[Reader-list] Re: [Urbanstudy] Nangla Maachi: Court Proceedings.Note.9th May 2006

Mon May 15 11:06:40 IST 2006

Hi,
Given the extensive violence across Bombay, Delhi, and
now Bangalore perhaps starting, one needs to look far
far beyond the narrow frameworks of both Master
Planning, and Law. And in reflecting on this, I find
the statements below really  absurd!
"..I think the arrogance that marks undignified
remarks of the courts is matched by the arrogance of
beggarly petitions that invite them and of their pious
condemnations afterwards...". ..and: "..simply because
they succeeded in securing some unbecoming utterings
from an Apex bench..." 

The issue is not just this case, but a string of cases
since 1995 and before that from 1989-91. Justice
Kirpal for example has been particularly consistant in
this. the recent issue of Frontline has more, and if
some have access to the working papers of the Nat.
campign for housing rights, of 1989, there was a very
useful compilation of the 'Black laws'. 

The only thing that now comes to mind, is how much
does PLANNING blind -- in the violence imparted in its
name? Have we not seen so many examples, Jagmohan
here, Robert Moses in NYC, White in Boston? 

I return to Lawrence important comment as part of this
discusion: The matrix versus of being desertified.
Being a virulent defender of Master Plans, or being
blinded by whats legal is not very different from
critiqes of Albert Speer, Haussman, Le Corbu in
Candigarh, or than Oscar Nimayer who wanted all
squatters and trees cut off in the new Brazian capital
of Brazilia. What were created were not just deserts
but rather entire landscapes of arrogence and
violence. 

Solly

--- AZplan <plan at architexturez.net> wrote:

> A few affected-person thoughts on the Ankur/Sarai/CM
> account of
> proceedings and comments in subsequent posts:
> 
> Both cases from Nangla Maanchi this year (the one in
> High Court in January
> and the one decided by Supreme Court on 9 May) were
> filed against advice
> of others. They sought clemency with reliance on
> constitutional provisions
> (in my view, there was no scope for referring to
> statutory rights from
> Nangla Maanchi). The Supreme Court case (with the
> one of Sajha Manch,
> decided 3 days later by a 4 judge bench) all but
> settles, ex-parte, the
> cases of all others. Similar happened in Pushta 2004
> (in 2006, in the same
> week we have also been presented with a Delhi Laws
> (Special Provisions)
> Bill).
> 
> I think the arrogance that marks undignified remarks
> of the courts is
> matched by the arrogance of beggarly petitions that
> invite them and of
> their pious condemnations afterwards.
> 
> In one of the cases of 2004, the court had remarked
> to the effect that
> petitioners would do well to lobby elsewhere if they
> had no point of law.
> I do not recall any discussion on that excellent
> advice that would have
> greatly benefited others engaging in ordinary ways.
> I also did not notice
> any discussion on the Nangla Maanchi case of January
> that High Court
> dismissed (with no dramatic remarks) as withdrawn
> subject to liberty to
> petition the Monitoring Committee or on the beggarly
> petition that was
> promptly made also to the Monitoring Committee.
> 
> I think a critique of the court proceedings of 9 May
> (or those of 12 May)
> needs to include comment on the petitions that were
> before the court --
> unless, of course, we are expected to extrapolate
> all manners of lessons
> from a few news reports and accounts and opinions of
> those associated
> simply because they succeeded in securing some
> unbecoming utterings from
> an Apex bench.
> 
> Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> 
> 
> 
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Today, on May 09, 2006, Hon'ble Justice Ruma Pal
> and Justice Markhande
> > Katju of the Supreme Court, set a time of three
> weeks for the demolition
> > of
> > the remainder of Nangla Maanchi. The half an hour
> hearing was held in
> > Court
> > Number 02 (as item number 16) of the Supreme
> Court, Barakhamba Road,
> > Delhi,
> > from 11:00 AM to 11:30 AM.
> >
> > The hon'ble bench stated that relocation of all
> the [remaining]
> > inhabitants
> > of Nangla was "not possible" before the
> demolition. It stated that all it
> > could grant Nangla Maanchi was a time of three
> weeks, before demolition,
> > "full stop".
> >
> > The hon'ble bench stated that the power house,
> whose land had been
> > 'encroached' by the inhabitants of Nangla had
> given "some date for
> > construction", and that there has to be "balance"
> - that the land has
> > "uses
> > that cannot be denied", and that the more
> settlements are removed, the
> > "more they come". On the question of the timeline
> for this construction,
> > the hon'ble bench stated that whatever the case
> may be, "occupation of
> > land
> > without legal authority cannot be allowed. Even
> people whose lands have
> > legal rights have been relocated" for projects.
> >
> > In response to a request on deliberation on the
> question of cut-off dates
> > for eligibility for relocation, the hon'ble bench
> stated, "from what was a
> > few tenemants" it has grown to "thousands", and
> "each tenemant had a
> > family". They have been "growing and growing",
> that it was becoming
> > difficult to "deal with the problem". It also
> stated, during the court
> > proceedings, that if public land is occupied, it
> will "have to be
> > vacated",
> > that the right to shelter did not mean that
> "everyone be given shelter".
> >
> > On the question of Ghewda being without any
> infrastructure or facilities
> > (where the inhabitants of Nangla Maanchi will be
> temporarily relocated),
> > the hon'ble bench stated that in Bawana, a
> resettlement colony, people had
> > sold off their plots of land. On the question of
> the difficulty of being
> > on
> > the streets in this intense heat, the hon'ble
> bench stated that it is
> > "never comfortable to live out", that there will
> always be intense heat,
> > or
> > cold, or rainfall in the city. The hon'ble bench
> suggested that people
> > need
> > not come to Delhi, unless they can afford to live
> in the city.
> >
> > Present at the hearing from Ankur/Cybermohalla:
> > Sharmila Bhagat (Ankur)
> > Shabana (Ankur)
> > Avantika (Ankur)
> > Shveta Sarda (Sarai/Cybermohalla)
> >
> > Note-taking by Shveta Sarda
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> > Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> >
> > To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group
> archives, please visit
> >
>
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> 
> To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group
> archives, please visit
>
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> 

__________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new. 
http://in.answers.yahoo.com