Delhi Development Authority, Metro Rail Corporation land in settlement soup

The DDA ignored its legal department’s note and a noting from the district authorities to ‘sacrifice’ its own encroached land for Metro Phase 3 while DMRC directly negotiated with encroachers

Published: 12th November 2017 09:56 AM  |   Last Updated: 12th November 2017 09:56 AM   |  A+A-

A Metro viaduct (above) and a pillar

NEW DELHI: The Delhi Development Authority is believed to have compromised on norms laid down for demolishing sections of two adjacent buildings to help the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation meet the deadline to complete its third phase, documents with the DDA, revenue records and reports from the ADM’s office suggest.

The DDA, ignoring its legal department’s advice and a noting from district authorities, surrendered its rights over the land to the building owners and advised the DMRC to compensate them. Accordingly, the DMRC compensated the building owners who had encroached on DDA land, although the law says no such compensation needs to be given.

constructed above DDA land in Hassanpur, East Delhi | shekhar yadav

The DMRC directly negotiated with the building owners early this year for the 714 square metre plot, so it could pass a viaduct through the third floor of the two buildings. It then paid the owners Rs 5.91 crore in compensation.

The DDA’s legal department had, however, advised that no compensation needs to be given as the “the land measuring 11 Bigha and 12 Biswa falling in Khasra no 53/2/1 village Hassanpur was gram sabha land which, on urbanisation, vested in the central government. Thus the title of the land is vested in the government/DDA”.

Since this was a first-of-its-kind case, a meeting was held in November 2016 between the DMRC, Vice-Chairman, DDA and Principal Commissioner, DDA, land and housing department officials and representatives of the legal department. After the first meeting, the DMRC drew up a draft proposal to pass the viaduct through the buildings to connect Anand Vihar metro station to Vinod Nagar area in East Delhi.

According to the minutes of the second meeting, JP Aggarwal, Principal Commissioner DDA, advocated appropriate compensation for the owners, even as he accepted that the land “technically” belonged to the DDA. But Aggarwal argued that “development activities by the government can be taken up if the property is vacant, but if it is built-up area the residents are liable for a mandatory compensation”.

The building owners, while demanding compensation, had argued that they bought the land through an auction and had been unaware that it was owned by the DDA. They said they were protected under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, which broadly states that all unauthorised colonies, village abadi areas (including urban villages) and their extensions, as existed on the 31st day of March 2002, and where construction took place even beyond date and upto 1st June, 2014 , are regularised.

However, the legal department rebutted the argument, stating that: “Unauthorised colonies/ part of colonies/ habitations which pose hindrances in development facilities or fall in the Right of Way (RoW) of existing/ proposed railway lines and the property required by the DMRC may not be protected under the Delhi Special Provisions Act.”

But the DMRC signed an MoU with the building owners. The DDA’s revenue department too gave the go-ahead for compensation as they had been living in the area. But the state district magistrate and additional district magistrate, asked for their opinion, stated that the “land plot in question, which is marked as Gram Sabha Abadi Deh as per revenue records of 1966, should be shown as government/DDA land and at the disposal of the government”.

The DDA then called a meeting with the two building owners, ADM of East district, DDA’s legal and revenue department and the DMRC’s representatives. According to the minutes of the meeting accessed by The Sunday Standard, “mandatory compensation is to be given in these types of properties to acquire the portion whether it is private/gram sabha land. The declared area, if vacant, is government land; if not, it is private land and the people are liable to be paid compensation.”

After receiving the minutes of the meeting a few days later, the ADM shot off a letter to the DDA saying the facts mentioned were “absolutely wrong” and that he had never said “whatever that has been recorded in your minutes”.

Rajanish Singh, ADM, East Delhi told The Sunday Standard: “The land technically belongs to the government/DDA but as development work can also not be ignored and the agencies were in a hurry to meet the deadline a middle ground was found.”

Stay up to date on all the latest The Sunday Standard news with The New Indian Express App. Download now


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp