(49)/09/L&B/Plg/516 dated 19.04.2011 w.e.f. The said area now comes within the jurisdiction of South Delhi Municipal Corporation.”
2. The applicant earlier filed OA No. 285/2020 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2020 with the observations that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, 2010 was to provide remedy only to a victim of pollution and not to entertain plea against demolition. The applicant thereafter filed W.P. (C) No. 11244/2020, Muslim Kassar Vikas Sangathan v. Delhi Development Authority before the Delhi High Court which was disposed of on 08.01.2021 as follows:
“1 to 3. xxx …………….. xxx ……………………… xxx
4. Evidently, the petitioner had filed a fresh petition, whereas the DDA is stated to be complying with directions of the NGT in OA No. 6 of 2012, i.e., Manoj Misra v. Union Of India.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Manoj Misra (supra) deals with restoration of the River Yamuna and the floodplains, whereas the present dhobi ghat is located 2.5 kilometers away from the waters of the Yamuna. This however, is disputed by the DDA.
6. Whether the present case is related to Manoj Misra (supra) is an issue for the petitioner to seek clarification in appropriate proceedings. Meanwhile, the petitioner submits that the status quo be maintained, as the site concerned is still being used by washermen to earn a living, who are otherwise facing economic difficulties on account of the prolonged pandemic.
7. In the circumstances, the DDA will not take any particular measures for 3 weeks, to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal and/or and, if aggrieved by any orders subsequent orders, to pursue such remedies as may be available in law.
8. The writ petition, along with pending application is disposed-off in terms of the above. Liberty granted.”
3. In pursuance of above, the applicant has filed the present Miscellaneous Application. We find that though as per observation of the High Court, Application was to be filed in proceedings dealing with the remediation of river Yamuna, the applicant has chosen to file this application in OA 285/2020, Muslim Kassar Vikas Sangathan v. Delhi Development Authority which has already been held to be not maintainable. Ignoring this aspect, we have given due consideration to the application.
4. Order of this Tribunal dated 13.01.2015 in OA 6/2012, Manoj Mishra v. Union of India reported in 2015 SCC OnLine NGT 840 : 2015 ALL (I) NGT REPORTER (1) (DELHI) 139, inter alia is as follows:
“81. Floodplain zoning has been accepted as an important nonstructural strategy for flood management. The basic concept of floodplain zoning is to regulate land use of floodplains to restrict damage caused due to floods. The floodplain zoning, therefore, aims at determination of locations so that flood damages are reduced to minimum. A very restrictive activity can be allowed in that area. It is not only to protect the areas from damage resulting from floods and failure of water protective measures, but is also useful in reducing the damage caused due to drainage congestion, particularly in urban areas. The Commission claims to have prepared a model bill relating to floodplain zoning. This model bill provides for different categories based of priorities in floodplain.
82. xxx xxx xxx
83. The floodplain must be demarcated, kept free from any permanent developments and wherever it is possible, it should be restored to its original position.
84. Keeping in view the fact that various developments have taken on the floodplain of river Yamuna and to a larger extent they have adversely affected the river flow, its ecology and bio-diversity, we would direct that floodplain zoning should be taken with reference to the flood of once in 25 years, as against other suggested figure of more years. It is important to demarcate the floodplain on this basis immediately, to protect it from any encroachments or development activities, which has already discussed and requested by the High Powered Committee, would adversely affect the ecology and environment.
85. Thus, it is necessary to call upon the authorities to demarcate the floodplain for the flood of once in 25 years and to prohibit any kind of development activity in the area in question. Furthermore, the Committee should consider restoration of the area and wherever necessary, even demolish the properties, which are likely to be dangerously exposed to the flood and are even affecting the ecology and bio-diversity and flow of the river.
xxx xxx xxx
89. Subject to any law coming into force, we have already stated that flood of once in 25 years would be considered for defining and demarcating the flood plain. No development/construction activity, except that is stated herein, would be permitted in the Flood Plain of River Yamuna. No authority or person before us has even taken up the plea that why development/construction activity cannot be carried on in other parts of NCR, Delhi. As of now, sufficient land is available, may it is expensive, but that cannot be a ground for destroying the ecology, environment and biodiversity of River Yamuna of Delhi. The result of indiscriminate, unregulated and uncontrolled development activity are widely visible and felt by each and every one in Delhi. It would not only be unwise, but may prove fatal, if such approach is continued any further.”
xxx xxx xxx
95. i to iv. xxx ……………. xxx …………………………… xxx
v.(a). Having given our considered view to the various reports placed on record, submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the Experts, we are of the opinion that presently the flood plain should be identified for the flood of once in 25 years in the interest of ecology, bio-diversity and the river flow. Thus, we direct accordingly and also direct that the DDA shall prepare a map in this regard and would physically demarcate the entire flood plain.
Above interim prescription of the flood plain is not rigid, but is subject to change, in the event any of the public authorities, including the MoEF, moves the Tribunal, based upon some collected data or any other specific information in that regard.
(b) We direct and prohibit carrying on any construction activity in the demarcated flood plain henceforth. We further direct that Principal Committee to identify or cause to be identified, all existing structures as of today which fall on the so identified and demarcated flood plain. Upon identification, the Principal Committee shall make its recommendations as to which of the structures ought or ought not to be demolished, in the interest of environment and ecology, particularly, if such structures have been raised in an unauthorized and illegal manner.
(c) The Principal Committee may keep in mind that certain structures need to be protected, amongst other reasons, for their historical, mythological and heritage importance and/or are protected structures. The Committee shall clearly spell out the regulatory regime that should be provided for dealing with such existing structure in the flood plain.
(d) We direct all the concerned authorities including the DDA, Municipal Corporations and the NCT of Delhi, to take immediate and effective steps for repossessing the Flood Plain area under the unauthorized and illegal occupation of any person and/or any other body.
This direction is also necessitated for the reason that as per the records before the Tribunal, out of total area of 9700 hectares for River Front Development (‘O’ Zone), only 1452 hectare is presently available with the DDA for development and the remaining area is occupied in an unauthorized manner and is under agriculture activity for which leases had been granted by the DDA or even otherwise.”
5. The applicant has referred to further order of this Tribunal dated 11.09.2019 dealing with the execution of above directions in the matter, in pursuance of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24.04.2017 in Writ Petition No. 725/1994, ‘And Quite Flows the Maily Yamuna’, as follows:
“15. xxx ……. xxx ………………xxx …………
A. In respect of NCT Delhi
(i) xxx …………. Xxx …………..xxx …………
(ii) Demarcation and Rejuvenation of the Flood Plains:
a) DDA may undertake physical demarcation of the entire floodplain within three months and thereafter, after taking re-possession within next three months, fence such areas and convert them into bio-diversity parks as per the action plan proposed by them. DDA will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh per month till compliance of this direction from 01.04.2020 which may be recovered from the erring officers and deposited with the CPCB for restoration of the environment. The Monitoring Committee will look into the compliance.
xxx …………….xxx………………..xxx ………………”
6. We note that the proceedings in the matter stand finally disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2021 in OA 6/2012. The order dated 11.09.2019 was directed to be complied with vide judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 10 SCC 1041 with regard to the issue dealt with by the said order. It was also relied upon by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, vide order dated 24.10.2019 in L.P.A. No. 681/2019, DDA v. Yamuna Khadar Slum Union The earlier directions about removing the encroachments were reiterated in latest order of this Tribunal, after noting that a special purpose vehicle had been set up for managing the floodplains of river Yamuna. Observations therein are:
“20. … The issue of protection of flood plains by the DDA remains to be satisfactorily addressed even though steps are said to have been taken for constitution of a SPV for the purpose. Encroachment is huge and steps taken are miniscule. Meaningful working of SPV by DDA will depend on success to remove encroachment and keeping continuous vigilance.”
7. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken cognizance of the matter in Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 01/2021.
8. In view of above, it is clear that encroachment from flood plains is to be removed by the DDA which are to be demarcated by it in the O zone of the master plan. As per letter of the DDA dated 18.11.2020 quoted in para 1 above, the Dhobi Ghat in question is in ‘O’ Zone. This being the factual position, no further order is necessary.”
4. Since the above order dated 02.02.2021 deals with the same issue as raised in this application, the present application cannot be entertained and is dismissed.