Hasn't Encroached Judiciary's Land In Delhi, Party's Plot Was Subsequently Earmarked For Court Expansion : AAP Tells Supreme Court
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has told the Supreme Court that it is not in encroachment of any land meant for the judiciary in Delhi. In response to the Supreme Court's direction to remove the encroachment by a "political party" in a land meant for Delhi judiciary, the AAP has filed an affidavit in the Court stating that the said plot had been allotted to it by the Delhi Government in...
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has told the Supreme Court that it is not in encroachment of any land meant for the judiciary in Delhi. In response to the Supreme Court's direction to remove the encroachment by a "political party" in a land meant for Delhi judiciary, the AAP has filed an affidavit in the Court stating that the said plot had been allotted to it by the Delhi Government in 2015.
However, the land was earmarked by the Land and Development Office (L&DO) of the Government of India for the exapnsion of the Rouse Avenue Court complex in 2023, the party stated.
AAP has submitted that being a Political Party of National Importance, the subject land, ie. Bungalow No.206, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi had been allotted to the party in the light of Policy Guidelines for Allotment of Land to Political Parties dated 9.11.2012 framed by the Land & Development Office (L&DO), Government of India. As per the said guidelines, AAP is entitled to 2 office spaces: one for its National Unit and another for its Delhi State Unit. As of now, the Party has been allotted office space (i.e. the Subject Premises) only for its Delhi State Unit
As per the Application of Intervention filed by AAP, the Subject Premises were officially allotted to the Applicant by the Government of NCT of Delhi ('GNCTD') on 31.12.2015 for its State Unit Office. This was strictly in accordance with the party's entitlement as (at that time) a State Party.
“ In view of this, there is no question of the Applicant 'encroaching' on a space that was duly allotted to it in 2015 and that has been in its possession since then. The Subject Premises had been in the Applicant's occupation long before it was earmarked for extending the Rouse Avenue Court Complex," it said.
To the party's knowledge, the L&DO allotted 3.03 acres of land to GNCTD on 18.09.2020 for building additional court rooms for Rouse Avenue Court, which was stated to be adjacent to the Rouse Avenue Court. When the land was to be taken over, it was then stated by L&DO on 12.12.2023 that, not just the vacant land that is adjacent to the Rouse Avenue Court complex, but a bituminous road and the office of Aam Aadmi Party exist on the said land are also to be allotted for the construction.
"There is no explanation forthcoming for why due diligence was not exercised by the L&DO by examining the pre-existing status of the land and its vacancy,” it stated in the application.
While the Party has no qualms in agreeing to vacate the premises, it has however requested the Court to ensure that it is allotted an alternate space considering the fact immediate vacation would leave AAP with zero office spaces, especially in light of the impending General Elections and the fact that other 5 national parties operate out of their allotted offices Delhi.
“ 14. Therefore, while the Applicant remains ready and willing to vacate the Subject Premises, it is submitted that this Hon'ble Court direct that such vacation be required only after at least one of the two office spaces that the Applicant is entitled to are allotted to it in the New Delhi Municipal area of a nature appropriate to the Applicant's status as a National Party.
15. Such a direction need not cause any further delays in the construction of courtrooms in Rouse Avenue, since the Subject Premises are not located in the portion of the land where construction is planned as per the design approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi”
It was on February 13 that a bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud expressed dismay at the occupation of a "political party" in the land meant for Delhi's judicial infrastructure. The bench was told by amicus curiae Senior Advocate K Parameshwar that the Delhi High Court has not been able to recover possession of the land as it was being used for by a "political party".
Taking note of this, the bench directed that the Chief Secretary of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, The Secretary In-charge of the Public Works Department and the Finance Secretary shall convene a meeting before the next date of hearing of this Court together with the Registrar General of the High Court and "a specific time line shall be furnished to this Court for the removal of the encroachment".
The case is posted for further consideration on February 19.
Previously, the Supreme Court had expressed strong dismay over the delay by the Delhi Government in approving funds for infrastructure projects in the Delhi High Court (HC). "We find no reason or justification for the lackadaisical approach of GNCTD in meeting demands of Delhi district judiciary, " CJI Chandrachud had expressed then. On a subsequent date, directions were passed to the Delhi Government to make arrangements for the judicial infrastructure in the national capital.