Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. This Petition prays for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 'not to apply pick and choose policy to demolish the houses of the residents and dispossess the occupants which are in existence in Khasra Nos. of the colony situated in Village Pul Pehladpur, Tehsil Kalkaji, Distt. New Delhi but to take action in accordance with the policies and modalities framed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and maintain the uniform law of equity among the residents and the occupants of the Khasra Nos.'.
2. It has been contended by Mr. Ravindra Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, that Village Pul Pehladpur falls amongst the 1071 unauthorised colonies which have been recommended to the Government of India for regularisation. Reliance has been placed, inter alia, on the Guidelines For Regularisation of Unauthorised Colonies. These Guidelines stipulate, inter alia, that colonies where more than 50 per cent plots are unoccupied or buildings used for commercial purposes except petty shops up to 50 square meters will not be considered for regularisation. It has been emphasised that Clause 1.2 of the Guidelines does not draw any distinction between unauthorised colonies on private or public land. Clause 1.8 envisages disparate treatment for affluent and non-affluent sections of the society.
3. On 17.8.1998, while disposing of CWP No. 4771/1993 titled Common Cause (Regd.) Society v. Union of India, the Division Bench observed, inter alia, as follows:
In respect of the colonies on the Government land and other colonies which are not to be regularised for one reason or the other it is high time that the Government takes a definite decision. Over the years we have passed repeated orders impressing upon the government that the result of not taking decision is resulting in corruption at various levels. We are not suggesting, for the present, whether a particular colony shall be regularised or not but what we are directing is to take a definite decision and if it is decided not to regularise a particular colony then to carry out that decision to its logical end by demolition action and not merely demolition of only few selected houses but the colony as a whole. These aspects, the Chief Minister assures us would be decided positively within a month and half and placed before this Court for appropriate directions. The papers to be filed within 10 days or 45 days would also indicate the charges which may be payable for the regularisation of the various colonies decided to be regularised.
4. It is on the basis of this reasoning that several Benches of this Court have granted status quo orders pertaining to existing construction and its possession. In the present Petitions, at the first date of hearing on 17.12.2003, the Respondents had been directed that status quo be maintained in respect of Khasra Nos. mentioned at Mark A at page No.33 of the Paper Book.
5. It appears that there is some vacant land within these khasras. Photographs have been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) showing that the open tracts of land have been employed for storage of large containers.
6. Reliance has been placed on WP(C) No.11608-17/2004 titled Vasant Kunj Enclave B Block, Residential Welfare Association v. Union of India decided on 16.8.2004, it had been ordered that, subject to the condition that 50 per cent of the plots in the colony, Vasant Kunj Enclave B Block were built up when the aerial survey was conducted in March, 2002. Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, has also strenuously emphasised the condition that if 50 per cent of a particular colony is built up, then no demolition or dispossession should take place on the entire land, irrespective of whether there is no construction on any part of it.
7. It is the common case of the parties that the lands in question already stand acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. In doing so, the State has indubitably incurred the liability to pay compensation. However, Guidelines also bring such lands within the sweep of the Regularisation Scheme but quite obviously only in respect of construction already existing thereon . The intention behind this Scheme is clearly for the amelioration of the plight of citizens who have carried out construction over several years, either under benign or benevolent indifference of the Authorities, or in connivance with them. Dispossession of persons from their homesteads and/or demolition of such homes, even if they are unauthorised constructions, is a very difficult and heart-rending decision to take, and thereafter to implement. The Policy, however, can scarcely be construed as conferring any benefit or right on the unauthorised trespassers to make a financial killings as a consequence of their illegal acts. Since these lands stand acquired, there can be no controversy that its occupation by the Petitioners is illegal. While specifying that the benefits of regularisation would be available only in respect of those colonies where at least 50 per cent plots are occupied, the Authorities intended to put a halt on further development of colonies which were obviously in an inchoate stage and were in the process of being completely established. In other words, those colonies where more than 50 per cent of the plots were unoccupied on the date of aerial survey would not be eligible for regularisation. This does not mean that if 50 per cent plots had been occupied, an imprimatur had been granted to the citizens at large to go ahead and construct homesteads on the unoccupied or undeveloped remainder. The only possible interpretation to these Guidelines is that even if 49 per cent of the plots had been occupied and built upon, those would not be liable for regularisation and accordingly would be liable for demolition. Unless this interpretation is given to the Guidelines, they would not be legally sustainable, as they would tend to invite and thereafter condone continuing illegal activities.
8. My learned Brother, Sanjay Kishan Kaul has in CWP No.4873/1999 titled Moolchand Gaur v. Delhi Development Authority decided on 21.8.2002 directed that the Respondent Authorities would be competent to 'protect all open areas of land by fencing or otherwise and the petitioner and other occupants have no right to interfere therewith; the Petitioner or any occupants shall not carry on any construction on the property in question and/or create any third party interest therein'. So far as the Petitioners are concerned, persons similarly placed were protected inasmuch as the Respondents had been prohibited from acting in a pick and choose manner in picking up any particular property for demolition. Even then my learned Brother was quick to clarify that the Respondents would not be prevented from taking action wherever any attempt is made to carry out any further construction or encroach upon any open areas of the land.
9. A final decision has not been taken in regard to the regularisation of the 1071 colonies. The effect is that protection has been extended by this Court to existing structures and occupants. This is not a license to land-grabbers and mafia of encroachers enabling them to continue encroaching upon Government and public lands.
10. The Writ Petition is disposed of by directing that the status quo will be maintained with regard to the structures that were existing on 17.12.2003 till a final decision is taken by the Respondent Authorities on the question of regularisation of the 1071 illegal colonies. The Respondents will be within their rights to impound any moveable property found on open lands even within Khasra Nos. mentioned in Mark A to the Petition. The Petitioners are granted twenty-four hours within which they may remove these properties, including the containers, from the open land. Commencing from 11:00 A.M. on 3.2.2006, the Respondents shall take necessary steps to remove all remaining moveable properties from these open lands. Buildings and structures, which have been used for residential purposes on or before December, 2003, shall not be demolished. The SHO concerned shall provide adequate police force to the Respondents so as to ensure the clearance of all moveable properties from open land. Thereafter, the Respondents shall fence these lands so that further trespass is stopped.
11. Parties to bear their respective costs.